Return  this  book  on  or  before  the 
Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


University  of  Illinois  Library 


Mk  0? 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 


in  2016 


https://archive.org/details/proceedingsnov301906chic 


3 5a..6/r7"?i 

0 4 

tHo"T.  0 Ca  - 

,ncV\lv*o'7 


November  30 


43 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
Regular  Meeting,  Friday,  November  30,  1906 


2 O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  come  to  order  and  the  Secretary- 
will  call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
^Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brown,  Burke,  Clettenberg,  Cole, 
Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,Eckhart,  B.  A., 

► Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  EricksQjj, 
Fisher,  GJansbergen,  Guerin,  Haas,  Hilly 
Hoyne,  Jone^  Kittlemam  Lathrop,  Line- 
. han,  LuncTberg,  'MacMillan,  McCormick, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Powers,  Raymer,  Re- 
vcll,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow^Stniny,  Swift, 
Thompson,  Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wil- 
kins, Young,  Zimmer — 55. 

Absent  — Brosseau,  Carey,  Church/ 
Cruice,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Fitzpatrick,  Gra- 
ham, Harrison,  Hunter,  McGoorty,  Oehne, 
Paullin,  Patterson,  K&lTfey,  Rinaker, 
Sethness,  Taylor,  Walker,  Wilson — 19. 


City  Council  Chamber 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

The  first  business  w-ill  be  the  reading  of 
the  minutes  of  the  last  meeting  of  the 
Convention.  The  chair  will  entertain 
a motion  to  dispense  with  the  reading 
of  the  minutes,  inasmuch  as  they  have 
been  printed  and  distributed. 

MR.  REVELL:  I move  that  the 

reading  be  dispensed  with. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  the  reading 
of  the  minutes  of  the  last  meeting  be 
dispensed  with. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  busi- 

ness to  come  before  the  Convention  is 
an  amendment  to  the  rules  presented  by 
Mr.  Shepard  at  the  last  meeting  of  the 
Convention.  It  was  deferred  until  this 
meeting.  Will  the  Secretary  please  read 
the  amendment? 

THE  SECRETARY  read:  Proposed 

amendment  to  the  rules,  page  34,  lower 
right-hand  corner: 

Amend  rules  of  Chicago  Charter  Con- 
vention, on  page  19,  in  printed  book  of 
rules,  by  striking  out  of  lines  one  and 
two  tbe_  following:  “Appropriate 

1- 


November  30 


44 


1906 


Standing  Committee’ ’ and  insert  in  lieu 
thereof  the  words:  “ Committee  on 

Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan.” 

Also  amend  the  rules  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention  in  printed  book  of 
rules  by  inserting  at  the  end  of  the 
first  paragraph  on  page  19,  after  the 
word  “determine,”  the  following: 
“Said  Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure 
and  General  Plan  shall  have  authority 
to  employ  such  assistants  and  experts 
as  it  may  find  necessary.”  So  that 
said  paragraph,  commencing  on  page  18. 
and  ending  at  the  top  of  page  19  of 
printed  book  of  rules,  shall  read: 

“When  the  various  standing  com- 
mittees shall  have  made  a preliminary 
investigation  of  and  a preliminary  re- 
port to  the  Convention  upon  the  re- 
spective subjects  submitted  to  them 
such  reports  shall  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and 
General  Plan  without  debate.  Such 
committee  shall  submit  to  the  Conven- 
tion for  its  consideration  such  a resolu- 
tion or  series  of  resolutions  as  may  be 
adapted  to  secure,  so  far  as  possible,  an 
informal  expression  of  opinion  and  a 
preliminary  agreement  in  principle  up- 
on the  chief  general  outlines  of  the  pro- 
posed charter.  When  such  preliminary 
action  shall  have  been  taken  by  the 
Convention  the  subject  matter  shall  be 
re-referred  to  the  Committee  on  Rules 
Procedure  and  General  Plan,  which, 
thereupon,  shall  take  up  the  discussion 
of  details  and  proceed  with  the  drafting 
of  the  precise  terms  of  the  different 
charter  provisions  and  report  the  same 
to  the  Convention  for  such  action  as  it 
may  determine.  Said  Committee  on 
Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan  shall 
have  authority  to  employ  such  assist 
ants  and  experts  as  it  may  find  neces- 
sary. ’ * 

MR.  SHEPARD:  This  resolution  is 

now  before  the  house.  I move  the 
adoption  of  the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 


have  heard  the  motion.  Are  there  any 
remarks  ? 

MR.  POST:  I should  like  to  hear 

an  explanation  by  the  mover  of  just 
what  change  he  contemplates  will  be 
affected  by  that  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  change  is 

contemplated? 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  have  the 
mover  of  the  resolution  explain  to  the 
Convention  what  change  it  is  expected 
will  be  affected  in  the  proceedings  of 
this  body  if  this  amendment  is  adopted. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman  and 

Gentlemen:  The  rules  of  the  Conven 

tion  now  provide  that:  “When  such 

preliminary  action  shall  have  been 
taken  by  the  Convention  the  subject 
matter  shall  be  re-referred  to  the  ap- 
propriate standing  committee,  which, 
thereupon,  shall  take  up  the  discussion 
of  details  and  proceed  with  the  draft- 
ing of  the  precise  terms  of  the  different 
charter  provisions,  and  report  the  same 
to  the  Convention  for  such  action  as  it 
may  determine.”  The  amendment 
changes  that  to  read  “shall  be  re- 
referred to  the  Committee  on  Rules, 
Procedure  and  General  Plan,  which, 
thereupon,  shall  take  up  the  discussion 
of  details,”  and  then  it  proceeds,  as  in 
the  former,  “and  proceed  with  the 
drafting  of  the  precise  terms  of  the 
different  charter  provisions,  and  report 
the  same  to  the  Convention  for  such 
action  as  it  may  determine.”  In  a 
word,  after  the  Convention  has  adopted 
one  or  more  propositions  now  before  the 
Convention,  instead  of  those  propo 
sitions  being  re-referred  to  the  several 
standing  committees  of  the  Convention 
for  drafting  of  the  precise  terms  of  the 
bill,  they  shall  be  re-referred  to  the  sin- 
gle committee  on  general  plan  for  that 
purpose,  and  then  reported  again  to 
this  Convention  for  discussion  and 
adoption,  if  desired;  the  idea  being  that 
that  single  committee,  possibly  through 
a sub-committee,  can  better  adopt  pre- 


November  30 


45 


1906 


cise  terms  for  a bill  necessary  to  carry 
into  effect  the  resolutions  adopted  by 
this  Convention  with  less  inconvenience 
and  less  loss  of  time  than  a number  of 
committees  can  do  it,  because  the  sev- 
eral committees  of  this  Convention  re- 
main as  a part  of  the  Convention  dur- 
ing its  contemplated  continuous  ses 
sion.  No  additional  authority  is  vested 
in  this  Committee  on  General  Plan  and 
Procedure  by  this  resolution.  No  au- 
thority or  discretion  is  taken  from  the 
individual  committee  by  it.  The  only 
thing  the  Committee  on  General  Plan 
is  to  do  is  to  reduce  to  precise  terms 
the  resolutions  recommended  and  adopt- 
ed by  the  Convention  and  report  them 
back  to  the  Convention. 

MR.  POST:  I understand,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  the  sole  effect  of  this  amend- 
ment will  be  to  substitute  the  general 
Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and  Gen- 
eral Plan  for  the  various  committees  of 
the  Convention,  for  the  purpose  of  put- 
ting into  final  form  for  submission  to 
this  Convention  the  propositions  which 
the  Convention  may  agree  to  adopt. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  So  I understand. 

MR.  POST:  Being  a member  of  that 

committee,  I have  no  objection  to  the 
proposed  amendment. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

know  what  effect  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
amendment  will  have  on  this.  Shouldn’t 
we  vote  on  that  first? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  amendment, 
please?  I don’t  understand  that  Mr 
Rosenthal  reduced  that  to  writing.  If 
he  did,  it  doesn’t  appear  in  the  min 
utes. 

THE  SECRETARY  read:  I suggest 

that  this  be  added  after  the  words 
** Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and 
General  Plan,” — which,  together  with 
the  assistance  of  a sub-committee  of 
three  to  be  appointed  by  the  appro 
priate  standing  committee  — and  con 
tinue,  shall  thereupon  take  up  the  dis- 
cussion of  details  and  proceed  with  the 


drafting,  etc.,  and  report  the  same  to 
the  Convention  for  such  action  as  it 
may  determine. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I don’t  remem- 

ber that  this  amendment  was  reduced 
to  writing.  The  matter  is  before  the 
Convention  now.  The  first  motion  will 
be  upon  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion  to  adopt 
his  amendment,  and  then  I suggest  that 
the  other  amendment  be  offered.  All 
those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion 
signify  by  saying  Aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  rules  are  so 

amended.  Now,  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  sug- 
gestion is  before  the  committee. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman:  Mr. 

Rosenthal ’s  amendment,  as  I understand 
it,  was  suggested  by  him  in  the  course 
of  a debate,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  if 
it  is  to  be  adopted  it  should  be  made 
a little  more  definite  and  specific  than 
the  language  it  is  in  now,  because  in 
the  way  it  is  now  stated  it  would  mean 
that  each  of  the  standing  committees 
would  add  a committee  of  three  mem- 
bers to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan,  which  would 
make  that  committee  very  large  in- 
deed. I think  that  committee  is  nov 
21,  or  something  like  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  would  make  a 
committee  of  68. 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  if  three  men  to 

be  appointed  by  each  committee  were 
different  men  in  each  case.  It  seems 
to  me  that  ought  to  be  simplified  beforr 
we  are  asked  to  vote  upon  it. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  When  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal’s amendment  was  offered,  it  was 
for  the  purpose  of  preserving  the  ideas 
which  might  originate  with  each  stand- 
ing committee  when  they  go  to  the 
steering  committee.  It  is  well  known 
that  different  ideas  have  been  brought 
out  in  the  different  committees,  and  the 
intention  was  to  preserve  some  rights 
in  the  standing  committees,  so  that,  if 
necessary,  the  Committee  on  General 
Plan  could  consult  with  these  represent- 
atives of  the  standing  committees  re- 


November  30 


46 


1906 


garding  any  ideas  that  they  wanted 
to  bring  forward.  The  intention  was 
not  to  add  three  members  from  each 
standing  committee;  the  intention  was 
to  preserve  the  standing  committees  in 
such  a manner  that  the  Committee  or 
Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan 
could  consult  with  the  members  of  the 
standing  committee  with  regard  to  any 
ideas  which  they  or  the  people  want  to 
bring  before  them.  It  was  principally 
in  order  to  bring  in  any  ideas  which  the 
people  want  to  bring  into  this  Conven- 
tion and  have  voted  on,  and  not  leave 
it  to  the  Committee  on  General  Plan 
to  do  as  they  please  and  smother  any 
idea  they  wish  to  before  it  comes  to  the 
Convention. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I see  Mr.  Rosenthal 
is  here,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would 
be  perfectly  proper  for  him  to  explain 
the  purpose  of  his  amendment.  I think 
he  is  more  competent  to  explain  it. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

my  idea  is  this:  This  Committee  or 

Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan  does 
not  represent  all  of  the  committees  of 
this  Convention.  There  are  some  com- 
mittees that  are  not  represented  on  this 
committee,  this  steering  committee. 
My  idea  was  that  in  drafting  a charter 
provision  on  any  particular  subject  mat- 
ter, this  general  Committee  on  Rules, 
Procedure  and  General  Plan  should  have 
the  assistance  of  a sub-committee  of  the 
particular  committee  that  have  had  that 
subject  under  consideration.  I did  not 
contemplate  any  such  results  as  that 
there  should  be  sixty-eight  members  in 
the  steeering  committee  at  all.  My  idea 
was,  for  example,  supposing  that  the 
subject  matter  which  this  Committee 
on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan 
was  considering  was  civil  service.  Sup- 
posing that  were  referred  to  this  com- 
mittee; then  this  Committee  on  Rules 
would,  with  the  assistance  of  three 
members  from  the  Committee  on  Ap- 
pointments and  Tenure  of  Office  proceed 
to  draft  the  charter  provision  relating 


to  the  subject  of  civil  service.  Mr. 
Shepard’s  amendment  was  as  follows: 
“When  such  preliminary  action  shall 
have  been  taken  by  the  Convention, 
the  subject  matter  shall  be  re-referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure 
and  General  Plan,  which,  thereupon, 
shall  take  up  the  discussion  of  the  de- 
tails,” and  so  forth.  It  doesn’t  say 
that  everything  shall  be  re-referred; 
just  that  the  subject  matter  of  the  par- 
ticular committee,  and  there  the  words: 
11  together  with  the  assistance  of  a sub- 
committee of  three  be  appointed  by 
the  proper  standing  committee,”  and 
then  go  on — shall  take  up  the  discus- 
sion of  details,  and  so  forth.  My  only 
purpose  in  having  that  in  there  was  that 
this  general  committee  shall  have  the 
benefit  of  the  discussion  that  has  taker 
place  in  the  separate  committees,  be- 
cause there  the  details  have  been  dis- 
cussed more  or  less.  For  instance,  take 
the  subject  of  civil  service.  In  our  par- 
ticular committee  the  precise  terms  of 
that  provision  have  been  discussed,  and 
have  really  been  adopted  by  a majority 
of  the  committee,  so  that  if  a commit- 
tee of  three  from  our  comittee  were  to 
consult  with  them,  the  Committee  on 
Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan 
would  have  the  benefit  of  all  the  sub- 
committee’s knowledge  of  that  particu- 
lar subject.  It  seems  to  me  individuallv 
that  this  is  a wise  provision.  If  the  ma- 
jority of  the  members  do  not  think  so, 
I am  willing  to  have  it  voted  down.  I 
am  not  pressing  it. 

ATR.  RE  YELL:  It  seems  to  me  that 

we  should  keep  this  Committee  on  Rules 
and  General  Plan  as  small  as  we  pos- 
sibly can,  and  it  strikes  me  that  the 
way  this  amendment  would  work  out  is 
that  unless  the  Committee  on  General 
Plan  were  able  to  determine  in  advance 
just  what  work  it  will  do,  in  order  to 
carry  out  the  amendment,  it  would  have 
to  invite  three  members  of  every  com 
mittee  of  this  Convention  to  be  present 
upon  any  given  afternoon.  Of  course. 


November  30 


47 


1906 


I can  see  how  it  would  work  out  if  the 
Committee  on  General  Plan  knew  just 
what  it  was  going  to  take  up, — as  the 
subject  of  civil  service,  then  only  three 
members  of  the  committee  which  con 
sidered  the  subject  of  civil  service 
would  have  to  be  invited,  but  if  the 
Committee  on  General  Plan  did  no 
know  that  this  was  the  only  work 
which  it  was  going  to  do,  it  must  as- 
sume just  what  was  to  come  up,  and  if 
it  cannot  do  that  it  must  defer  action 
until  the  forty  or  fifty  other  member: 
of  the  other  committees  could  be  repre- 
sented, who  did  not  represent  the  sub- 
ject of  civil  service.  I don’t  think  it 
would  be  wise  for  us  to  touch  this  Com- 
mittee on  General  Plan. 

ME.  WHITE:  I ask,  for  information, 
how  many  committees  have  no  rep- 
resentation whatever  on  this  Committee 
on  General  Plan? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I confess  I have 

never  checked  it  up. 

MR.  WHITE:  I would  like  to  have 

that  information,  because  it  seems  to 
me  that  every  committee  that  has  taken 
up  the  work  assigned  to  it,  and  did  the 
best  that  they  could  with  it,  and  made  a 
report,  they  should  have  someone  in 
that  general  committee  to  defend,  if 
need  be,  or  to  explain,  if  necessary,  why 
that  committee  arrived  at  certain  re- 
sults. If  there  are  committees  here  who 
are  not  represented  on  the  Committee 
on  General  Plan,  I think  we  could  do 
away  with  Mr.  Linehan’s  objection  in 
some  way  by  seeing  that  each  commit- 
tee which  is  not  represented  should  be 
represented  in  this  general  committee. 

I believe  it  is  a perfectly  fair  propo- 
sition. I don’t  know  why  the  work  of 
any  committee  should  be  turned  ove~ 
to  another  committee  that  has  no  par 
ticular  interest  in  it,  and  has  no  one 
to  explain  and  defend  the  work  of  the 
committee.  I believe  that  it  will  be 
an  injustice  to  the  committee  to  give 
them  no  representation,  and  I know  it 
will  facilitate  the  work  of  the  Rules 


Procedure  and  General  Plan  Committee 
if  it  is  found  that  every  committee  is 
represented  there.  It  would  simplify 
that  proposition  greatly. 

MR.  ECKHART:  I suggest  that  Mr. 
Rosenthal  frame  such  a resolution  or 
suggest  such  an  amendment  as  he  in- 
tends to  present  to  the  Convention, — 
which  will  outline  his  views.  It  is  in- 
definite now.  I don’t  know  if  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  understand  it 
now.  I didn’t  at  the  time  I asked  for 
the  information,  and  if  Mr.  Rosenthal 
will  explain  the  meaning  of  the  amend- 
ment, it  will  clear  things  up. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  it  here. 

To  make  it  clearer, — here  is  the  amend- 
ment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I find,  upon 

checking  the  matter  up,  that  every  com- 
mittee is  represented  on  the  General 
Plan  Comittee. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I think  a wrong  im- 

pression exists  in  this  matter.  The  va- 
rious committees  here  have  met  to- 
gether from  time  to  time,  and  have  de- 
cided upon  what  they  should  recommend 
here, — what  they  would  recommend 
should  go  into  the  charter.  There  are 
also  a number  of  minority  reports  com- 
ing from  these  standing  committees. 
Now  the  general  committee  have  re- 
ferred back  to  the  entire  Convention  all 
of  the  recommendations, — both  those 
made  by  the  majority  and  those  made 
by  the  minority  as  is  shown  by  the  re- 
ports, so  that  the  whole  subject  matte’ 
as  to  what  shall  go  into  the  charter  is 
now  before  the  Convention,  and  the  Con- 
vention itself  here  will  determine  what 
is  to  go  into  the  charter,  and  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General 
Plan,  as  I understand  it,  will  not  gr 
further  than  to  merely  draft  that  int 
precise  terms.  They  will  not  discuss 
any  original  matter,  unless  it  comes  to 
them  from  the  Convention.  They  will 
simply  do  the  routine  work  of  drawing 
up  in  precise  terms  what  has  already 
been  decided  upon  by  this  Conventio’ 


November  30 


48 


1906 


and  referred  to  them  for  that  particula 
purpose.  As  a matter  of  fact,  the 
twenty-four  men  of  that  committee  will 
not  do  this  work  at  all,  but  necessaril; 
they  will  delegate  it  to  a sub-commit 
tee  of  their  number,  which  will  be  com- 
posed of  a few  men,  and  they,  with  th 
assistance  of  an  expert,  will  draw  that 
into  proper  form,  so  I don’t  see  just 
what  will  be  gained  by  having  varior 
members  of  these  different  committees 
coming  into  consultation  there,  because 
there  will  be  no  discussion  there  at  al 
The  whole  matter  is  now  in  the  hand 
of  the  Convention  to  determine  what  iJ 
wishes,  and  send  it  back  to  the  steer- 
ing committee,  which  will  draft  it  in 
precise  terms. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  As  I understand 
the  situation,  it  is  the  duty  of  tfiir 
Committee  on  Procedure  and  General 
Plan  to  put  the  wishes  of  the  Conven- 
tion into  proper  language.  Now,  is  it 
the  purpose  in  your  amendment  that 
three  members  of  each  standing  commit 
tee  shall  assist  the  general  committee 
in  putting  into  proper  language  the 
wishes  of  the  Convention  on  the  partic- 
ular subject  which  their  committee  has 
been  considering? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  exactly 

what  I mean,  and  if  I may  be  permitted 
to  give  an  illustration:  Take  the  pro 

vision  with  regard  to  the  civil  service 
which  we  discussed  in  the  committee 
pretty  fully,  the  wishes  of  the  commit- 
tee on  this  matter  will  all  depend  upon 
the  exact  way  in  which  this  matter  is 
drafted  in  the  charter.  Take  the  right 
of  discharge  without  trial, — that  was  a 
matter  which  was  discussed  in  our  com 
mittee.  Now,  it  is  the  idea  to  take  thaJ 
particular  provision  there  and  have  it 
embodied  in  the  charter,  and  it  depr 
greatly  upon  the  language  which  you 
use  in  order  to  carry  out  the  desire  of 
the  committee.  It  is  not  a matter 
routine,  as  suggested  by  the  las 
speaker.  It  is  really  one  of  the  most 
important  things  that  will  come  before 


this  Convention.  Two  persons  may 
agree  upon  how  that  should  be  settled 
but  when  it  comes  before  the  committe( 
for  drafting  it  is  very  desirable  to  have 
a member  of  the  committee  present  to 
see  that  the  wishes  are  properly  carried 
out  in  the  draft.  That  is  why  I think 
on  any  such  subject  the  general  com- 
mittee ought  to  have  the  assistance  of 
a sub-committee  from  the  standing 
committee.  It  is  not  a matter  regard- 
ing which  I have  any  very  strong  feel- 
ings on,  however. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  amendment  as  drafted  by 
Mr.  Rosenthal,  which,  it  will  be  as- 
sumed, represents  the  spirit  of  the 
amendment  offered  at  the  last  meeting, 
after  which  a motion  will  be  in  order. 

THE  SECRETARY  read:  Provided, 

however,  that  each  regular  standing 
committee  shall  appoint  a sub-commit- 
tee of  three  which  shall  act  with  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and 
General  Plan  in  drafting  the  provisions 
relating  to  the  particular  subject  mat- 
ter which  has  already  been  referred  to 
such  standing  committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  You  have  heard  the 
amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  COLE : Mr.  Chairman  — Mr. 

Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  I don’t  blame  you  for 

not  seeing  me.  I want  to  say  that  this 
strikes  me  and  some  of  us  sitting  near 
me  here  that  these  standing  committees 
are  dead.  They  have  practically  done 
their  work,  and  to  bring  them  into  life 
now  is  simply  barking  up  a dead  tree. 
They  have  had  their  meetings,  and  dis- 
cussion, and  have  reported  to  the  Con- 
vention on  the  subjects  allotted  to  them, 
and  everything  is  now  in  the  hands  of 
the  Convention.  For  that  reason  I 
shall  vote  No  on  that  motion. 

MR.  POST:  It  seems  to  me  that  Mr. 

Rosenthal’s  reasons  are  good,  but  the 
very  reasons  which  he  offers  also  go  to 


November  30 


49 


1906 


support  the  policy  of  minority  repre- 
sentation of  the  standing  committees 
in  these  sub-committees  where  the  com- 
mittees are  ont  unanimous,  and,  there- 
fore, I wish  to  substitute  this  amend- 
ment for  the  one  which  Mr.  Eosenthal 
has  offered:  After  the  word  11  there- 

upon/ ’ at  the  bottom  of  page  35,  in- 
sert 11  together  with  a sub-committee 
of  three  from  the  appropriate  standing 
committee,  one  of  which  will  represent 
the  minority  if  the  standing  committee 
is  divided  upon  the  subject. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  I am  afraid  that 
we  are  going  back  just  one  year.  The 
committee  work  of  this  Convention,  both 
that  of  the  standing  committees  and 
the  so-called  11  steering  committee,  ” is 
over.  The  committee  during  the  spring 
and  summer  have  held  many  meetings, 
and  have  made  their  reports,  which  are 
now  submitted  in  a series  of  resolu- 
tions before  the  Convention  embracing 
both  the  majority  and  the  minority  re- 
ports from  those  standing  committees. 
These  have  been  received  by  the  Con- 
vention, and  by  it  referred  to  the  steer- 
ing committee,  and,  as  I understand  it, 
they  have  formulated  a report,  with  the 
assistance  of  experts,  and  they  are  ready 
now  to  submit  to  this  Convention  a 
series  of  resolutions  on  both  sides  of 
the  question,  as  adopted  by  the  majori- 
ty and  the  minority.  And  as  I see  it, 
the  whole  matter  is  now  before  the  Con- 
vention for  their  consideration.  They 
can  adopt  any  one  of  the  resolutions 
on  any  of  the  subjects,  and  after  it  has 
been  adopted,  they  will  refer  it  back  to 
the  steering  committee,  and  they  will 
simply  turn  it  over  to  experts  to  put 
it  into  proper  language,  and  return  it 
to  the  Convention  for  final  action. 
Now,  what  is  the  use  of  talking  about 
adding  to  these  standing  committees? 
The  whole  thing  that  you  want  is  be- 
fore the  Convention.  Any  new  matter 
that  you  want  can  be  brought  up  in  an 
amendment  from  the  floor,  and  I hope 
that  we  will  proceed  and  get  to  work 


and  not  talk  about  this  or  that  com- 
mittee. 

ME.  FISHEE:  Before  that  is  put,  I 

want  to  object  to  the  amendment  offered 
by  Mr.  Post,  as  being  in  the  end  the 
same  thing  that  is  offered  by  Mr.  Eosen- 
thal, which,  if  it  is  adopted,  will  add 
three  members  from  every  standing 
committee  to  the  Eules  Committee.  The 
stubstitute  which  has  been  offered  sim- 
plifies it  to  this  extent,  at  least:  The 

proposition  now  is  merely  to  have  a sub' 
committee  from  each  of  the  standing; 
committees  assist  the  general  plan  com- 
mittee  when  the  general  plan  eomit- 
tee  is  drafting  the  particular  provisions 
relating  to  the  matter  which  has  been 
before  that  particular  standing  commit- 
tee. It  is  desirable  to  curtail  it  at  least 
to  that  point,  whatever  we  think  of 
the  other  proposition.  In  other  words, 
in  considering  the  subject  of  civil  serv- 
ice, we  don’t  want  any  more  than  the 
sub-committee  from  the  standing  com- 
mittee which  has  the  matter  in  hand. 
If  we  had  the  others,  it  would  mean 
the  whole  Convention.  Now,  it  seems 
to  me  that  all  that  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Post  amounts  to  is  simply  that  one 
of  those  members  of  the  sub-committee 
shall  represent  the  minority,  if  there  if 
a minority.  I think  it  ought  to  be  con- 
fined to  Mr.  Eosenthal ’s  proposition  as 
he  made  it  and  * * * 

ME.  EAYMEE:  Mr.  Shanahan  has 

voiced  my  ideas  exactly  with  reference 
to  the  necessity  or  non-necessity  of  these 
amendments.  I think  they  are  entirely 
superfluous,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
bringing  the  matter  before  the  Conven- 
tion, I move  that  they  both  be  placed 
upon  file. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  both  the 
amendments  offered  be  placed  on  file. 
Upon  that  motion  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Ben- 
nett, Clettenberg,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon, 
G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 


November  30 


50 


1906 


Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Hill, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Lundberg, 
McCormick,  McKinley,  Merriam,  O ’Don- 
nell, Pendarvis,  Eaymer,  Revell,  Shana- 
han, Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Swift,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Young — 34. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Brown,  Burke,  Dever, 
Fisher,  Guerin,  Hoyne,  Linehan, 
Owens,  Post,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Thomp- 
son, Yopicka,  White,  Zimmer — 16. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  to 

file  is  carried. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  President,  may  I 

renew  my  request  for  information  as 
to  the  number  of  committees  not  rep- 
resented on  the  steering  committee? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  none 

that  are  not  represented.  All  of  the 
comittees  are  represented.  The  next 
business  is  the  report  of  the  Committee 
on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan. 

Report  of  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan. — B.  A.  Eck- 
hart,  Chairman. 

Chicago  Charter  Convention. 

Gentlemen : 

The  Rules  of  the  Chicago  Charter 
Convention  provide  that  the  Committee 
on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan 
* ‘ shall  submit  to  the  Convention  for 
its  consideration  such  a resolution  or 
series  of  resolutions  as  may  be  adopted 
to  secure,  so  far  as  possible,  an  in- 
formal expression  of  opinion  and  a pre- 
liminary agreement  in  principle  upon 
the  chief  general  outlines  of  the  pro- 
posed charter.” 

Acting  upon  this  instruction,  the 
committee  has  prepared  a series  of  res- 
olutions, setting  forth  the  main  issues 
to  be  dealt  with  by  the  proposed  legis- 
lation. 

Where  differences  of  opinion  have 
found  expression  in  the  reports  of 
standing  committees,  or  have  otherwise 
been  brought  to  the  attention  of  the 
committee,  involving  not  merely  the 
negation  of  some  positive  proposition, 


resolutions  embodying  the  various  sug- 
gestions are  submitted  in  the  alterna- 
tive. 

It  has  been  the  aim  of  the  commit- 
tee to  afford  a fair  basis  for  full  dis- 
cussion of  every  vital  issue;  and  it  pre- 
sents the  following  series  of  resolutions 
in  conformity  with  its  mandate,  with- 
out endorsement  or  recommendation: 

B.  A.  ECKHART,  Chairman. 

RESOLUTIONS  TO  BE  SUBMITTED 
TO  THE  CHICAGO  CHARTER 
CONVENTION. 

I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

1.  A complete  charter  shall  be  drawn 
and  submitted  to  the  Legislature  em- 
bodying the  resolutions  adopted  by  this 
Convention. 

Alternative  to  1.  Separate  bills  shall 
be  drawn  covering  the  following  sub- 
jects: 

a.  Consolidation  (including  parks), 

b.  Public  utilities, 

c.  Education, 

d.  Revenue, 

e.  Amendments  (if  any)  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act, 

f.  All  other  charter  provisions, 
which  shall  be  submitted  to  a separate 
vote  for  adoption. 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished, and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications 
and  executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 


November  30 


51 


1906 


2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

First  Alternative  to  2: 

a.  The  mayor  shall  not  preside 
over  the  city  council,  but  the  city 
council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right 
to  a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall 
have  no  vote.  He  shall  have  the 
right  to  speak  and  present  messages 
and  introduce  measures  subject  to 
the  general  rules  of  procedure  of  the 
city  council. 

c.  The  mayor  shall  exercise  the 
rights  last  above  stated  either  in  per- 
son or  through  an  administrative  offi- 
cer of  the  city. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

Alternative  to  3:  The  veto  power  of 

the  mayor  shall  be  as  now  prescribed 
by  law,  except  that  his  veto  may  be 
overridden  by  a vote  of  the  majority 
of  all  the  members  of  the  city  council. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 

Alternative  to  4:  The  term  of  office 

of  the  mayor  shall  be  the  same  as  that 
of  the  members  of  the  city  council. 
FIRST  ALTERNATIVE  TO  III.— THE 
MAYOR. 

1.  There  shall  be  elected  by  a vote 
of  the  entire  city  at  the  same  time  and 
for  the  same  term  a chief  executive 
and  administrative  officer  to  be  known 


as  the  mayor,  and  a chief  legislative 
officer  to  be  known  as  the  president  of 
the  city  council.  The  mayor  shall  ex- 
ercise all  of  the  executive  and  admin- 
istrative functions  (including  the  ap- 
pointment of  heads  of  all  administra- 
tive departments,  subject  to  the  ap- 
proval of  the  city  council)  now  exer- 
cised by  the  mayor,  with  the  modifica- 
tions and  additions  provided  under  this 
charter.  The  president  of  the  city 
council  shall  preside  over  the  council 
and  shall  exercise  all  of  the  legislative 
functions  now  exercised  by  the  mayor, 
with  the  modifications  and  additions 
provided  under  this  charter. 

2.  The  president  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  ex  officio  chairman  of  the 
finance  committee. 

3.  The  president  of  the  city  council 
shall  have  the  veto  power,  subject  to 

be  overruled  by  a vote  of  the 

council. 

SECOND  ALTERNATIVE  TO  III.— 
THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  mayor  shall  be  elected  by  the 
city  council  for  an  indefinite  term,  and 
shall  be  subject  to  removal  by  the  city 
council. 

2.  The  mayor  shall  exercise  all  the 
executive  and  administrative  functions 
(including  the  appointments  of  the 
heads  of  all  administrative  departments, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  city 
council)  now  exercised  by  the  mayor, 
with  the  modifications  and  additions 
provided  under  this  charter. 

3.  The  mayor  shall  exercise  no  legis- 
lative functions  and  shall  not  preside 
over  the  city  council,  nor  have  the  veto 
power. 

IV.  ELECTIONS. 

1.  The  elective  city  officers  shall  be 
nominated  only  by  a petition  of  quali- 
fied voters. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries. 


November  30 


52 


1906 


Second  alternative  to  1:  Elective 

city  officers  shall  be  nominated  as  now 
prescribed  by  law. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees  for 
each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the  bal- 
lot under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates. 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 

4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring. 

Alternative  to  a:  The  election  of  all 

city  officers,  except  those  for  the  munic- 
ipal court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring, 
b.  Spring  elections  for  city  offi- 
cers shall  be  held  on  the  first  Tues- 
day after  the  first  Monday  in  May. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 

V.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  not  apply  to  the  department 
of  public  parks  until  the  city  council 
shall  by  ordinance  so  provide. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  not 

apply  to  the  municipal  court. 

2.  Members  of  the  classified  serv- 
ice of  any  department  may  be  removed 
by  the  head  of  the  department  for  any 
cause  specified  in  writing  which  will 
promote  the  efficiency  of  the  service. 
They  shall  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
answer  the  specifications  in  writing,  but 
shall  not  be  entitled  to  a formal  hear- 
ing. The  civil  service  commission  shall 
have  power  to  investigate  the  cause 
of  any  removal  and  reinstate  the  person 
so  removed.  No  removal  shall  be  made 
for  political  or  religious  reasons. 

3.  The  bailiff  and  chief  clerk  of  the 
municipal  court  shall  be  appointed  by 
the  judges  of  the  municipal  court.  • 


4.  All  terms  of  office  except  those 
of  the  mayor  and  members  of  the  city 
council  and  municipal  court  judges 
shall  be  indefinite. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

1.  The  charter  shall  provide  for  re- 
districting the  city  into  seventy  wards; 
one  alderman  to  be  elected  from  each 
ward. 

First  alternative  to  1:  The  number 

of  wards  and  aldermen  shall  remain  as 
at  present  fixed  by  law. 

Second  alternative  to  1:  The  num- 

ver  of  wards  shall  remain  as  at  pres- 
ent, but  only  one  alderman  shall  be 
elected  from  each  ward. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter. 

Alternative  to  1:  The  charter  shall 

vest  in  the  city  council  all  the  legisla- 
tive powers  now  conferred  by  the  gen- 
eral cities  and  villages  act  and  ad- 
ditions thereto,  except  as  by  other  pro- 
visions of  this  charter  modified;  and 
in  general,  but  subject  to  the  pro- 
visions of  this  charter,  all  powers  of 
local  legislation  which  can  under  the 
constitution  be  vested  in  a municipal- 
ity. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  munic- 
ipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the  legis- 
lature and  which  are  not  expressly  pro- 
hibited to  it  by  this  charter  or  some 
general  law  of  the  state  or  by  the  con- 
stitution of  the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance,  order  or  resolution 
shall  be  passed  finally  on  the  day  it  is 


November  30 


53 


1906 


introduced,  except  when  approved  by 
an  affirmative  vote  of  three-fourths  of 
all  the  members  of  the  city  council. 
VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

1.  The  present  powers  of  the  city 
council  to  create  new  offices  and  de- 
partments and  to  abolish  offices  or  de- 
partments created  by  it  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

2.  The  offices  of  city  clerk  and  city 
treasurer  shall  cease  to  be  charter  of- 
fices, and  the  city  council  shall  have 
power  by  ordinance  to  provide  for  the 
method  of  choosing  the  city  clerk  and 
the  city  treasurer,  and  to  provide  for 
the  duties  of  these  officers. 

3.  The  city  council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  of  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 
any  public  contract,  and  for  the  pur- 
pose of  ascertaining  facts  in  connec- 
tion with  such  investigation  to  compel 
the  attendance  of  witnesses  and  the 
production  of  material  documents  and 
books. 

IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to 
the  preservation  and  advancement  of 
local  peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  or- 
der and  comfort,  and  to  the  prevention 
of  fraud  and  extortion  within  the  com- 
munity, by  measures  of  regulation, 
licensing,  requirement  of  bonds,  in- 
spection, registration,  restraint  and 
prohibition,  as  well  as  by  the  estab- 
lishment of  municipal  services. 

X.  REVENUE. 

1.  The  city  charter  shall  limit  the 
rate  of  the  general  tax  to  be  levied  an- 
nually for  corporate,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes,  exclusive  of  the  taxes 
levied  for  the  payment  of  bonded  in- 
debtedness or  interest  thereon,  to  four 
and  one-half  per  cent,  of  the  assessed 
value  of  taxable  property. 


Alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 
taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  city  council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  city  council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  city  council  shall  have  power 
to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a majori- 
ty of  those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 

3.  a.  The  city  council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either, 
any  trade,  occupation  or  business  car- 
ried on  wholly  or  in  part  within  the 
city  limits,  and  all  persons,  firms  or 
corporations  owning  or  using  franchises 
or  privileges. 

b.  Where  the  license  fee  is  graded 
according  to  the  value  of  the  trade, 
occupation,  business,  franchise  or 
privilege,  or  according  to  the  amount 
of  capital  invested,  or  according  to 
the  amount  of  business  done,  it  shall 

not  exceed  per  cent,  of  such 

value  or  amount. 

4.  a.  The  city  council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles. 

5.  The  city  shall  have  power  to 
make  local  improvements  by  special  as- 


November  30 


54 


1906 


sessment,  or  by  special  taxation  of  con- 
tiguous property,  or  otherwise. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  city  council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 
by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 

per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 

any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  continguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 
and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 

6.  The  city  council  shall  have  power 
to  establish  by  ordinance  any  other 
sources  and  forms  of  municipal  rev- 
enue to  the  full  extent  that  the  gen- 
eral assembly  has  power  to  authorize 
them  to  be  established,  except  as  other- 
wise provided  in  this  charter;  provided, 
that  any  such  ordinance  shall  not  go 
into  effect  until  sixty  days  after  its 
approval,  and  if  within  such  sixty  days 
ten  per  cent,  of  the  registered  voters 
of  the  city  shall  petition  for  a submis- 
sion of  such  ordinance  to  popular  vote 
at  the  next  succeeding  general  or  spe- 
cial election,  such  ordinance  shall  not 
got  into  effect  until  and  unless  at  such 
election  it  shall  have  been  approved 
by  a majority  of  the  voters  voting  up- 
on the  question. 

7.  The  charter  shall  provide  for  pow- 
ers to  be  vested  in  the  city  for  the 
assesment  of  property  and  the  collec- 
tion of  taxes  within  the  city  for  cor- 
porate purposes  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  of  equality  and  uniformity 
prescribed  by  the  constitution. 

ALTERNATIVE  TO  X. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
council  all  power  of  legislation  regard- 
ing all  forms  of  revenue  to  be  raised 
within  the  city  for  municipal  purposes, 
that  the  general  assembly  has  power  to 
delegate  to  the  city. 

XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 


the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permit- 
ted to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 

XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinance,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  re- 
quirement of  warrants  for  payments, 
shall  be  substantially  embodied  in  the 
charter. 

XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property 
by  purchase  or  condemnation  for  any 
purpose  for  which  it  may  exercise  the 
power  of  taxation. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

nicipal  purpose. 

XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of 
contract. 

2.  Contracts  for  work  or  supplies 
shall  be  let  to  the  lowest  responsible 
bidder,  after  public  advertisement,  sub- 
ject to  limitations  and  exceptions  to  be 
established  by  general  ordinance. 

XV.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

1.  Provision  shall  be  made  for  en- 
abling the  city  to  exact  compensation, 
at  a rate  to  be  fixed  by  general  ordi- 
nance, for  licensing  the  temporary  use 
by  private  parties  of  space  below  as 
well  as  above  the  level  of  the  surface 
of  streets,  alleys  and  other  public 
places. 

First  alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  city  shall  have  no  power  to 
exact  compensation  for  the  private  use 
of  space  above  the  level  of  the  surface 


November  30 


55 


1906 


of  streets,  alleys  and  other  public 
places,  except  where  such  use  is  grant- 
ed on  behalf  of  some  public  utility. 

b.  The  city  shall  have  no  power  to 
exact  compensation  for  the  private  use 
of  space  below  the  level  of  the  surface 
of  streets,  alleys  and  other  public 
places,  except  where  such  use  is  grant- 
ed on  behalf  of  some  public  utility. 

Second  alternative  to  1: 

All  private  users  of  space  above  or 
below  the  level  of  streets,  alleys  or 
other  public  places  shall  pay  compensa- 
tion to  the  city  according  to  some  defi- 
nite scale  to  be  fixed  by  general  ordi- 
nance. This  provision  shall  not  apply 
to  grants  for  public  utilities. 

Third  alternative  to  1: 

The  city  shall  not  permit  the  private 
use  of  space  above  or  below  the  level 
of  the  surface  of  streets,  alleys  or  other 
public  places,  except  for  public  util- 
ities. 

^X"XVL  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  wa- 
ter works  and  water  supply  shall  be 
continued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city's  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

4.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  power  of  the  city  to  make 


reasonable  regulations  of  the  charges  to 
be  made  by  the  owners  or  operators 
of  such  utilities  for  the  services  ren- 
dered by  them,  unless  otherwise  ex- 
pressly provided  in  the  grant. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  shall  further  be  subject 
to  the  power  of  the  city,  whether  ex- 
pressly reserved  in  the  grant  or  not, 
to  make  reasonable  regulations  of  the 
charges  to  be  made  in  the  operation  of 
such  public  utilities.  The  city  shall 
have  no  power  to  grant  away  or  limit 
the  subsequent  exercise  of  this  right, 
except  that  the  question  of  reasonable- 
ness of  any  such  regulation  shall  always 
be  determined  with  due  regard  to  the 
provisions  and  limitations  of  the  grant 
under  which  such  public  utility  is  be- 
ing operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

6.  All  existing  laws  requiring  front- 
age consents  as  a condition  to  the  mak- 
ing of  any  public  untility  grant  shall 
be  repealed  so  far  as  the  same  relate 
to  the  city  of  Chicago,  and  the  city 
council  shall  have  the  power  to  pro- 
vide by  ordinance  from  time  to  time 
such  requirements  with  regard  to  front- 
age consents  in  such  cases  as  the  city 
council  may  deem  proper. 

XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks 
shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park  com- 
missioners consisting  of  nine  members, 
who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  Appel- 
late Court  judges  of  the  First  District 
for  a term  of  three  years,  three  mem- 
bers retiring  every  year. 

First  alternative  to  1: 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
city  council. 


November  30 


56 


1906 


Second  alternative  to  1: 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor  of  the  state. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  city  coun- 
cil only  upon  the  request  of  the  park 
board;  and  park  funds  shall  be  paid 
out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 

XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

1.  a.  The  management  of  the  pub- 
lic school  system  of  the  city  shall  be 
vested  in  a board  of  education  of  fif- 
teen members  to  be  appointed  by  the 
mayor,  with  the  approval  of  the  city 
council. 

b.  The  members  of  the  board  of 
education  shall  serve  for  a term  of 
four  years,  excepting  that  upon  the 
first  appointment  of  the  board,  three 
members  shall  be  chosen  for  one  year 
four  for  two  years,  four  for  three 
years  and  four  for  four  years,  and 
annually  thereafter  members  shall  be 
appointed  to  succeed  those  whose 
terms  expire. 

c.  The  charter  shall  embody  in 
substance  the  provisions  of  the  bill 
reported  by  the  committee  on  public 
education,  and  printed  in  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Charter  Convention 
of  October  3,  1906,  pp.  10-16  and  18, 
a copy  of  which  is  made  a part  of 
this  report. 

FIRST  ALTERNATIVE  TO  XVIII. 

1.  a.  The  public  school  system  of 
the  city  of  Chicago  shall  be  managed 
by  an  elective  board  of  education,  com- 
posed of  fifteen  members. 

b.  The  members  of  the  board  of 
education  shall  be  nominated  by  pe- 
tition. 

c.  The  members  of  the  board  of 
education  shall  be  elected  by  a gen- 
eral ticket  from  the  city  at  large. 

d.  The  members  of  the  board  of 
education  shall  be  elected  at  a spe- 
cial election. 


e.  The  term  of  office  of  members 
of  the  board  of  education  shall  be 
four  years. 

f.  The  ballot  for  election  of  mem- 
bers of  the  board  of  education  shall 
not  indicate  the  political  affiliation  • 
of  the  candidates. 

g.  The  cumulative  system  of  vot- 
ing shall  prevail  in  the  election  of 
members  of  the  board  of  education. 

SECOND  ALTERNATIVE  TO  XVIII. 

1.  The  board  of  education  as  at 
present  constituted  shall  be  abolished. 
The  public  school  system  of  the  city  of 
Chicago  shall  be  divided  into  two  de- 
partments, the  administrative  depart- 
ment and  the  educational  department. 
The  educational  department  shall  be  in 
charge  of  a superintendent  of  instruc- 
tion appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 
approval  of  the  city  council.*  The  ad- 
ministrative department  shall  be  a de- 
partment of  the  city  government,  at 
the  head  of  which  shall  be  a superin- 
tendent of  school  buildings  and  prop- 
erty, appointed  by  the  mayor  with  the 
approval  of  the  city  council. 

XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  year. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  city  council. 

XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 


November  30 


57 


1906 


b.  Authority  to  maintain  lodging 
houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 

2.  The  city  shall  have  power  to  con- 
tract with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the 
detention,  housing  and  care  of  indigent 
persons,  prisoners,  or  dependent  or  de- 
linquent children. 

XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

1.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of  meas- 
ures within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  city 
council  by  a petition  of  — r — per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city,  such  proposed 
measures  to  take  effect  as  ordinances 
when  approved  by  a majority  of  votes 
cast  at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  ques- 
tion). 

2.  The  charter  shall  provide  that 
any  ordinance  (other  than  an  emergency 
ordinance)  passed  by  the  city  council 

shall  not  go  into  effect  until days 

after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if  within 

that  time  per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city  petition  for  the  submis- 
sion of  such  ordinance  to  popular  vote 
at  the  next  succeeding  general  or  spe- 
cial election,  such  ordinance  shall  not  go 
into  effect  until  and  unless  at  such  elec- 
tion it  shall  have  been  approved  by  a 
majority  of  the  voters  voting  upon  the 
question. 

Alternative  to  2:  The  charter  shall 

provide  that  any  ordinance  granting  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  for  any  public 

utility  shall  not  go  into  effect  until 

days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 

within  that  time  per  cent,  of  the 

voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the  sub- 
mission of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 


proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 

XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  city  of 
Chicago. 

2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  city  council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 

3.  The  city  council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  on  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises  be  altered,  nor  the  munic- 
ipal court  act  amended,  nor  any  pro- 
vision be  made  for  the  exercise  of  any 
power  not  strictly  local  or  municipal  in 
its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munic- 
ipal in  its  character. 


November  30 


58 


1906 


MR.  ECKHART:  A copy  of  this  re- 

port and  series  of  resolutions  as  pre- 
pared and  submitted  by  this  comittee 
have  been  sent  to  every  member  of  the 
Convention,  and  they  are  now  before 
the  Convention.  I also  desire  to  present 
a recommendation  of  the  committee, 
and  I move  the  adoption  of  this  resolu- 
tion 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  resolution. 

THE  SECRETARY  read:  That  all 

speeches  in  debate  shall  be  limited  to 
ten  minutes,  and  no  member  shall  speak 
more  than  once  upon  any  question,  mo- 
tion or  amendment  before  the  Charter 
Convention.  This  rule  may  be  waived 
by  the  unanimous  consent  or  by  the 
formal  vote  of  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  The  chairman 
of  the  committee  offering  it  moves  its 
adoption. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

may  I ask  for  a point  of  order.  Under 
our  rules,  can  we  adopt  such  a resolu- 
tion? The  first  rule  is  the  one  I re- 
fer to. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  rule. 

THE  SECRETARY  read:  First- 

Parliamentary  procedure  of  this  Con- 
vention shall  be  governed  by  Roberts’ 
Rules  of  Order,  except  as  otherwise 
provided  in  this  report,  or  by  any  future 
rule  or  order  of  this  Convention  adopt- 
ed at  a meeting  held  at  least  three  days 
previously  by  a majority  vote  of  all  its 
members. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  chair  wil1 

rule  that  this  rule  will  have  to  lay  over, 
unless  there  is  a suspension  of  the  rules. 

MR.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  ask  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Convention  on  a suspension  of  the  rules, 
in  order  to  adopt  this  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Does  the  chair 

hear  any  objection  to  a suspension  of 
the  rule  and  adoption  of  that  resolu 
tion?  If  not,  it  is  so  ordered.  The  rule 


is  adopted.  The  report  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General 
Plan  is  now  before  the  Convention.  The 
chair  would  like  to  call  attention  to  the 
fact  that  there  is  a revised  copy  in  the 
hands  of  each  one  of  the  delegates  pres- 
ent. It  was  found,  after  the  first  copy 
had  been  mailed,  that  it  had  some  dupli- 
cates ond  some  typographical  errors,  so 
a revised  copy  was  prepared. 

MR.  FISHER:  I haven’t  got  a copy 

of  this  revised  copy. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I presume  there 

should  be  a motion  made  that  the  Con- 
vention proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
these  resolutions. 

MR.  ECKHART:  I make  that  mo- 

tion that  the  Convention  proceed  with 
the  consideration  of  the  resolutions  rec- 
ommended by  the  Committee  on  Rules, 
Procedure  and  General  Plan. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  resolu- 

tion is  the  scope  of  proposed  legislation 
The  chair  would  like  to  suggest  for  the 
consideration  of  this  Convention  that 
it  might  be  well  to  leave  that  topic 
until  after  the  Convention  has  discussed 
in  what  form  and  shape  the  legislation 
shall  be.  I apprehend  it  will  be  for  the 
Convention  to  determine  what  shape 
these  measures  shall  take.  I would  like 
personally  to  give  that  matter  to  the 
Convention  for  its  consideration. 

MR.  FISHER:  I move  that  the  ac- 

tion on  this  first  resolution,  entitled 
“ Scope  of  Proposed  Legislation,”  be 
deferred  until  the  Convention  has  con- 
sidered the  other  resolution  presented 
for  the  Committee  on  General  Plan. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  2,  “Consolidation.” 

THE  SECRETARY  read: 

CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  exist- 
ing at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished, and  the  management  of  the  parks 


November  30 


59 


1906 


shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  public  library  shall  consti- 
tute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

MR  FISHER:  I move  that  when 

these  resolutions  are  read  that  the  chair 
consider  a motion  to  adopt  each  particu- 
lar motion,  being  the  first  resolution 
under  each  head,  as  before  the  house, 
and  the  matter  be  open  for  discussion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections,  that  will  be  the  procedure. 
The  first  paragraph  of  the  second  sec- 
tion is  now  before  the  house.  The  ques- 
tion is  before  the  house. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I move  the  adop- 

tion of  that  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  this  section  be 
adopted.  The  matter  is  before  the 
house  for  such  disposition  as  the  Con- 
vention wishes  to  make  of  it.  If  there 
are  no  remarks,  all  those  in  favor  of  the 
adoption  signify  by  saying  Aye. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  paragraph  2. 

THE  SECRETARY:  The  adminis- 

tration of  the  public  school  system  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  and  of  the  public 
library  shall  constitute  departments  of 
the  city  government. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I move  its  adop- 

tion 

MR.  ECKHART:  I second  the  mo- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be  in  ac 
cordance  with  Mr.  Fisher’s  suggestion. 
Unless  there  is  some  substitution,  the 
matter  is  before  the  house. 

MR.  WHITE:  I would  ask  that  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  explain  to  ns 
more  in  detail  just  what  essential 
change  this  resolution,  the  second  one, 
would  bring  about  in  the  present  admin- 
istration of  the  school  system;  just 
how  and  what  would  it  be;  what  change 


would  there  be  from  the  present  sys- 
tem; what  is  the  essential  change  from 
the  present  existing  relationship  to  the 
school  board — the  relationship  of  the 
school  board  to  the  city  government? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I don’t  under- 

stand there  is  any  essential  change. 
When  the  specific  subject  was  brought 
up  the  manner  of  appointment  was  dis- 
cussed in  detail.  This  is  simply  a part 
of  the  plan  of  consolidation.  It  does 
not  go  into  the  question  of  the  method 
of  appointment.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question?  All  those  in  favor  saye  Aye. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I suggest  that 

when  this  matter  is  taken  up  the  Secre- 
tary read  the  entire  section  and  then 
take  it  up  section  by  section.  The  Sec- 
retary will  now  read  No.  3,  “The 
Mayor  ” 

THE  SECRETARY  read: 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  present 
laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  law  regarding 
the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city 
council. 

First  alternative  to  2: 

a.  The  mayor  shall  not  preside  over 
the  city  council,  but  the  city  council 
shall  elect  its  own  presiding  officer 
from  its  members. 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

c.  The  mayor  shall  exercise  the 
rights  last  above  stated  either  in  per- 
son or  through  an  administrative  officer 
of  the  city. 

Second  alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  present 
provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the  re- 
lation of  the  mayor  to  the  city  council, 


November  30 


60 


1906 


except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at  the 
meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

Alternative  to  3: 

The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  except 
that  his  veto  may  be  overridden  by  a 
vote  of  the  majority  of  all  the  members 
of  the  city  council. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 

Alternative  to  4: 

The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  the  same  as  that  of  the  members  of 
the  city  council. 

MR.  POST:  I move  that  the  whole 

subject  be  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
making  it  a special  order  at  a particular 
day.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  too  broad  a 
subject  for  us  to  take  up  at  this  first 
meeting  for  consultation  on  the  part  of 
the  Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  not  that  true 

about  every  section,  Mr.  Post? 

MR.  POST:  If  it  is,  let  us  make  some 
special  orders.  Let  us  not  rush  this 
thing  through,  after  a year  has  been 
spent.  A great  deal  of  time,  I am  sure, 
has  been  expended  unnecessarily.  There 
is  no  necessity  for  this  meeting  to  take 
any  such  action,  for  such  immediate 
action  as  to  force  us  to  the  considera- 
tion of  very  important  questions,  when 
we  have  come  here  prepared  for  an- 
other purpose.  I believe  we  should 
make  preliminary  preparations  for  dis- 
cussing that;  I don’t  think  we  could 
make  a very  satisfactory  recommenda- 
tion— I don’t  think  it  could  get  very 
satisfactory  recommendation  from  the 
Convention  if  it  undertook  to  take  up 
such  important  matters  now.  If  there 
is  no  objection  raised  against  it,  I say 
that  I believe  we  should  make  that  a 
special  order,  and  if  all  the  rest  of  the 
matters  are  as  important  as  that.  I 
think  we  should  make  them  special  or- 


ders and  get  ahead  as  rapidly  as  possi- 
ble. We  can  by  passing  these  more 
important  ones,  I believe;  if  we  can  do 
that  and  take  up  those  matters  on 
which  we  are  agreed,  and  on  which  we 
know  the  whole  city  is  agreed  practical- 
ly, we  can  dispose  of  the  more  per- 
functory matters  and  come  down  to  our 
next  meeting  determined  to  pass  upon 
the  more  important  matters  having 
alternative  recommendations. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I doubt  if  we  will 

be  able  to  settle  this  question  to-day. 
It  seems  to  me  there  is  no  more  op- 
portune time  to  commence  the  discus- 
sion than  now.  This  is  probably  the 
most  important  subject  in  the  Charter 
Convention,  and  if  we  enter  into  a gen- 
eral discussion,  and  then  if  we  leave 
here  with  the  thoughts  that  have  been 
expressed  by  the  members  of  this  Con- 
vention and  come  back  at  a subsequent 
meeting,  we  will  be  better  prepared 
then  to  intelligently  discuss  the  ques- 
tion. Therefore  I think  the  discussion 
should  be  proceeded  with  at  this  time. 

MR  POST:  I have  no  objection,  Mr. 

Chairman,  to  having  the  discussion  pro- 
ceed. That  is  not  the  purpose  of  my 
motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  not  to  pre- 

sent the  discussion  of  the  question,  as 
I understand  it. 

MR.  POST:  The  only  object  of  my 

motion  is  to  prevent  final  action  at  this 
time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well  then,  we 

will  assume  for  the  time  being  that 
the  matter  is  before  the  house  for  dis- 
cussion. 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  I suggest  that 

we  have  the  balance  of  that  read. 

The  secretary  read  the  first  alterna- 
tive to  3. 

FIRST  ALTERNATIVE  TO  III.— THE 
MAYOR, 

1.  There  shall  be  elected  by  a vote 
of  the  entire  city  at  the  same  time  and 
for  the  same  term  a chief  executive 


November  30 


61 


1906 


and  administrative  officer  to  be  known 
as  the  mayor,  and  a chief  legislative 
officer  to  be  known  as  the  president  of 
the  city  council.  The  mayor  shall  ex- 
ercise all  of  the  executive  and  admin- 
istrative functions  (including  the  ap- 
pointment of  heads  of  all  administra- 
tive departments,  subject  to  the  ap- 
proval of  the  city  council)  now  exer- 
cised by  the  mayor,  with  the  modifi- 
cations and  additions  provided  under 
this  charter.  The  president  of  the  city 
council  shall  preside  over  the  council 
and  shall  exercise  all  of  the  legislative 
functions  now  exercised  by  the  mayor, 
with  the  modifications  and  additions 
provided  under  this  charter. 

2.  The  president  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  ex  officio  chairman  of  the 
finance  committee. 

3.  The  president  of  the  city  council 
shall  have  the  veto  power,  subject  to 

be  overruled  by  a vote  of  the 

council. 

5.  The  president  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  ex  officio  chairman  of  the 
finance  committee  of  the  city  council. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  entire  sub- 

ject matter  is  now  open  for  discussion. 

MR.  JONES:  Inasmuch  as  these  re- 

solutions have  alternative  propositions 
which  are  in  the  nature  of  amendment^ 
would  it  not  be  better  for  us  to  proceed 
and  take  up  the  last  alternative  pro 
position  and  discuss  that  first  as  we 
would  an  amendment,  and  then  vote 
upon  that,  and  in  that  way  gradually 
work  back  to  the  original  resolution? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  a matter 

for  the  Convention  to  decide,  in  what 
manner  it  wants  to  attack  the  subject. 

MR.  REVELL:  I hope  we  will  act 

upon  this  matter  with  a view  not  alone 
of  discussion  to-day,  but  of  voting  upon 
these  matters.  I do  not  see  what  is 
to  be  gained  by  delay.  There  seems 
to  be  a constant  hint  all  the  time  of 
delaying  something.  This  matter  ha^ 
been  before  the  people  for  more  than 
a year,  these  matters  have  been  before 


the  various  committees,  and  they  have 
at  times  been  referred  to  the  commit- 
tee on  plan  and  rules.  They  have  got- 
ten out  printed  pamphlets  containing 
these  various  amendment  provisions, 
and  these  have  been  in  the  hands  of 
various  members  of  the  Convention  foi 
more  than  three  or  four  days.  I don’t 
see  how  we  can  get  on  with  these 
matters,  which  have  been  in  our  hands 
for  a period  of  nearly  a year  if  we 
keep  on  deferring  and  deferring.  I 
think  we  should  vote  upon  these  vari- 
ous matters,  which  is  simply  informal 
in  its  nature — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  mo- 

tion before  the  house,  Mr.  Revell. 

MR.  REVELL:  Well,  I have  said  all 
I intended  to  say. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  proposition 

is  whether  we  shall  proceed  to  the  dis- 
cussion of  these  resolutions,  and  the 
only  question  is  what  method  and  what 
shape  shall  it  take,  and  Senator  Jones 
suggests  that  we  take  the  last  one 
one  first. 

MR.  JONES:  I put  that  in  the  form 

of  a motion,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  The  chair 
would  like  to  have  further  sugestions  if 
they  occur  to  anybody  as  to  the  best 
methods  of  taking  up  this  proposition. 
If  'there  are  no  further  objections,  th 
motion  will  be  put. 

MR.  FISHER:  What  is  the  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

to  take  the  last  proposition  in  the  lowei 
right  hand  column,  page  4,  first. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  that  is  a good 
suggestion,  to  proceed  with  the  last 
alternative  and  move  towards  the  othei 
propositions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  that  say  aye. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  In  - the  matter 

before  the  Convention  I move  that  the 
second  alternative  be  laid  upon  the 
table. 


November  30 


62 


1906 


ME.  BENNETT:  I think  it  is  well 

for  us  to  enter  now  upon  the  discussion 
of  the  main  question  as  to  whether  the 
mayor  of  the  city  shall  be  elected  by 
the  council  or  by  the  people.  Upon 
that  I would  like  to  be  heard.  The 
custom  in  England  and  most  of  the 
larger  cities  of  the  Continent  is  along 
the  lines  of  this  substitute  alternative 
proposition.  To  us  at  first  blush  it 
might  seem  a radical  departure  from 
our  present  custom,  but  I am  not  sur 
that  it  is  not  worthy  of  our  careful 
consideration  before  passing  upon  it 
This  substitute  calls  for  the  election  of 
the  mayor  by  the  council  from  amon; 
its  members.  The  experience  of  foreign 
countries  has  been  that  where  the  mayo: 
is  elected  in  this  way  politics  in  a large 
measure  are  eliminated  from  the  ex- 
ecutive office.  The  mayor  brings  to 
office  the  experience  and  learning  he 
has  gained  while  serving  in  the  cit 
council.  To-day  a mayor  may  be  elected, 
he  is  almost  always  elected  upon  some 
particular  topic  which  he  takes  up  as 
his  slogan  for  election.  The  result  is 
that  when  he  goes  into  office  the  whole 
executive  department  of  the  city  is  en- 
deavoring to  carry  out  the  policy  which 
may  or  may  not  be  in  keeping  witl 
the  conservative  position  as  generally 
taken  by  the  city  councils.  I say  c 
servative,  because  a body  of  men  a' 
ways  acts  with  more  conservatism  t 
does  the  individual.  The  benefit  of  tlu 
experience  of  a collective  body  of  mer 
is  more  apt  to  be  right  than  the  single 
opinion  of  an  individual.  So  I say  it 
is  well  for  us  to  pause  and  conside* 
before  passing  upon  this  subject  defi 
nitely  whether  this  is  not  the  best  pol- 
icy. If  you  will  study  the  best  writer 
on  municipal  affairs  to-day  you  will  find 
they  are  almost  all  agreed  upon  thir 
proposition.  I do  not  agree  with  th< 
proposition  that  the  mayor  should  no 
preside  at  the  council  meetings;  1 
lieve  that  he  learns  more  in  the  cha‘ 
of  the  council  than  he  will  learn  else 


where.  He  will  be  in  closer  touch  with 
the  progress  of  municipal  affairs  if  he 
keeps  in  touch  with  the  council, 
years  I have  believed  that  the  execu 
tive  of  the  city  and  the  city  council 
should  have  worked  in  greater  har- 
mony, because  by  united  effort  very 
much  more  is  accomplished  than  by 
individual  effort.  The  city  coune' 
whatever  may  be  said  of  it  by  those 
who  are  not  in  touch  with  its  work 
ings,  is  a body  in  which  there  are  al- 
ways men  who  have  had  experience 
and  who  are  in  touch  with  the  needs 
and  necessities  of  the  city,  and  by  plac 
ing  upon  them  the  duty  of  selecting  the 
executive  of  the  city  you  are  insured 
a better  city  council.  It  will  make 
the  citizen  more  careful  about  whom 
he  sends  to  the  legislative  body  where 
you  divide  that  responsibility.  So  I 
say  that  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion should  consider  this  question 
closely  before  passing  upon  it. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  It  has  been  very 
seldom  that  I have  differed  from  Al- 
derman Bennett  on  questions  of  public 
policy,  but  upon  this  question  I will 
take  issue  with  him.  The  proposition 
that  the  mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
or  the  executive  of  the  government 
should  be  elected  by  the  legislature  or 
the  governing  body  is  not  a new  one 
in  this  community.  Nor  is  it  one  that 
has  proven  successful.  In  the  national 
government,  and  in  the  city  and  state 
government,  the  principle  of  having 
the  executive  elected  by  the  people  and 
separate  from  the  legislature  has  been 
established  since  the  very  foundation 
of  the  government,  and  the  suggestion 
is  yet  to  come  of  the  national  govern- 
ment or  of  the  city  government  or  presi- 
dents being  elected  by  Congress  or 
the  Legislature.  In  the  early  years  the 
County  Board  elected  its  president 
through  its  trustees,  and  because  it 
was  not  considered  a good  rule,  a good 
working  rule,  the  legislature  of  1903 
amended  the  act  so  that  its  president 


November  30 


63 


1906 


should  be  elected  by  the  people.  There 
is  undoubtedly  a great  deal  of  truth 
in  what  Alderman  Bennett  says,  that 
the  mayor  and  city  council  should  work 
harmoniously  together,  and  that  they 
should  be  organized  to  work  harmoni- 
ously. There  are  two  things  to  keep  in 
mind  in  regard  to  the  legislature:  one 
is  the  use  to  which  the  legislature  should 
be  put,  and  the  other  the  abuses  to 
which  it  may  be  subjected.  If  the  ex- 
ecutive of  the  City  of  Chicago  were  to 
be  elected  by  the  council,  the  records 
I am  sure  will  show,  and  experienc' 
has  proven  before,  that  the  counci. 
would  organize  so  that  a majority  would 
control  the  executive.  It  has  been  sc 
in  the  past;  it  is  sure  to  be  so  in  the 
future.  Then  you  would  have  an  ex- 
ecutive who  should  stand  up  for  the 
good  of  the  public,  but  you  would  find 
him  subject  to  that  majority;  you  would 
find  him  subject  to  individuals  of  the 
majority  if  he  wishes  to  hold  the  ma- 
jority behind  him  to  keep  him  mayor 
of  the  city,  so  that  a small  majority 
would  control  him,  he  would  be 
constantly  threatened  by  a few  peo- 
ple and  would  not  be  an  indepen- 
dent mayor;  he  would  be  a creature 
of  a political  combination.  I mention 
this  for  your  consideration,  because  I 
believe  we  do  not  want  to  take  any 
steps  backward  in  city  government  by 
taking  up  things  that  were  found  in- 
sufficient in  several  other  instances. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  I believe  it  is 

the  desire  of  a large  number  of  the 
people  of  the  City  of  Chicago  to  secure 
some  sort  of  good  self  government,  and 
the  very  first  proposition  made  is  to 
take  away  the  government  from  the 
people  and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the 
city  council  in  the  election  of  thr 
mayor.  I believe  that  this  Charter 
Convention  should  adopt  no  such  pro 
position  as  proposes  the  election  of  the 
mayor  by  the  city  council;  I believe 
that  if  it  should,  the  new  charter 
would  not  get  ten  per  cent,  of  the 


votes  of  the  people;  the  people  vote 
to  elect  the  mayor  in  order  to  have 
one  man  in  the  city  council  who  is 
responsible  to  the  people;  and  I can 
imagine  such  a situation  as  would  exist 
in  the  City  of  Chicago  were  the  Coun- 
cil to  elect  the  mayor  for  the  people. 
Why,  the  street  railways  and  telephone 
companies  and  all  the  other  franchise- 
holding corporations  would  have  very 
little  difficulty  in  controlling  the  city 
council  and  the  mayor.  The  people 
would  have  no  redress,  no  voice,  for  the 
reason  that  a mayor  selected  by  the 
city  council  would  probably  be  confined 
to  the  35th  Ward,  or  some  ward  out 
south,  where  the  people  of  the  other 
part  of  the  city  could  not  reach  him.  I 
don ’t  think  I have  any  more  to  say.  I 
am  opposed  to  having  the  mayor  elected 
by  the  city  council,  and  I hope  the 
delegates  will  vote  it  down. 

MR.  FISHER:  While  this  topic  is 

up  before  the  Convention  it  would  be 
well  to  have  the  question  discussed 
from  a broad  point  of  view,  and  I am 
convinced  of  that  by  the  statement 
of  the  last  speaker.  A large  part  of 
the  reason  for  calling  this  Convention 
and  the  desire  for  a new  charter  for 
the  City  of  Chicago,  is  the  desire  of 
the  people  of  this  city  to  have  greater 
participation  in  the  government  of  the 
city;  by  that  I mean  a more  effective 
participation.  Would  that  not  be  so  if 
they  were  to  elect  the  officers,  if  they 
were  to  elect  those  who  select  the  of- 
ficers? Both  the  legislative  and  execu- 
tive side?  But  there  is  a feeling  abroad 
among  the  people,  some  how  or  other, 
that  the  participation  has  no  practical 
effect.  I wish  to  say  what  my  own 
notion  is  on  that  subject  from  such 
study  as  I have  been  able  to  give  this 
subject,  and  such  experience  as  I have 
had.  One  thing  I know,  that  it  is 
necessary,  in  order  to  bring  about  ef 
fective  participation  of  the  people  in 
the  government,  to  reduce  the  number 
of  elective  officers,  that  is,  to  get  be- 


November  30 


64 


1906 


fore  the  people  upon  each  election,  as 
definitely  and  succinctly  as  possible, 
the  issue  of  that  election,  and  not  to 
have  it  confused  with  other  issues.  In 
this  city  to-day  and  for  many  years 
past  we  have  been  in  the  habit  of  elect- 
ing a mayor  who  was  supposed  to  be 
able  to  perform  the  functions  of  the 
mayor.  Who  is  the  mayor  of  this  city? 
He  is  supposed  to  be  the  chief  execu- 
tive officer;  and  yet  it  is  within  the 
knowledge  of  every  member  of  this 
Convention  that  we  have  not  elected  a 
man  in  this  city  at  any  time  since 
1896  as  the  chief  executive  of  this 
city.  We  have  elected  a mayor  on 
each  occasion  because  of  his  advocacy 
of  some  particular  legislative  policy, 
and  we  have  paid  little  or  no  attention 
to  his  executive  or  administrative  func- 
tions. We  all  know  that  the  question 
upon  which  Mr.  Harrison  was  elected 
mayor  of  this  city  for  years  was  the 
question  of  his  attitude  of  the  street 
railroad  franchise;  and  we  all  know 
that  the  issue  upon  which  Mayor  Dunne 
was  elected  at  the  last  election  was  his 
position  on  the  management  of  the 
street  railway.  I say  to  the  Convention 
that  never  so  long  as  we  elect  an  ex- 
ecutive and  administrative  officer  for 
his  advocacy  of  a legislative  proposi- 
tion will  we  get  a good  administration 
in  this  city. 

There  are  always  in  every  election 
two  questions  before  the  people,  namely 
with  every  candidate:  Shall  we  elect 
a good  executive  and  a poor  legislator 
or  shall  we  elect  a first  class  legislator 
and  a relatively  poor  executive?  Rarely 
indeed  will  it  come  to  pass  that  the 
same  man  combines  in  himself  both 
qualifications  in  any  degree.  The  thing 
which  will  do  more  to  produce  clear 
responsible  and  responsive  government 
in  this  city  than  anything  else  will  be 
to  bring  about  a state  of  affairs  that 
when  we  elect  a member  to  the  city 
council  we  are  electing  a man  in  that 
position  who  can  perform  the  functions 


and  duties  of  a member  of  the  city 
council,  not  merely  the  legislative  func- 
tions determining  questions  of  policy. 
And  when  we  elect  a mayor  we  shall 
elect  a man  who  is  going  to  be  elected 
because  of  his  executive  or  adminis- 
trative capacity.  That  is  a fundamen- 
tal proposition.  I know  it  is  said  that 
when  the  members  of  the  city  council 
elect  the  mayor  he  will  be  under 
the  control  of  a combination  of  aider- 
men,  or  something  of  that  sort,  just  as 
Mr.  McCormick  has  stated.  But  what 
are  the  functions  of  the  executive  offi- 
cer of  the  municipality?  They  are,  or 
they  should  be,  to  carry  into  effect  that 
legislative  policy  which  the  legislative 
body  has  determined,  nothing  else; 
there  should  be  no  difference  between 
the  democratic  enforcement  of  the  law 
or  of  an  ordinance  and  a republican 
enforcement  of  the  same  law  or  the 
same  ordinance.  Now  if  the  ordinance 
is  susceptible  of  two  constructions  the 
city  council  or  the  legislature,  the  legis- 
lative power  or  whatever  it  is,  should 
pass  such  amendment  to  that  ordinance 
as  is  necessary,  so  that  it  would  mean 
but  one  thing,  and  it  will  mean  that 
one  thing,  to  the  executive  officer 
of  this  city,  if  there  is  an  or- 
dinance upon  the  book  which  is  not 
intended  to  be  enforced.  It  is  bring- 
ing about  disrespect  for  the  law,  it  is 
responsible  more  than  anything  else  for 
the  growing  disrespect  for  the  law  in 
this  community  and  this  entire  nation, 
— now  with  an  executive  who  can  go 
to  the  body  which  creates  that  and  say, 
“I  am  willing  to  enforce  your  ordin- 
ance, but  I don’t  know  just  what  it 
means,”  “By  passing  this  ordinance, 
do  you  mean  this  or  do  you  mean  that?” 
The  members  of  the  city  council  could 
not  take  refuge  in  the  proposition,  “We 
passed  that  ordinance,  it  is  up  to  you 
to  enforce  it.”  I say  to  you  that  in 
the  statute  books  in  this  state  to-day 
there  is,  for  instance,  a law  for  Sunday 
closing;  I say  to  you  that  it  is  upon 


November  30 


65 


1906 


the  statute  books  because  the  members 
of  the  legislature  of  the  State  of  Illin- 
ois relied  upon  the  fact  it  would  not 
be  locally  enforced  unless  local  senti- 
ment was  in  favor  of  it.  The  execu- 
tive is  not  responsible  for  the  passage 
of  that  law,  not  responsible  to  the  men 
who  passed  it,  and  as  a result  you  have 
a dead  law  upon  the  statute  book;  you 
have  a law  that  breeds  disrespect  for 
the  law,  and  that  will  continue  to 
breed  disrespect  for  law  so  long  as  it 
remains  there  and  remains  there  unen- 
forced. 

If  to-day  we  were  to  elect  members 
of  the  city  council  that  were  going 
to  select  the  mayor  to  rule  over  this 
city,  the  voter  would  vote . for  the 
alderman  with  some  knowledge  of  what 
that  alderman  was  going  to  do  upon 
that  fundamental  question  of  the  ex- 
ecutive and  administrative  policy,  and 
would  depend  upon  him  to  carry  that 
into  effect.  It  has  been  said  here  and 
elsewhere,  and  it  has  been  said  by  Mr. 
McCormick  a few  moments  ago,  that  up 
to  date  nobody  has  proposed  the  elec- 
tion of  the  Governor  and  President,  the 
election  of  those  officers,  by  the  Legis- 
lature or  by  Congress.  I believe  that 
Mr.  McCormick  unfortunately  has  not 
read  apparently  the  latest  and  best 
and  most  authorititative  discussion  on 
the  question  of  a democratic  govern- 
ment. I don’t  know  how  many^members 
of  this  Convention  know  af>out  it,  and 
I beg  your  pardon  ii-L  mention  i^,  as 
most  of  you  may  "not  have  read  ii;  it 
is  by  a man  narped  Oscar\  Gorskt,  a 
Russian,  who  hai  written  on  tlj/  sub- 
ject of  democracy  vand  the^yarfious  po- 
litical parties,  a work  which  Mr.  Bryce  j 
of  England,  an  authority  upon  the  ques-  | 
tion  of  American  government,  mentions  | 
in  authoritative  discussion;  the  whole 
policy  of  American  government  in  that 
work  upon  the  American  constitution, 
is  discussed;  and  that  book  marks  an 
epoch  in  the  discussion  of  this  subject; 
and  the  whole  burden  of  the  work  is  a 


consideration  of  that  subject  from  its 
very  foundation,  and  an  analysis  of  it, 
of  the  conditions  as  they  are,  and  the 
conclusion  of  the  whole  work  is  that 
never  will  you  get  effective  govern- 
ment in  this  country  until  Congress  does 
elect  the  President.  Now  that  may 
sound  radical  to  some  of  you  perhaps, 
but  as  Alderman  Bennett  has  pointed 
out,  it  is  the  policy  adopted  in  all  the 
foreign  countries,  foreign  municpal  gov- 
ernment everywhere  without  exception. 
The  only  exception  of  any  consequence 
with  which  I am  familiar  was  in  Paris, 
where  the  national  government  itself 
selects  and  imposes  upon  the  state  its 
chief  executive;  that  the  policy  every- 
where has  been  to  have  the  city  council 
elect  its  executive  and  hold  him  respon- 
sible to  that  council,  so  that  when  the 
legislative  policy  changes  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  law  changes  with  it,  and 
when  the  city  council  has  determined 
that  an  ordinance  shall  be  so  and  so, 
the  executive  is  responsible  for  it.  We 
would  see  immediately  a great  im- 
provement in  the  city  council  if  this 
policy  were  brought  about.  It  would 
tend  at  once  to  improve  the  whole 
personnel  and  character  of  the  city 
council.  It  would  dignify  the  meetings 
and  add  greatly  to  the  efficiency  of  the 
members,  more  than  any  other  step 
that  could  be  taken  in  this  community. 
There  are  two  functions  of  the  mayor 
with  which  we  are  familiar  and  to 
which  we  attach  importance.  The  first 
one  I have  referred  to,  the  executive 
and  administrative  capacity,  his  en- 
forcement of  the  law  as  the  chief  ex- 
ecutive, and  that  of  the  chief  legis- 
lator. The  other  function  to  which  we 
must  attach  importance  is  the  exercise 
of  the  veto  power.  These  two  things 
have  no  relation  to  one  another,  you 
may  say.  As  Mr.  McCormick  has  said, 
the  government  was  founded  with  the 
policy  of  differentiating  and  separating 
the  great  departments,  the  judicial,  the 
I executive  and  the  administrative.  And 


November  30 


66 


1906 


what  has  been  the  result  in  the  national 
government?  The  result  has  been  that 
it  practically  abandoned  the  exercise  of 
the  veto  power.  Now  take  it  when  Mr. 
Cleveland  was  President;  how  often  was 
his  veto  power  exercised?  What  about 
this  practice  brought  to  perfection  by 
President  McKinley?  Why,  the  Presi- 
dent would  confer  with  the  members 
of  the  Senate  in  advance,  and  in  fact 
the  discussions  were  broad  on  all  ques- 
tions with  the  Senate,  and  so  that  is  a 
matter 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  time  has 

expired,  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  ECKHART:  I ask  for  a suspen 
sion  of  the  rules,  and  that  Mr.  Fisher 
be  allowed  to  proceed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  for  thf 

Convention  to  decide;  are  you  ready 
for  the  question? 

The  motion  prevailed. 

MR.  FISHER:  Gentlemen,  I have  no 
desire  to  impose  my  views  upon  anyone 
unnecessarily,  but  I am  interested  in 
this  subject,  and  I regard  it  as  of  very 
vital  importance  for  the  success  of  this 
work.  President  McKinley,  as  I was 
saying,  perfected  the  system  under 
which,  before  a bill  went  through  the 
House  of  Representatives  or  through 
the  Senate  particularly,  he  called  be- 
fore him  into  conference  the  men 
who  were  controlling  the  policies  of 
those  respective  matters  and  in  almost 
every  instance  they  agreed  upon  the 
policy  of  legislation  before  it  went  into 
effect.  Now  what  about  the  city  coun- 
cil of  to-day?  We  can  look  back  over 
the  days  when  Carter  Harrison  sat  with 
the  local  transportation  committee  in 
various  matters.  When  it  proposed  the 
framing  of  a so  called  tentative  ordin- 
ance, he  sat  with  that  committee  and 
discussed  with  them  the  ordinance,  and 
he  had  the  final  word,  the  veto  power 
which  he  might  exercise  in  regard  to 
every  section  of  that  ordinance  if  it 
did  not  suit  him.  The  same  is  true  I 
to-day.  I am  not  complaining  of  it;  it  | 


is  the  necessary  outgrowth  of  our  policy. 
Now  we  have  the  mayor  of  the  city  sit- 
ting with  a committee  from  the  Tele- 
phone Company  and  with  a committee 
from  the  Transportation  Company,  ex- 
ercising the  function  of  a member  of 
the  city  council.  Now  I say  to  you 
that  may  be  all  right,  if  we  are  to  elect 
a man  to  do  that  thing,  if  the  people 
of  Chicago  want  to  elect  a man  who  is 
going  to  be  the  chief  legislative  officer, 
a man  who  shall  represent  the  whole 
power  of  the  people  as  distinguished 
from  the  representatives  of  the  several 
wards,  if  that  is  a wise  policy,  if  he 
is  intelligent,  it  may  be  all  right  as 
far  as  that  goes,  but  when  at  the  same 
time  you  are  electing  a man  as  chief 
executive,  and  one  who  is  chief  legis- 
lator, you  are  combining  two  proposi- 
tions. Now  you  cannot  combine  those 
two  propositions,  and  you  must  chose 
in  selecting  a man.  Suppose  for  in- 
stance, to  illustrate,  two  men  are  run- 
ning for  offices  in  city  elections;  here 
is  a man  running  for  the  office  of  mayor; 
everybody  in  the  community  practically 
concedes,  let  us  say,  that  he  has  the 
highest  executive  qualifications,  is  a 
better  administrative  official  than  any 
of  his  competitors;  but  upon  a question 
of  public  policy  then  of  immediate  im- 
portance he  has  a certain  position  with 
which  the  majority  of  the  people  in  the 
City  do  not  agree;  and  then  another  of 
his  competitors  who  may  have  little  or 
no  executive  capacity,  who  cannot  claim 
any  very  great  administrative  or  execu- 
tive experience,  happens  to  be  in  accord 
with  the  majority  of  people  upon  this 
single  question  of  legislative  policy,  why, 
the  people  will  elect  the  second  man  with 
the  result  that  we  have  possibly  a rela- 
tively insufficient  administration.  Now, 
if  you  put  the  mayor  in  a position 
where  he  is  responsible  to  the  council, 
where  he  is  responsible  for  only  exe- 
cuting the  law,  where  the  man  that 
executes  the  law  has  no  other  connec- 
tion with  the  law,  has  no  views  upon 


November  30 


67 


1906 


the  policy  itself,  only  the  one  proposi- 
tion, that  “I  am  here  as  executive  to 
execute  whatever  law  you  pass,”  then 
you  will  get  an  efficient  executive  ad- 
ministrative. 

MR.  COLE:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  may,  Mr. 

Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Fisher  if  he  thinks  if  the  Congress 
of  the  United  States  had  been  electing 
the  President  that  we  would  have  had 
any  rate  legislation  last  winter? 

MR.  FISHER:  That  would  depend 

upon  when  you  adopted  it.  The  one 
great  difficulty  with  all  discussions  of 
these  things  is  this,  that  sometimes  we 
think  that  when  we  have  any  change  in 
the  government,  that  if  we  have  a 
change  in  one  thing  we  imagine  that 
all  the  rest  is  going  to  change,  as  it 
were.  Now  that  never  happened.  If 
it  had  been  the  policy  of  the  people  of 
this  country  for  any  considerable  period, 
any  period  long  enough  so  that  the 
people  understood  the  policy  that  they 
were  electing  members  of  Congress  only, 
a legislator,  and  not  say,  “Why,  that  is 
John  Smith,  of  this  district,  why  that  is 
all  right;  John  will  go  down  there,  he  is 
a good  fellow,  he  is  a good  fellow,  he 
don’t  do  very  much,  but  if  he  don’t 
do  it  why  the  President  will  veto  it; 
that  is  all  right.”  And  John  goes  down 
there,  and  he  will  carry  out  the  Presi- 
dent’s policy.  So  long  as  we  are  elect- 
ing men  to  Congress  on  that  basis  w( 
won ’t  get  any  initiative  or  or  any  good 
government. 

Ml?.  COLE:  If  the  common  council 

had  been  electing  a mayor  in  1898  and 
in  1900  would  we  have  had  the  stree' 
car  question  settled  between  the  City 
and  street  car  companies  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  in  your  opinion? 

MR.  FISHER:  In  my  judgment  we 

would.  Not  if  it  started  in  1898.  Let 
us  be  frank  with  one  another.  No,  not 
if  the  first  council  that  elected  a mayor 


had  beeii  elected  in  1898,  no,  because 
we  would  have  had  half  the  council  at 
least  elected  under  circumstances  when 
that  would  not  have  been  the  policy  of 
the  people  at  all;  but  I say  to  you  if 
you  elect  a Congress  to-day — I should 
say  if  you  elect  a member  of  the  city 
council  to-day,  and  it  was  understood 
by  the  people  of  this  city  that  the  coun- 
cil so  elected  was  really  going  to  settle 
your  street  car  question,  I say  you 
would  get  that  kind  of  a council;  you 
would  not  get  in  there  any  other  kind 
of  a council.  But  not  under  a situation 
such  as  you  have  now,  where  wards  that 
vote  in  favor  of  a certain  policy  in  re- 
gard to  public  franchises  elect  an  aider- 
man,  a man  that  is  known  by  everybody 
to  be  against  that  policy.  If  a city 
will  elect  to  its  council  as  a member 
of  such  council  over  and  over  again 
men  from  a certain  ward  who  are  in 
favor  of  a policy  or  against  a policy 
that  is  absolutely  diametrically  op- 
posed to  the  conscience  of  their  con- 
stituents, what  then?  Why,  the  reason 
they  do  that  is  because  the  constituents 
say,  “We  are  going  to  elect  so  and  so 
mayor,  and  he  is  going  to  control  that 
policy,  because  he  has  the  veto  power.” 
So  you  will  never  get  good  responsible 
public  government  until  you  do  away 
with  that  situation.  It  should  be  so  that 
when  the  people  are  voting  for  an  ex- 
ecutive they  vote  for  an  executive,  and 
when  they  vote  for  a legislator,  they 
vote  in  favor  of  a legislator.  I men- 
tion these  facts  for  the  reason  that 
I am  not  clear  that  the  people  of  this 
town  have  thought  enough  about  this 
question  yet  to  go  to  the  proposition, 
which  is  really  the  proposition  which 
they  are  to  adopt,  namely,  this  alter- 
native we  are  about  to  vote  upon,  and 
for  that  reason  Alternative  No.  2 was 
sugested  in  here,  that  we  should  elect 
two  officers,  one  a president  of  the  city 
council  elected  with  this  veto  power,  a 
man  who  will  be  elected  as  chief  execu- 
tive, a man  whom  the  masses  of  the 


November  30 


68 


1906 


people  will  vote  for  because » he  will 
represent  the  entire  city  and  stand  i 
place  of  the  mayor  on  all  of  those  ques- 
tions which  the  mayor  can  exercise  that 
are  not  legislative  in  character,  and 
when  they  elect  a mayor  who  will  be 
only  the  mayor,  the  chief  executive  and 
administrative  officer. 

Personally,  I believe  in  the  resolu- 
tion, the  alternative  before  the  House 
now  is  the  final  word  on  wise  municipal 
government.  Whether  that  be  admitted 
or  not,  I believe  that  every  intelligent 
person  in  this  city  will  be  in  favor  of 
it  and  none  more  in  favor  of  it  than 
those  who  believe  in  the  greatest  pos- 
sible freedom  and  responsibility  of  pub- 
lic government. 

MR.  B.|  A.  ECKHART:  I would  like 
to  say  a few  words;  a great  deal  has 
been  said  by  the  different  speakers  who 
have  just  spoken,  and  very  beautifully 
too.  I remember  a great  many  years 
ago  when  the  president  of  the  County 
Board  was  elected  by  the  members  of 
the  Board,  and  remember  distinctly  that 
at  that  time  it  was  always  considered 
a promiscuous  practice;  it  was  always 
brought  before  the  public  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  indicate  that  there  was 
some  scandal  in  connection  with  the 
president  of  the  board,  and  it  was  uni- 
versally condemned  by  the  public  and 
the  practice  was  discontinued.  I also 
recall  some  years  ago  when  the  sanitary 
district  law  was  passed  and  the  trustees 
elected  its  president.  We  all  remem- 
ber distinctly  that  when  the  president 
was  chosen  by  members  they  had  no 
such  lofty  ideas  in  their  heads,  at  least 
they  did  not  express  them,  that  the 
man  who  was  best  qualified  for  the 
position  should  be  elected.  Usually  it 
was,  “How  much  can  I make  out  of 
it  or  get  out  of  it?  What  combination 
can  I make?”  It  was  not  the  exalted 
and  lofty  idea  expressed  by  Mr.  Fisher 
that  the  members  of  the  County  Board 
or  the  Sanitary  District  had  in  their 
minds,  as  to  who  was  the  best  qualified 


man  or  who  had  the  best  executive  abil- 
ity, but  what  can  I make  out  of  it? 
what  combination  can  I effect?  And  so 
combinations  were  effected,  and  the 
man  who  was  elected  had  to  stand  for 
them.  That  is  the  practical  result. 
There  are  some  things  we  can  follow 
and  that  we  can  copy  from  the  law  and 
practices  on  the  other  side;  there  are 
other  things  which  would  be  a fallacy 
to  copy  and  practice.  Many  years  ago. 
the  practice  of  electing  a mayor  the 
chief  executive  was  abandoned  by  the 
city,  by  this  city  council.  It  was  aban- 
doned. Whatever  the  circumstances 
were,  the  people  felt  they  had  good  and 
distinct  reasons  for  abandoning  it.  I 
believe  that  the  mayor  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  should  be  elected  by  the  people, 
and  I do  not  believe  that  you  can  to-day 
frame  a charter  and  submit  it  to  the 
people  of  this  city  and  the  legislature. 
I don’t  think  they  will  adopt  a pro- 
position by  which  the  council  may 
elect  a mayor. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I rise  to  a ques- 
tion of  privilege. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  rules  pro- 

vide that  a speaker  shall  not  be  heard 
but  once. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Merely  because 

my  acquaintance  with  the  literature  on 
the  subject  has  been  questioned.  I am 
acquainted  with  the  book  spoken  of  by 
the  gentleman  who  preceded  Mr.  Eck- 
hart.  I did  not  mention  the  fact  that 
there  it  was  suggested  that  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  could  be 
elected  by  the  Senate  because  of  this 
fact;  I do  not  think  we  are  looking  for 
lessons  in  government  from  Russia.  The 
book  is  undoubtedly  a thorough  and 
ably  written  one,  and  useful  for  the 
purpose  of  schools,  possibly,  but  for 
the  teaching  of  politicians  who  have 
spent  two  years  or  more  in  the  city 
council,  or  have  spent  several  years 
elsewhere  it  has  no  value.  Its  com- 
ments on  American  politics  are  so  loose 
as  in  my  mind  to  be  ridiculous.  It 


November  30 


69 


1906 


may  be  of  use  for  the  purpose  of  in- 
structing the  ignorant,  but  it  is  of  nc 
value  to  the  gentlemen  of  this  Con 
vention,  I am  sure,  and  I feel  that  they 
would  rather  vote  in  accordance  with 
their  own  experience  and  their  experi- 
ence with  the  city,  than  according  to 
the  views  of  the  most  learned  academic- 
school  or  municipal  government  teach 
ers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  chair  wil 

suggest  that  when  motions  are  mad 
hereafter  to  extend  the  time  of 
speaker  that  it  be  extended  for  r 
specific  time;  the  chair  does  not  wanJ 
to  have  any  misunderstanding,  so  tin 
motion  should  fix  the  time. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  This  particul 

alternative  that  has  been  suggested 
here,  it  seems  to  me,  under  our  system 
of  government  would  be  a disappoint- 
ment. We  have  not  applied  that  system 
in  any  particular  locality  of  the  whole 
United  States,  but  we  have  to  face  con- 
ditions as  we  find  them.  I would  be 
willing  to  see  a great  many  checks  and 
balances  in  order  to  have  a responsible 
government,  a government  responsible 
to  public  demands,  but  we  are  not 
ready  for  that  at  the  present  time.  The 
people  are  not  ideally  trained,  and  we 
have  to  take  the  people  as  we  fin* 
them;  for  that  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  il 
seems  to  me  we  need  those  checks  am 
balances  that  we  have  at  the  present 
time.  Suppose  we  turned  to  this  othe 
system,  the  result  might  be  just  exactk 
as  it  was  and  as  it  has  been  in  tin 
legislature.  The  legislature  is  to  elect 
a senator.  If  the  persons  are  elected 
to  the  legislature  with  reference  to  their 
opinion  on  the  senatorship  it  might  rea 
sonably  be  held  they  would  elect  per 
sons  to  that  office  with  reference  to 
their  opinion  upon  the  question  of  the 
executive,  or  the  personnel  of  the  e' 
ecutive.  And  while  it  may  be  said  that 
these  duties  of  the  executive  depart 
ment  entrench  upon  the  functions  o 
the  legislative  department,  to  my  op: 


ion  that  furnishes  no  sufficient  reason 
for  making  a radical  change  of  thi 
nature.  The  city  council  at  variou 
times  has  seen  fit  to  assert  itself,  and 
the  city  council  will  rely  upon  that  in 
future.  In  the  future  it  will  assert 
itself  and  refuse  to  be  dominated  so 
far  as  its  legislative  policies  are  con 
cerned  by  an  executive  officer.  Tin 
mere  fact  that  it  has  done  so  or  has 
not  done  so  at  various  times  in  the  past 
furnishes  to  my  opinion  no  sufficient 
reason  for  making  a radical  change  of 
this  character. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

as  a question  for  information.  Is  it 
the  intention  of  this  amendment  that 
the  mayor  shall  be  elected  from  the 
city  council,  or  from  a body  of  citizens 
that  the  city  council  might  desire? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  I understand 

it,  the  discussion  is  of  the  second  alter- 
native to  No.  3,  which  does  not  limit 
the  election  of  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil; simply  provides  that  the  mayor 
shall  be  elected  by  the  city  council. 

MR.  SNOW : Before  this  question  is 

put  to  a vote  of  this  Convention  it 
seems  to  me  we  should  consider  it  from 
the  standpoint  of  practical  things  as 
they  exist  in  Chicago,  and  as  they  are 
likely  to  continue  lo  exist,  with  the 
political  conditions  that  prevail  in 
this  municipality,  and  in  all  American 
municipalities.  I might  very  readily 
agree  that  the  City  of  Chicago  would 
perhaps  be  better  served  if  it  were 
accustomed  to  select  a chief  executive 
officer  from  the  membership  of  its  city 
council,  because  of  the  experience  which 
they  have  secured,  and  because  of  the 
knowledge  which  they, have  gained  of 
municipal  affairs;  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  to  provide  that  the  mayor  shall  be 
elected  by  the  city  council  will  inevi- 
tably bring  about  a condition  of  affairs 
by  which  the  members  of  the  city  coun- 
cil elected  to  the  city  council  will  be  so 
elected  practically  as  the  gentlemen 
who  are  on  the  electoral  ticket  at  the 


November  30 


70 


1906 


national  election.  It  is  true,  as  Mr. 
Fisher  has  said,  that  the  election  of 
the  mayor  of  Chicago  in  the  past  and 
probably  in  the  future,  will  hinge  upon 
some  single  question  of  the  hour.  But 
if  the  city  council  is  elected  for  the 
purpose  of  electing  that  mayor  it  must 
follow  inevitably  that  the  council  itself 
will  be  chosen  for  the  purpose  of  electing 
the  mayor,  and  they  will  be  chosen 
upon  the  same  single  issue  therefor 
that  the  mayor  is  chosen  upon.  Now, 
if  Mr.  Fisher  is  correct,  that  we  do  not 
secure  the  best  executive  ability  when 
we  elect  a chief  magistrate  simply  upon 
some  question  of  the  hour,  then  it  equal- 
ly follows  that  we  will  not  secure  the 
best  results  in  electing  a council  if  the 
membership  of  that  entire  council  is  to 
be  selected  upon  that  one  single  issue. 
Now  it  has  happened  frequently  in  the 
mayoralty  election,  that  the  member 
elected  to  the  council  comes  from  one 
political  party,  whereas  the  majority 
vote  of  that  ward  is  for  the  candidate 
of  the  other  party.  Is  that  condition 
of  affairs  better,  or  will  the  gentleman 
maintain  it  would  be  better  to  select 
the  members  of  the  city  council  solely 
upon  the  political  issue?  That  would 
be  the  practical  result.  Now  it  cer- 
tainly seems  to  me  that  we  should,  as 
far  as  possible,  divorce  the  legislative 
body  of  Chicago  from  a purely  political 
issue;  but  if  I am  right  in  that  view, 
to  adopt  this  alternative  would  mean 
that  the  city  council  should  be  elected 
purely  upon  partisan  lines  because  of 
the  conditions  which  prevail  in  this 
municipality,  and  all  others,  the  chief 
executive,  will  continue  to  be  nomi- 
nated and  elected  from  the  political 
parties. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I am  greatly  sur- 

prised at  the  attitude  of  my  neighbor, 
Alderman  Snow,  and  Mr.  Eckhart  and 
Mr.  McCormick  on  this  question.  This 
is  an  original  proposition,  the  election 
of  a mayor  by  popular  vote,  and  in 
opposition  to  the  time-honored  and  suc- 


cessful system  of  chosing  the  mayor 
by  means  of  the  votes  of  the  city  coun- 
cil. What  is  the  newest  proposition  in 
the  world  of  municipal  affairs?  Who 
left  this  child  on  our  doorstep,  this 
doctrine  which  is  spoken  of  here,  this 
plan  known  as  the  newest  form  of 
municipal  government?  I venture  to 
say  there  is  not  now  on  the  face  of  the 
globe  a successfully  governed  city  in 
which  you  have  a mayor  chosen  by 
public  vote,  or  a council  chosen  by  any 
other  vote  at  all.  I challenge  the  gen- 
tlemen to  give  a single  instance  either 
in  this  country  or  in  any  other  country 
in  the  civilized  world  where  our  present 
plan  is  successfully  operating,  where 
the  citizens  of  the  community  have  a 
well-governed  city.  There  are  none  t< 
be  found.  This  is  a novel  proposition. 
It  has  been  tried  for  fifty  years  in  the 
large  American  cities,  and  as  the  result 
of  fifty  years  ’ experience  we  have  what 
Mr.  Bryce  calls  a municipal  government 
that  is  a weak  spot  in  American  po- 
litical institutions.  This  is  not  a record 
to  be  proud  of,  but  it  is  a record  to 
be  ashamed  of.  The  doctrine  of  the 
fathers,  to  which  Mr.  McCormick  al- 
luded to  in  his  historical  discussion,  the 
doctrine  of  the  fathers  are  the  customr 
of  the  days  of  George  Washington. 
Thomas  Jefferson  and  Benjamin  Frank 
lin;  that  was  the  only  system  they 
knew  anything  about.  Why  did  they 
give  it  up?  Not  because  it  had  been 
tried  and  found  wanting,  not  becausr 
there  were  weak  spots  in  that;  it  was 
tried,  and  it  was  abandoned  because  o 
the  fact  that  the  cities  began  to  imitate 
the  national  government.  Old  Andrew 
Jackson,  commonly  known  as  King  An- 
drew in  his  day,  was  victorious  over 
the  legislature,  and  shortly  after  his 
victory,  which  aroused  public  spirit  in 
every  state  in  this  country  they  pro- 
ceeded to  provide  for  popular  election 
of  government;  the  original  plan  was 
just  the  government  of  the  legislature, 
but  many  of  the  states  tried  this  plan 


November  30 


71 


1906 


in  municipal  matters.  The  scheme  wa 
not  abandoned  because  of  failure,  bu' 
simply  because  every  place,  every  vil 
lage  imitated  those  things,  and  the 
trouble  was  that  the  national  form  of 
government  would  not  fit  the  little 
places.  They  tried  the  anology,  and  it 
would  not  do.  Now  with  regard  to  the 
proposition  as  Mr.  Fisher  has  advocated 
it.  So  far  as  the  business  of  the  worlc 
is  concerned,  we  have  no  corporation  in 
the  United  States  that  chooses  its 
officers.  They  elect  boards  of  di- 
rectors and  the  boards  of  directors 
choose  the  president;  the  president  fol- 
lows the  policy  of  the  corporation, 
which  the  directors  pass  upon,  and  the 
president  chosen  by  the  board  of  di- 
rectors administers  and  carries  out  the 
policy  that  they  have  decided  upon. 
Now  of  course  they  are  influenced  by 
his  judgment,  and  they  are  guided  by 
him  to  a large  extent,  but  the  question 
of  determining  the  outlines  of  the  cor- 
poration ’s  policy  is  determined  by  the 
board  of  directors.  The  city  is  a big 
business  corporation.  Now  the  func- 
tion of  a mayor,  as  has  been  stated,  is 
an  administration  of  the  government. 
He  is  presumed  to  be  and  he  ought  to 
be  a legislator,  an  expert  in  legislation 
and  in  administration.  The  function 
of  the  mayor  is  the  same  function  as 
the  president  of  a railroad  company. 
The  administration  policy  has  been  de- 
cided upon.  That  has  been  shown  in 
this  city;  we  have  been  frequently  em- 
barrassed by  the  fact  that  we  choose 
between  two  things.  He  was  a poor 
administrator,  but  understood  well  the 
question  of  public  policy,  stood  well  on 
that  question,  or  he  was  not  on  the 
popular  side  of  the  general  question, 
and  at  the  same  time  an  expert  ad- 
ministrator. I think  it  is  at  least 
worthy  of  careful  consideration  from 
the  members  of  this  Convention,  and 
they  should  know  the  true  position  in- 
volved in  this  scheme  we  are  now 
trying,  and  that  the  scheme  we  are 


now  trying  is  invalid.  It  has  been 
shown  to  be  a failure,  and  the  funda- 
mental principle  of  city  government  is 
the  separation  of  the  legislative  from 
the  administrative  function. 

ME.  POST:  If  I may  be  permitted, 

I wish  to  renew  my  motion.  It  seems 
to  me  the  discussion  here  this  after- 
noon is  sufficient  argument  in  favor  of 
the  motion,  that  we  should  not  be 
driven  to  decide  so  important  a question 
at  this  particular  meeting.  My  motion 
is  that  this  whole  subject  be  made  a 
special  order  for  a special  day. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Any  second  to 

that  motion? 

MR.  JONES:  I second  that  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  ob 
jection  to  continuing  the  discussion  and 
renewing  your  motion  at  the  end  of  it? 

MR.  POST:  I have  no  objection,  if 

you  will  adopt  my  motion.  I have  t 
keep  an  appointment  at  four  o’clock, 
and  I don’t  want  to  stay  here. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  May  I ask  this,  what 

is  to  be  gained  by  this  attitude  on  his 
part?  We  have  been  discussing  thir 
question,  and  it  has  been  discussed  very 
intelligently  by  the  various  men  whe 
have  spoken,  and  I think  his  motion  i 
rather  a reflection  upon  what  has  al- 
ready taken  place.  It  seems  to  me 
that  there  may  be  others  who  wish  to 
speak  upon  the  question;  we  should 
get  right  at  it,  we  should  do  something 
here.  We  should  carry  this  to  six 
o’clock,  if  anyone  be  ready  to  vote.  If 
we  are  going  to  adjourn  this  thing  to 
another  day,  are  we  going  over  this 
thing,  all  these  matters  that  we  havr 
gone  over  this  afternoon,  again?  W< 
have  come  here  because  we  thought 
there  would  be  a large  number  of  the 
members  of  the  Convention  present. 
Now  let  us  get  down  to  business.  W 
meet  again  upon  Monday  or  Tuesday 
and  go  over  the  same  thing  again;  if 
we  keep  on  deferring  and  deferring  wo 
will  not  be  ready  for  the  legislature 
when  it  meets. 


November  30 


72 


1906 


ME.  POST:  I want  to  get  down  tf 

business,  and  I have  been  getting  dowr 
to  business  for.  ten  months,  while  some 
gentlemen  were  out  in  the  country  or  iu 
Europe,  and  not  down  to  business,  not 
attending  to  the  business  of  this  Con- 
vention. Some  of  us  have  been  attend- 
ing to  the  business  of  this  Convention. 
We  couldn’t  get  quorums,  we  could  not 
make  any  headway,  perhaps;  now,  after 
all  that,  I don’t  think  you  can  push  this 
thing  like  this,  to  a finish.  I have  no 
objection  to  the  debate  going  on,  but 
I do  object  to  pushing  it  to  a final 
vote. 

THE  CHAIBMAN : This  is  not  a 

final  vote.  The  chairman  will  consider 
for  the  purposes  of  your  motion  that 
it  is  to  defer  the  further  discussion  or 
debate  on  the  subject. 

ME.  POST:  No,  I don’t  want  to  ir 

terfere  with  the  debate  at  all;  I wish 
to  defer  the  vote. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Will  you  put  it 

in  form,  frame  your  motion? 

ME.  POST:  My  motion  is,  I make  e 

motion  that  the  consideration  of  this 
subject,  the  subject  under  discussion,  be 
continued,  but  not  voted  upon. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan 

made  a motion  that  the  second  alter- 
native there  to  No.  3 be  laid  upon  the 
table.  Your  motion  now  is  that  no 
vote  be  taken  on  the  subject,  but  that 
the  entire  matter  be  deferred  to  a day 
specially  set  for  that  purpose. 

ME.  POST:  That  was  tfiy  motion;  I 

don’t  care  for  the  particular  form  ot 
the  motion.  What  I want  is  simply  to 
postpone  the  vote  upon  the  question 
and  at  the  same  time  hold  the  right  of 
discussion  open. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  If  you  will  make 
your  motion  so  that  I can  have  it  ac- 
curately— 

ME.  POST:  I move  that  no — I will 

put  it  in  the  old  form;  I move  that  it 
be  made  a special  order  for  a particula 
day. 


ME.  BENNETT:  As  I understood  it 
when  we  entered  upon  this  discussion, 
the  discussion  of  this  proposition,  it 
was  with  the  idea  there  would  be  no 
definite  action  taken  to-day.  Am  I cor- 
rect? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  There  was  nc 

definite  plan  adopted  by  the  Conven- 
tion; but  Mr.  Post’s  motion  was  lef' 
open  during  the  discussion.  Mr.  Post’s 
motion  as  a substitute  comes  in  pro- 
perly at  the  time  Mr.  Shanahan’s  mo- 
tion is  put. 

ME.  BENNETT:  What  is  Mr.  Shana- 
han’s motion? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  If  Mr.  Shanahan 
wants  to  renew  his  motion  at  this  time 
your  substitute  would  then  be  in  order. 

ME.  POST:  I might  be  willing  to  ac- 
cept it. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  My  motion  was 

that  alternative  No.  3 be  laid  on  the 
table. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Upon  this  motion 
this  discussion  has  been  had;  you  offer 
this  as  a substitute  for  the  other? 

ME.  POST:  No,  I offer  the  motion 

itself. 

ME.  WEBNO:  I rise  to  a point  of 

order.  The  motion  originally  was  to 
lay  this  question  upon  the  table,  and 
this  discussion  was  then  had. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:-  We  will  try  to 
keep  this  as  far  from  school  parlia- 
mentary practice  as  possible  so  as  to 
give  the  fullest  measure  and  oppor- 
tunity for  discussion. 

ME.  BADENOCH:  I understood  that 
Mr.  Shanahan’s  motion  to  lay  upon  the 
table  was  withdrawn  out  of  courtesy 
to  Alderman  Bennett,  who  wished  to 
speak  on  the  subject;  so  that  until  he 
renews  that  motion  it  is  not  before  the 
Convention.  I must  say  I have  come 
to  the  conclusion  from  the  talks  on  the 
previous  question  that  it  would  be  en- 
tirely unwise  to  hasten  a vote  on  this 
subject  to  come  before  the  Convention 
in  relation  to  the  chief  magistrate  of 
the  city.  I think  it  would  be  very  wise, 


November  30 


73 


1906 


now  that  this  discussion  has  been  had 
to  this  point,  that  no  attempt  be  made 
at  this  time  until  we  can  have  a further 
opportunity  to  make  a special  matter 
of  it.  I very  strenuously  favor  the 
suggestion  of  Mr.  Post,  before  taking 
a final  vote  we  shall  have  further  dis- 
cussion on  the  subject. 

MR.  HILL:  In  about  five  weeks ’ 

time  the  legislature  will  begin  its  work, 
and  this  subject  will  all  come  up  to 
them;  it  has  got  to  be  understood  by 
those  who  will  be  asked  to  vote  upon 
it.  There  are  undoubtedly  many  other 
points  in  this  matter  that  are  as  im- 
portant as  this,  and  each  time  we  come 
to  one  of  these  we  are  going  to  meet 
this  sort  of  delay,  and  the  result  will 
be  we  won’t  get  down  there  until  the 
General  Assembly  has  adjourned,  and 
we  will  have  to  wait  for  two  years 
more.  Now  we  all  are  business  men,  we 
all  have  business  to  attend  to;  we  have 
laid  that  aside  to  come  here  to  discuss 
and  hear  discussed  these  propositions. 
It  seems  to  me  we  should  go  at  this 
methodically,  and  when  these  questions 
come  up  we  should  consider  them,  and 
this  Convention  should  decide  what  it 
is  going  to  do  upon  those  questions  and 
vote  upon  them.  You  put  this  over  a 
week  and  there  is  one  more  week  gone. 
There  are  probably  half  a dozn  other 
things  as  important  as  this,  and  this 
should  not  be  put  over  again.  We  have 
a large  attendance  here  to-day,  probably 
larger  that  we  will  have  again.  Now  we 
will  have  to  explain  this  thoroughly 
to  the  members  of  the  legislature,  and 
many  of  them  are  country  members, 
and  we  will  have  to  instruct  every  one 
of  them,  and  all  those  matters,  and  if 
you  wait  until  the  legislature  is  done 
you  won ’t  get  anything  done. 

MR.  JONES:  I seconded  Mr.  Post’s 

motion  because  I believed  that  at  this 
first  meeting  at  any  rate,  we  would 
not  get  to  a vote  on  this  proposition.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  others  have  had 
thoughts  suggested  to  them  by  the  dis- 


cussion here  that  they  would  like  to  re- 
fresh their  mind  on.  For  instance,  I 
have  a faint  recollection  that  the  pro- 
position of  having  the  mayor  elected  by 
the  city  council  was  in  one  of  the 
former  city  charters  of  Chicago.  In 
that  case  I would  like  to  investigate 
that  and  ascertain  why  it  was  dis- 
carded and  the  present  plan  adopted. 
I would  like  to  make  further  investi- 
gation of  the  matter.  I believe  it  is 
unwise  to  give  the  Convention  any  ques- 
tions of  importance  on  the  same  day 
in  which  they  are  discussed,  because  I 
believe  that  if  we  produce  a charter 
here  that  is  merely  a makeshift  mea- 
sure, when  you  get  down  to  Springfield 
the  legislature  will  say  they  have  no 
respect  for  the  deliberations  of  this 
body. 

MR.  HOYNE:  As  a member  of  this 

Convention  who  has  attended  to  busi- 
ness in  town  every  day,  I am  anxious 
for  business,  but  I am  in  favor  of  Mr, 
Post ’s  motion  to  this  extent,  that  an 
hour  be  set  and  named  on  Monday  when 
a vote  will  be  taken,  and  I think  we 
can  get  down  to  business,  and  if  we 
care  to  adopt  that  measure  or  any 
other  proposition  we  will  then  get 
down  to  business  and  get  some  action. 

MR.  POST:  I am  willing  to  accept 

that  to  this  extent,  if  we  can  adjourn 
to  some  hour  certain. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I desire  to  say 

to  the  Convention  that  I made  this  mo- 
tion to  bring  the  matter  before  the 
Convention.  Mr.  Hill  has  practically 
said  what  I intended  to  say,  that  the 
legislature  will  convene  in  five  weeks, 
about,  and  that  it  will  take  about  two 
weeks  of  the  law  committee’s  time  to 
draft  this  charter  after  this  Convention 
has  passed  upon  it.  That  gives  this 
Convention  three  weeks  to  work.  Now 
if  they  had  met  two  weeks  ago  and 
talked  for  an  hour  or  an  hour  and  a 
half  at  a time,  and  if  they  had  wanted 
to  “go  over  until  the  next  day”  the 
Charter  Convention  would  have  had 


November  30 


74 


1906 


nothing  for  its  three  week’s  time.  I 
am  surprised  that  any  member  of  this 
Convention  is  not  now  prepared  to 
vote  upon  every  proposition  that  is 
presented  to  this  Convention.  You  have 
been  members  of  the  Convention  for 
twelve  months,  and  you  have  attended 
to  various  committee  meetings,  and  you 
have  had  a draft  of  these  resolutions 
in  your  possession  five  or  six  days;  I 
want  to  ask  you  what  you  have  done? 
If  you  have  not  read  them  in  the  last 
five  or  six  days  you  won’t  in  the  next 
five  or  six  days.  If  we  put  this  matter 
over  until  Monday  when  we  meet  then 
someone  will  say  then,  “This  is  a very 
important  matter,  it  should  not  be  voted 
on  at  this  time;  we  ought  to  have  time 
to  consider  it.  ’ ’ The  time  for  con- 
sideration is  past;  now  is  the  time  to 
act. 

ME.  THOMPSON:  I believe  we 

should  vote  on  this  matter.  I don’t  be- 
lieve there  are  many  here  that  want 
the  city  council  to  elect  our  mayor.  I 
will  tell  you  how  I am  going  to  vote 
on  this  proposition;  I am  going  to  vote 
“No,”  because  the  only  way  to  get 
popular  government  is  to  do  the  way 
we  do. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Post’s  motion  to  defer  thr 
taking  of  a vote  upon  this  question 
until  some  future  day,  and  upon  that 
the  secretary  will  now  call  the  roll. 

ME.  WEENO:  That  leaves  it  in  too 

indefinite  shape.  I suggest  to  Mr.  Post 
that  it  be  that  the  further  consideration 
of  this  matter  be  postponed  until  the 
next  regular  meeting  of  this  convention, 
which  may  be  next  Monday  at  two 
o ’clock. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  That  the  further 
consideration  of  this  matter  be  deferred 
until  the  next  regular  meeting.  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll: 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Dever, 
Fisher,  Guerin,  Hovne,  Jones,  Merriam, 


Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Eobins,  Bosen- 
thal— 13. 

Nays — Beebe,  Brown,  Burke,  Clet- 
tenberg,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Hill,  Kit- 
tleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan, 
MacCormick,  McKinley,  O’Donnell, 
Powers,  Baymer,  Bevell,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Swift,  Thompson  Yopicka,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 37. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  13  yeas;  37  nays. 
The  motion  is  lost.  The  question  now 
reverts  to  Mr.  Shanahan’s  motion  to 
place  the  second  alternative  on  the 
table.  The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

The  Secretary  called  the  roll: 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Brown,  Burke, 
Clettenberg,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Hill,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMil- 
lan, McCormick  McKinley,  O’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Powers,  Bevell,  Eob- 
ins, Eosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shep- 
ard, Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Swift, 
Thompson,  Yopicka,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young — 40. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Fisher,  Guerin, 
Hoync,  Merriam,  Post,  Eaymer,  Werno 

—8. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yeas,  40;  nays, 

8.  Carried.  The  Secretary  will  now 
read  the  first  alternative  to  No.  3. 

The  Secretary  read  it  as  presented. 

ME.  FISHEE:  Gentlemen:  I don’t 

want  to  repeat  what  I have  said  to  this 
Convention.  I have  appreciated  for 
some  time  that  it  would  take  some  dis- 
cussion probably  to  have  the  members 
of  this  Convention  appreciate  the  real 
necessities  of  efficient  government  of 
the  city  as  set  out  in  the  provision 
which  has  been  laid  on  the  table,  and  I 
have  felt  that  that  difficulty  would  be 
due  to  two  things,  and  I should  judge 
from  the  discussion  we  have  had  here 
that  that  anticipation  was  justified, 
namely,  that  members  of  the  Convention 


November  30 


75 


1906 


and  the  people  would  hesitate  to  put 
the  election  of  the  executive  officer  in 
the  hands  of  the  legislative  body  or 
council.  That  seems  to  them  to  be  an 
innovation,  although  as  Prof  Merriam 
has  pointed  out,  it  is  precisely  the  re- 
verse; and  consequently  they  would  hes- 
itate to  take  away  from  some  person 
elected  by  the  body  of  the  people  the 
power  to  veto  legislation.  There  are 
the  two  principal  objections  that  have 
been  urged  to  the  resolution  which  has 
has  been  laid  upon  the  table  just  now, 
and  they  are  as  I have  stated;  first, 
that  the  people  wish  to  elect  the 
executive  officer.  They  do  not  wish  to 
have  him  elected  by  the  legislative 
body;  not  yet  realizing  perhaps  that 
only  in  that  way  can  they  get  an  execu- 
tive who  should  be  the  real  responsible 
one;  and  second,  that  they  wish  some- 
body who  can  regulate  the  whole  body 
of  the  people,  who  can  be  elected  upon 
a single  issue,  who  can  represent  the 
legislative  body  as  a whole,  who  will 
exercise  that  function.  This  first  al- 
ternative to  No.  3 is  intended  to  meet 
both  of  those  objections.  The  whole 
proposition  of  that  alternative  is  to  get 
rid  of  a situation  in  which  it  is  impos- 
sible to  get  good  efficient  government  in 
this  city. 

ME.  YOPICKA:  I have  heard  this 

afternoon  from  Mr.  Fisher  that  we 
should  elect  as  good  a man  as  we  pos- 
sibly can,  and  then  he  advocates  the 
election  of  two  mayors,  one  who  would 
be  the  mayor  and  the  other  a figure- 
head. The  argument  which  I heard  here 
before  with  reference  to  some  cities  in 
Europe  is  out  of  place.  We  cannot  com- 
pare our  situation  with  the  European 
situation.  In  Europe,  in  the  first  place, 
only  those  people  vote  at  municipal 
elections  who  pay  certain  taxes.  And 
they  are  the  people  who  will  select  only 
those  who  are  in  favor  of  the  things 
they  want.  Now  if  we  shall  elect  a 
mayor  let  us  elect  a mayor  who  shall 


have  some  rights,  the  same  rights  which 
he  has  at  the  present  time. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  No  one  can  tell 

me  that  the  chief  executive  of  Chicago 
could  be  familiar  with  the  laws  and  the 
code  of  this  great  city  without  giving 
a large  portion  of  his  time  to  consider- 
ing new  legislation.  To  be  sure,  in  the 
course  of  administration,  new  legislation 
would  be  wise,  and  it  would  be  his 
duty  to  present  them  to  the  City  Coun- 
cil. It  has  been  said  that  a munici- 
pality is  practically  and  in  the  main  a 
large  corporation;  no  business  corpora- 
tion submits  the  election  of  its  presi- 
dent to  the  stockholders;  the  general 
practice  is  that  the  board  of  directors 
who  have  become  familiar  with  the 
government  and  know  the  requirements 
of  the  corporation,  are  better  fitted  to 
select  the  president  than  the  stockhold- 
ers, who  possibly  are  not  familiar  with 
the  details  of  the  business.  So  it  is 
with  the  city  government.  The  man 
at  the  head  of  the  government  should 
be  one  who  is  familiar  with  the  busi- 
ness of  governing  this  city.  In  the 
city  we  have  the  great  public  works, 
the  great  water  system,  the  great  sewer 
system,  and  special  drainage,  and  all 
that,  and  we  want  a man  who  can  min- 
ister successfully  and  who  can  give 
his  whole  time  to  the  city  and  those 
departments,  and  who  can  give  his 
time  to  familiarizing  himself  with  them. 
I believe  the  members  of  this  council 
— there  are  many  of  them  who  have 
been  in  the  past  nine  years  doing  serv- 
ice here — and  who  have  become  familiar 
with  the  workings  of  things,  and  with 
the  government  of  this  city,  I believe 
they  will  agree  with  me  that  we  would 
be  better  fitted  and  qualified  to  select 
a man  to  take  charge  of  the  city’s 
interests  than  those  who  are  not  famil- 
iar with  those  matters. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  the  Alderman  a question:  Don’t 

you  think  that  the  same  thing  would 
be  accomplished  if  the  members  of  the 


November  30 


76 


1906 


City  Council  elected  one  of  their  own 
members  to  preside  over  the  council? 

MR.  BADENOCH:  The  idea  is  that 

the  mayor  should  be  relieved  of  this 
responsibility  of  presiding. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Wouldn't  the 

same  thing  be  accomplished  if  the  coun- 
cil elected  one  of  its  own  members,  and 
not  add  another  official? 

MR.  THOMPSON:  I don't  believe 

that  the  people  of  Chicago  want  to  re- 
lieve their  mayor  of  the  privilege  of 
presiding,  because  I believe  that  priv- 
ilege, that  power,  and  that  authority, 
during  the  last  ten  years  has  saved  the 
City  of  Chicago  from  a great  deal  of 
trouble.  It  has  saved  us  in  the  case  of 
the  street  cars,  and  will  probably  save 
us  on  the  telephone  franchises.  I don't 
see  that  any  great  responsibility  is 
placed  upon  the  mayor.  I notice  that 
occasionally  the  mayor  of  our  city  takes 
a trip  to  Michigan  or  California  or 
somewhere  else,  and  I also  notice  that 
during  the  summer  there  is  a lot  of 
time  during  which  nothing  is  done  by 
the  council  or  the  mayor.  It  seems  to 
me  that  the  people  want  a rsponsible 
head  for  their  government.  They  do 
not  want  two  of  them.  They  do  not 
want  the  situation  mixed  up.  They 
want  one  man,  and  that  should  be  the 
mayor,  and  not  any  figurehead.  Now 
the  mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago  is  a 
man  that  the  people  all  can  reach,  and 
if  you  put  two  men  at  the  head  of  the 
city  government  you  have  got  things 
mixed  up,  and  the  first  thing  that  you 
know  the  corporations,  the  street  car 
companies,  and  the  telephone  companies 
and  the  others  will  walk  away  with 
everything  you  have  in  the  city.  I 
don't  think  it  is  fair  to  compare  the 
City  of  Chicago  to  a business  corpora- 
tion, and  that  they  should  be  run  as 
another  corporation,  like  an  insurance 
company,  and  a lot  of  others  that  are  a 
disgrace  to  the  country.  You  don't 
want  to  run  Chicago  like  some  of  those 


corporations.  The  mayor  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  ought  to  be  the  chairman  of 
the  City  Council,  and  he  ought  to  have 
the  veto  power  with  a provision  that 
two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the  coun- 
cil can  over-ride  him,  and  he  ought  to 
be  present  when  all  these  franchises  are 
discussed.  I believe  myself  that  the 
people  want  a responsible  head  to  the 
government, — one  that  they  can  reach 
and  go  to  at  any  time  and  make  known 
their  ideas  with  reference  to  these  fran- 
chises and  other  matters. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I would  like  to  make 
a suggestion,  and  that  is,  that  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  shall  not  finally 
vote  on  any  matter  relating  to  this  sub- 
ject of  the  mayor  and  any  other  sub- 
ject to  be  taken  up  to-day,  until  the 
next  meeting  of  the  Convention.  I 
think  the  action  of  the  members  of  the 
Convention  at  the  present  time  is  not 
one  which  they  wish  to  consider  as 
final, — I am  not  speaking  for  myself,  as 
I am  ready  to  vote  on  any  of  these 
propositions  at  this  time,  but  I did  hap- 
pen to  confer  with  several  members  of 
the  Convention  during  the  past  week, 
and  when  we  discussed  this  matter,  it 
was  generally  supposed  that  all  which 
would  transpire  this  afternoon  was 
that  the  Convention  would  meet,  adopt 
this  report,  and  then  take  some  part  of 
the  report  and  make  a special  order  of 
it  for  the  next  meeting.  While  the  dis- 
cussion is  all  right,  I would  like  to 
urge  that  in  order  to  get  a fair  hearing 
and  to  give  the  members  an  opportu- 
nity to  vote  on  this  important  matter  of 
the  functions  and  elections  of  the 
mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  that  we 
defer  final  action  until  the  next  meet- 
ing, and  I will  move  that  this  Conven- 
tion adjourn  to  meet  at  two  o'clock  on 
Monday,  and  that  the  article  covering 
the  matter  of  mayor  be  the  special  or- 
der for  that  meeting. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  Before  that 
motion  is  put,  and  in  the  event  it  should 


November  30 


77 


1906 


be  carried,  the  Chair  desires  to  report 
that  the  Committee  on  Public  Utilities, 
the  Committee  on  Municipal  Expendi- 
tures and  Accounting,  Committee  on 
Municipal  Courts  have  reported,  and 
the  Committee  on  Municipal  Parks  and 
Public  Grounds  have  put  in  a supple- 
mental report.  Printed  copies  of  these 
reports  will  be  sent  to  the  different 
members  of  the  Convention. 

Report  of  Committee  on  Public  Utili- 
ties.— Charles  Wemo,  chairman. 

Chicago  Charter  Convention : Gentle- 

men— In  making  this  report  it  is  done 
with  the  provision  that  the  particular 
sections  of  the  report  to  which  this  com- 
mittee is  committed  are  sections  1,  2,  3, 
4 and  5,  and  that  the  remaining  sections 
are  recommended  as  being  in  the  opin- 
ion of  the  committee  put  into  the  char- 
ter from  motives  of  general  public  pol- 
icy, but  that  the  committee  leave  that 
question  for  the  determination  of  the 
Convention  as  a whole  upon  a discussion 
of  the  general  framework  of  the  char- 
ter to  be  adopted.  That  is,  in  other 
words, — we  are  not  insisting  upon  the 
remaining  sections. 

1.  The  City  of  Chicago  shall  have  full 
power  and  authority  to  own,  maintain 
and  operate  within  the  limits  of  said 
City,  street,  railways,  subways,  water 
works,  telephone,  telegraph,  gas  and 
electric  lighting  and  power  plants  and 
other  public  utility  works,  and  equip- 
ment for  the  use  of  said  City  and  the 
property  therein  and  the  inhabitants 
thereof  and  to  fix  the  rates  and  charges 
for  the  services  rendered  by  such  pub- 
lic utilities,  and  for  this  purpose  to  ac- 
quire by  purchase,  construction,  con- 
demnation or  otherwise  whatever  prop- 
erty real  or  personal,  may  be  necessary 
or  appropriate,  and  to  lease  the  same 
to  any  person,  firm  or  corporation  auth- 
orized under  the  laws  of  the  state  to 
operate  the  same,  for  the  purpose  of 
operating  the  same  for  any  period  not 
longer  than  twenty  (20)  years,  upon 


such  terms  and  conditions  as  the  City 
Council  shall  deem  for  the  best  interests 
of  the  public. 

2.  No  person,  firm  or  corporation  shall 
have  the  right  to  locate,  construct,  main- 
tain or  operate  any  such  public  utility 
of  any  kind  or  description,  in,  over,  un- 
der, upon  or  along  the  public  streets, 
alleys  or  grounds  of  the  said  City  of 
Chicago,  without  the  consent  of  the  cor- 
porate authorities  of  the  said  City  of 
Chicago,  which  consent  may  be  granted 
for  any  period  not  longer  than  twenty 
(20)  years,  upon  such  terms  and  condi- 
tions as  such  corporate  authorities  shall 
deem  for  the  best  interests  of  the  pub- 
lic. Provided,  no  such  consent  shall  be 
granted  except  upon  the  condition  that 
the  person,  firm  or  corporation  to  which 
such  consent  is  given  will  pay  all  dam- 
ages to  owners  of  property  abutting 
upon  the  street,  alley  or  public  ground 
in,  over,  under,  upon  or  along  which 
said  public  utilities  are  to  be  constructed, 
which  they  may  sustain  by  reason  of  the 
location,  construction  or  operation  of  the 
same,  such  damages  to  be  ascertained 
and  paid  in  the  manner  provided  by  law 
for  the  exercise  of  the  right  of  eminent 
domain ; and  no  such  consent  for  a 
longer  period  than  five  (5)  years  shall 
go  into  effect  until  ninety  (90)  days  af- 
ter the  passage  of  the  ordinance  there- 
for by  the  City  Council,  and  if,  within 
such  ninety  (90)  days,  there  shall  be 
filed  with  the  City  Clerk  of  said  City 
a petition  signed  by  fifteen  (15)  per 
cent,  of  the  registered  voters  of  the  said 
City,  requesting  that  the  granting  of 
such  consent  be  submitted  to  popular 
vote,  such  consent  shall  not  be  effective 
until  the  question  of  the  granting  there- 
of shall  first  have  been  submitted  to  a 
popular  vote  at  a general  election  in  said 
city,  and  be  approved  by  a majority  ot 
those  voting  thereon. 

3.  Every  such  grant  shall  be  subject 
to  the  right  of  the  corporate  authorities 
of  said  City  to  control  the  use,  improve- 
ment and  repair  of  such  street,  alley  or 


November  30 


78 


1906 


public  ground,  to  the  same  extent  as  if 
no  such  grant  had  been  made,  and  to 
make  all  necessary  or  proper  police  reg- 
ulations concerning  the  location,  con- 
struction, maintenance,  use  and  opera- 
tion of  the  property  or  structure  thereby 
permitted,  whether  such  right  is  reserved 
in  the  grant  or  not,  and  the  right  to 
make  such  regulations  shall  include  the 
right  to  make  reasonable  regulations  of 
the  charges  for  service  to  be  rendered 
to  the  public  by  any  such  person,  firm 
or  corporation. 

4.  The  City  Council  shall  have  the 
power  to  require  any  person,  firm  or 
corporation  owning,  managing  or  oper- 
ating public  utilities  within  the  limits 
of  said  City  to  make  properly  vertified 
reports  to  the  said  City,  of  the  char- 
acter and  amount  of  business  done  by 
such  person,  firm  or  corporation,  includ- 
in  the  amount  of  receipts  from  and  the 
expense  of  conducting  the  said  business, 
and  the  duly  authorized  agents  of  the 
said  City  shall  have  the  right  at  all 
reasonable  times  to  examine  the  books 
of  account  and  records  of  every  such 
person,  firm  or  corporation  which  relate 
to  the  conduct  of  such  business. 

5.  It  shall  be  lawful  for  the  said  City 
to  incorporate  in  any  such  public  utility 
grant  a reservation  of  the  right  on  the 
part  of  such  City  to  take  over  all  or  any 
part  of  the  property,  plant  or  equipment 
used  in  the  operation  of  such  public 
utility,  at  or  before  the  expiration  of 
such  grant,  upon  such  terms  and  condi- 
tions as  may  be  provided  in  the  grant. 
And  it  shall  also  be  lawful  to  provide  in 
any  such  grant  that  in  case  such  re- 
served right  be  not  exercised  by  the  City, 
and  it  shall  grant  a right  to  another 
person,  firm  or  corporation  to  operate 
such  public  utility  in  the  streets  and 
parts  of  streets  occupied  by  its  grantee, 
under  the  former  grant,  the  new  grantee 
shall  purchase  and  take  over  the  property 
located  in  such  streets  and  parts  of 
streets  upon  the  terms  that  the  City 
might  have  taken  it  over. 


6.  The  said  City  shall  not  itself  pro- 
ceed to  operate  any  such  public  utility 
(except  water-works)  for  the  use  or  ben- 
efit of  private  consumers  or  users  for 
hire  or  charges  for  such  consumption 
or  use  and  shall  not  lease  for  a longer 
period  than  five  years  the  property  ac- 
quired by  it  for  or  in  connection  with 
any  such  public  utility,  nor  renew  any 
lease  thereof  unless  and  until  the  prop- 
osition to  so  operate  or  to  make  or  renew 
such  lease  shall  first  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  electors  of  said  City  and 
approved  by  a majority  of  those  voting 
thereon. 

7.  Fgr  the  purpose  of  acquiring  any 
such  public  utilities  or  the  property  nec- 
essary or  appropriate  for  the  operation 
thereof,  either  by  purchase  or  construc- 
tion, the  said  City  may  borrow  money 
and  issue  negotiable  bonds  therefor, 
pledging  the  faith  and  credit  of  the 
City;  but  no  such  bonds  shall  be  issued 
unless  and  until  the  proposition  to  issue 
the  same  shall  first  have  been  submitted 
to  the  electors  of  said  City  and  approved 
by  two-thirds  (2-3)  of  those  voting 
thereon. 

In  lieu  of  issuing  bonds  pledging  the 
faith  and  credit  of  the  City,  the  said 
City  may  issue  and  dispose  of  interest- 
bearing  certificates,  which  shall  under  no 
circumstances  be  or  become  an  obliga- 
tion or  liability  of  the  City,  or  payable 
out  of  any  general  fund  thereof,  bu£ 
shall  be  payable  solely  out  of  the  rev- 
enues or  income  to  be  derived  from  the 
operation  of  the  public  utility  for  the 
acquisition  of  which  they  were  issued. 

In  order  to  secure  the  payment  of  any 
such  1 1 public-utility  certificates,  ’ ’ and 
the  interest  thereon,  the  City  may  con- 
vey by  way  of  mortgage  or  deed  of  trust 
any  or  all  of  the  public  utility  property 
acquired  or  to  be  acquired  through  the 
issue  thereof,  which  mortgage  or  deed 
of  trust  shall  be  executed  in  such  man- 
ner as  may  be  directed  by  the  City  Coun- 
cil and  acknowledged  ancl  recorded  in 
the  manner  provided  by  law  for  the 


November  30 


79 


1906 


acknowledgment  and  recording  of  mort- 
gages of  real  estate,  and  may  contain 
such  provisions  and  conditions,  not  in 
conflict  with  the  provisions  of  this  act, 
as  may  be  deemed  necessary  to  fully 
secure  the  payment  of  the  certificates 
described  therein. 

Any  such  mortgage  or  deed  of  trust 
may  carry  the  grant  of  a privilege  or 
right  to  maintain  and  operate  the  prop- 
erty covered  thereby  for  a period  not 
exceeding  twenty  (20)  years  from  and 
after  the  date  such  property  may  come 
into  the  possession  of  any  person  or 
corporation  as  the  result  of  foreclosure 
proceedings,  which  privilege  or  right 
shall  fix  the  terms  and  conditions,  in- 
cluding the  rates  of  fare,  which  the  per- 
son or  corporation  securing  the  same  as 
the  result  of  foreclosure  proceedings 
shall  be  entitled  to  charge  in  the  oper- 
ation of  said  property,  for  such  period 
not  exceeding  twenty  (20)  years;  but 
the  City  Council  shall  at  all  times  have 
the  right  to  make  all  reasonable  regula- 
tions of  the  rates  of  fare  to  be  charged 
in  the  operation  of  said  property  and  of 
the  manner  in  which  the  same  is  main- 
tained or  operated. 

Whenever  and  as  often  as  default 
shall  be  made  in  the  payment  of  any 
public-utility  certificates  issued  and  se- 
cured by  mortgage  or  deed  of  trust  as 
aforesaid,  or  in  the  payment  of  the  in- 
terest thereon  when  due,  and  any  such 
default  shall  have  continued  for  the 
space  of  twelve  (12)  months  after  no- 
tice thereof  has  been  given  to  the  Mayor 
and  financial  officer  of  the  City  issuing 
such  certificates,  it  shall  be  lawful  for 
any  such  mortgagee  or  trustee,  upon  the 
request  of  the  holder  or  holders  of  a 
majority  in  amount  of  the  certificates 
issued  and  outstanding  under  said  mort- 
gage or  deed  of  trust,  to  declare  the 
whole  or  the  principal  of  all  such  cer- 
tificates as  may  be  outstanding  to  be  at 
once  due  and  payable  and  to  proceed  to 
foreclose  such  mortgage  or  deed  of  trust 
in  any  court  of  competent  jurisdiction. 


At  a foreclosure  sale  the  mortgagee 
or  the  holders  of  such  certificates  may 
become  the  purchaser  or  purchasers  of 
the  property  and  the  rights  and  orivi- 
leges  sold,  if  he  or  they  be  the  highest 
bidders. 

Provided , however,  that  no  street  rail- 
way certificates  shall  be  issued  unless 
and  until  the  proposition  to  issue  the 
same  shall  first  have  been  submitted  to 
a popular  vote  and  approved  by  a ma- 
jority of  the  qualified  voters  of  the  city 
voting  upon  such  question. 

8.  The  said  City  shall  keep  the  books 
of  account  for  each  such  public  utility 
owned  or  operated  by  it  distinct  from 
other  city  accounts  and  in  such  manner 
as  to  show  the  true  and  complete  finan- 
cial results  of  such  city  ownership  or 
ownership  and  operation,  as  the  case 
may  be.  Such  accounts  shall  be  so  kept 
as  to  show  the  actual  cost  to  the  City  of 
each  such  public  utility  owned,  all  costs 
of  maintenance,  extension  and  improve- 
ment, all  operating  expenses  of  every 
description  in  case  of  such  city  opera- 
tion, the  amounts  set  aside  for  sinking 
fund  purposes;  if  water  or  other  service 
shall  be  furnished  for  the  use  of  such 
public  utility,  without  charge,  the  ac- 
counts shall  show  as  nearly  as  possi- 
ble the  value  of  such  service,  and  also 
the  value  of  such  similar  service  ren- 
dered by  each  such  public  utility  to  any 
other  city  department,  without  charge. 

Such  accounts  shall  also  show  reason- 
able allowance  for  interest,  depreciation 
and  insurance,  and  also  estimates  of  the 
amount  of  taxes  that  would  be  charge- 
able against  such  property  if  owned  by 
a private  corporation. 

The  City  Council  shall  cause  to  be 
printed  annually  for  public  iistnbution 
a report  showing  the  financial  results,  jn 
form  as  aforesaid,  of  such  ownership  or 
ownership  and  operation,  as  the  case 
may  be. 

The  accounts  of  each  such  public  util- 
ity kept  as  aforesaid  shall  be  examined 
at  least  once  a year  by  an  expert  ac- 


November  30 


80 


1906 


countant,  who  shall  report  to  the  City 
Council  may  direct,  and  he  shall  receive 
for  his  service  such  compensation  to  be 
paid  out  of  the  income  or  revenues  from 
the  particular  public  utilities,  the  ac- 
counts of  which  he  is  employed  to  ex- 
amine, as  the  City  Council  may  pre- 
scribe. 

9.  All  existing  laws  requiring  front- 
age consents  as  a condition  to  the  mak- 
ing of  any  public  utility  grant  to  any 
person,  firm  or  corporation  shall  be  and 
they  are  hereby  repealed,  so  far  as 
the  same  relate  to  the  City  of  Chicago, 
and  the  City  Council  of  said  City  is 
hereby  authorized  to  provide  by  ordin- 
ance from  time  to  time  such  require- 
ments with  regard  to  frontage  consents 
in  such  cases  as  the  City  Council  may 
deem  proper. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
Charles  Werner, 

Chairman. 

Report  of  Committee  on  Municipal 
Expenditures  and  Accounting. — Frank  j 
J.  Bennett,  chairman. 

Chicago  Charter  Convention,  ' Gentle- 
men: Your  Committee  on  Municipal 

Expenditures  and  Accounting,  begs  leave 
to  report  that  it  has  taken  up  and  con- 
sidered the  subject  submitted  to  it  and 
has  reached  the  conclusion  that  Munici- 
pal Expenditures  and  Accounting  come 
more  properly  within  the  sphere  of 
Council  legislation  and  that  the  Munici- 
pality subject  to  existing  laws,  should 
be  left  free  to  deal  with  and  control 
the  expenditure  of  Municipal  Funds  and  I 
to  regulate,  as  it  now  does  its  own  ac- 
counts. Respectfully  submitted, 

Frank  I.  Bennett, 

Chairman. 

Report  of  Committee  on  Municipal 
Courts. — John  F.  Smulski,  chairman. 

Chicago  Charter  Convention,  Gentle- 
men: Your  Committee  on  Municipal 

Courts  begs  leave  to  report  that  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  the  new  municipal  court 


law  has  had  no  opportunity  to  be  tried 
and  tested  this  committee  recommend 
that  no  changes  be  made  in  the  same, — 
with  this  provision : that  after  thirty 
days  of  operation  of  the  new  municipal 
courts  the  chief  justice  and  associate 
justices  be  requested  to  send  in  their 
recommendations  as  to  what  changes 
they  may  deem  advisable  to  submit  dur- 
ing the  next  session  of  the  general  as- 
sembly. 

The  Committee  also  recommends,  for 
consideration:  That  Section  10  of  the 

act  creating  the  Municipal  Court  be 
amended  so  as  to  provide  that  no  person 
shall  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  Chief 
Justice  or  of  Associate  Judge  of  the 
Municipal  Court  unless  he  shall  be  at 
least  thirty  years  of  age  and  a citizen 
of  the  United  States,  nor  unless  he  shall 
have  resided  in  the  County  of  Cook  and 
been  there  engaged,  either  in  active 
practice  as  an  attorney  and  counsellor 
at  law  or  in  the  discharge  of  the  duties 
of  a judicial  officer,  five  years  next 
preceding  his  election,  or  in  one  of  said 
occupations  during  a portion  of  said 
time  and  in  the  other  the  remaining  por- 
tion thereof,  and  shall,  at  the  time  of 
his  election,  be  a resident  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  and  duly  licensed  to  practice 
as  an  attorney  and  Counsellor  at  law  in 
this  state.  Respectfully  submitted, 

John  F.  Smulski, 

Chairman. 

Report  of  Committee  on  Municipal 
Parks  and  Public  Grounds. — Bryan 
Lathrop,  chairman. 

Chicago  Charter  Convention,  Gentle- 
men: Your  committee  on  Municipal 

Parks  and  Public  Grounds  begs  leave  to 
submit  the  following  supplemental  re- 
port, adopted  unanimously  at  a meeting 
of  the  committee  held  November  26, 
1906: 

It  is  the  sense  of  the  committee  that 
Section  3 printed  in  the  Proceedings  of 
October  3,  at  Page  24,  be  amended  to 
read  as  follows  after  the  words  Nine 


November  30 


81 


1906 


Park  Commissioners : Three  from  the 

South  Side,  three  from  the  West  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
of  whom  shall  be  appointed  for  a term 
of  two  years,  three  for  a term  of  four 
years  and  three  for  a term  of  six  years. 
At  the  expiration  of  the  term  of  any 
member  of  the  said  board  of  park  com- 
missioners, his  successor  shall  be  ap- 
pointed in  like  manner  and  shall  hold 
his  office  for  the  term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  judges  of  the 
said  court,  for  the  unexpired  term. 

It  is  the  sense  of  the  committee  that 
section  8 of  the  proceedings  of  October 
3,  at  page  25,  be  amended  to  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

After  the  words  “ Powers,  Eights  and 
Duties’’  in  the  fifth  line,  and  the  follow- 
ing words:  “ Except  the  right  to  levy 

taxes  or  create  any  indebtedness  against 
the  City  of  Chicago.  ’ ’ 

It  is  the  sense  of  the  committee  that 
paragraph  3 of  section  6 in  the  proceed- 
ings of  October  3rd  at  page  4 be  amend- 
ed so  that  it  shall  read: 

Said  Board  shall  have  power  to  ap- 
point officers  and  hire  such  employes  as 
may  be  necessary  to  the  efficient  perform- 
ance of  the  duties  of  said  Park  Board, 
and  to  fix  their  compensation.  The 
Park  Board  is  hereby  authorized  to  es- 
tablish a civil  service  in  the  park  sys- 
tem, by  choosing  from  among  its  com- 
missioners three  to  act  as  civil  service 
commissioners.  All  appointments  to  be 
made  subject  to  the  rules  and  regula- 
tions which  such  commission  shall 
adopt. 

Respectfully  submitted, 

BRYAN  LATHROP,  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  gentle- 

men, you  have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Robins,  that  this  convention  adjourn  to 
meet  Monday  afternoon  at  2 o’clock. 

MR.  BADENOCH : I move  to  substi- 

tute Tuesday  for  Monday.  I think  there 
are  several  members  of  the  City  Council 


who  have  important  meetings  to  attend 
Monday  afternoon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  chair  would 

suggest  that  it  would  be  a very  diffi- 
cult matter  to  select  a day  when  some  of 
the  members  of  the  convention  have  not 
got  some  other  things  on  hand. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  The  telephone 

question  is  an  important  question,  and 
that  committee  meets  on  Monday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

suggested  that  this  convention  might 
meet  on  Monday  at  2 o’clock  and  also 
on  Tuesday  at  2 o’clock.  It  occurs  to 
me  that  with  two  days  of  steady  work 
we  might  accomplish  a great  deal.  The 
suggestion  is  that  the  next  two  meetings 
be  on  Monday  at  2 o’clock  and  Tuesday 
at  2 o ’clock.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  discussion 

will  proceed. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I make  a mo- 

tion that  alternative  three  be  placed  on 
the  table.  First  alternative  to  number 
three. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  motion  is 

that  the  first  alternative  to  number  three 
be  laid  on  the  table.  Is  there  a roll 
call  requested  upon  that?  The  secre- 
tary will  call  the  roll.  I think  it  is  wise 
to  adopt  the  rule  to  have  a roll  call  on 
everything. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Burke,  Cril- 
ly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart,  B.  A.; 
Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kit- 
tleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan, 
McCormick,  McKinley,  O ’Donnell,  Owens 
Pendarvis,  Powers,  Revell,  Robins, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Sunny,  Swift,  Thompson,  Yopicka, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 37. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Fisher,  Hill,  Merriam,  Raymer,  Rosen- 
thal, Snow,  Werno — 10. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  motion  to 

table  is  carried. 


November  30 


82 


1906 


MR.  McCORMICK:  I hope  the  con- 

vention will  see  fit  to  finish  with  the  of- 
fice of  mayor  at  this  meeting,  and  for 
the  purpose  of  starting  the  discussion 
among  the  members,  I will  move  that  the 
first  alternative  to  number  two  be  adopt- 
ed. That  the  mayor  shall  not  preside 
over  the  City  Council,  but  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  elect  its  own  presiding  officer 
from  its  members. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  that 

we  will  proceed  in  a much  more  orderly 
fashion  if  we  start  at  the  beginning  and 
go  down  the  line.  That  refers  simply 
to  his  executive  functions.  The  other 
questions  are  still  open  for  debate.  These 
original  propositions  are  formed  so  that 
any  member  can  offer  an  amendment  if 
he  sees  fit. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I move  that  the 

first  alternative  to  2 be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  convention 

has  adopted  a rule  to  start  with  the  last 
suggestion  and  not  with  the  first. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  the  chair  mis- 

understood that  motion.  It  will  certain- 
ly lead  to  confusion  if  that  is  done.  The 
motion,  as  I understood  it,  was  that, 
wffiere  there  was  more  than  one  alterna- 
tive, we  should  begin  with  the  last  alter- 
native. Now  that  is  disposed  of,  the  first 
proposition  is  again  opened.  The  first 
proposition,  I suppose,  is  one  upon  which 
there  is  little  discussion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no  ob- 

jection, the  secretary  will  read  from  the 
beginning  of  section  3. 

THS  SECHETARY  READ:  1.  The 

charter  shall  continue  substantially  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regarding 
the  qualifications  and  executive  functions 
of  the  mayor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  any  dis- 

cussion upon  that  proposition? 

MR.  BENNETT:  In  connection  with 

that  section,  I would  like  to  offer  a res- 
olution. 

The  Secretary  read:  By  Mr.  Bennett — 
Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this  con- 
vention that  a clause  be  inserted  in  the 


charter  designating  a city  official  who 
shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  absence  or 
inability  of  the  mayor. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I offer  that,  Mr. 

Chairman,  at  this  time,  because  the  adop- 
tion of  section  1 would  fix  the  duties  of 
the  mayor,  and  I offer  this  resolution  for 
the  reason  that  the  present  charter  pro- 
vides that  the  Council  may,  during  the 
absence  of  the  mayor,  appoint  an.  execu- 
tive to  act  in  his  stead.  But  the  Coun- 
cil doesn’t  know  when  he  is  going  away, 
and  the  result  has  been  from  time  to 
time  some  official  of  the  city  government 
has  been  illegally  deputized  to  act  in  his 
stead,  and  I think  it  will  be  well  to  clear 
it  up  in  this  charter,  and  the  charter  will 
definitely  provide  that  when  the  mayor 
leaves  the  city,  that  there  is  some  one 
here  to  act  in  his  stead. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  resolution.  The  secretary 
will  read  it  again : 

The  secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
above. 

MR.  HOYNE:  I would  like  to  ask 

who  is  to  designate? 

MR.  BENNETT:  I purposely  left 

that  to  the  wisdom  of  the  committee. 
Let  them  make  a recommendation  to  the 
convention  to  act  upon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  there  shall 

be  an  officer  designated.  Do  you  move 
its  adoption,  Mr.  Bennett? 

MR.  BENNETT : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  dis- 

cussion on  the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  so  ordered, 

unless  somebody  wants  a roll  call.  The 
next  matter  to  come  before  the  conven- 
tion is  the  first  paragraph  of  section  3. 

MR.  McCORMICK : I move  its  adop- 

tion, Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Now,  I would 

like  to  move  the  adoption  of  the  first  or 
second  alternative.  I don’t  care  which. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : The  second  one. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  second  alter- 

native to  2.  The  secretary  will  read 
that. 


November  30 


83 


1906 


The  Secretary  read:  The  charter 

shall  continue  the  present  provisions 
of  the  law  regarding  the  relation  of  the 
mayor  to  the  City  Council,  except  that 
he  shall  not  preside  at  the  meetings  of 
the  City  Council,  but  the  City  Council 
shall  elect  its  own  presiding  officer  from 
its  members. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  has 

been  made  to  adopt  that  clause. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Which  one? 

Number  2? 

MR.  SNOW : Is  there  a motion  made 

to  adopt  the  second  alternative? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  SNOW : If  this  is  adopted,  it 

doesn’t  define  what  the  relations  of  the 
presiding  officer  shall  be  to  the  body. 
It  simply  provides  that  the  mayor  shall 
not  preside,  but  it  leaves  in  the  hands  of 
the  mayor  the  veto  power,  instead  of 
placing  that  in  the  hands  of  the  presid- 
ing officer.  Is  that  the  purpose  of  the 
amendment? 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  the  adoption  of  the  second  alter- 
native. 

MR.  SNOW : Where  will  you  lodge 

the  veto  power? 

MR.  McCORMICK:  In  the  mayor, 

where  it  is  now.  It  reads.  (Repeats  al- 
ternative as  printed  above.) 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Snow  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  SNOW:  Under  the  present  pro- 

visions the  mayor  is  a member  of  the  City 
Council.  Now  you  are  going  to  continue 
him  as  a member  of  the  City  Council  and 
at  the  same  time  give  him  the  veto 
power.  He  shall  be  entitled  to  a vote  as 
at  the  present  time,  and  then  he  shall  be 
entitled  to  veto  the  legislation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  me  suggest, 

Mr.  Snow,  that  if  you  will  refer  to  the 
first  two  sections  of  paragraph  3,  the  sec- 
ond alternative  qualifies  that  by  provid- 
ing that  the  City  Council  shall  elect  a 
presiding  officer  from  among  its  mem- 
bers and  then  alternative  to  number  3 


provides  that  the  veto  power  shall  be  as 
now  prescribed  by  law. 

MR.  SNOW : We  have  adopted  sec- 

tion 1 of  number  3 and  that  provides  that 
the  qualifications  and  executive  powers 
shall  remain  as  they  are  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Number  2 cov- 

ers the  question  by  saying  that  his  rela- 
tions to  the  City  Council  shall  be  the 
same  as  they  are  now. 

MR.  SNOW:  Number  2 has  not  been 

debated  yet.  Here  there  is  an  alterna- 
tive presented  and  that  takes  cognizance 
o'f  the  fact  that  the  mayor  is  a member 
of  the  City  Council,  and  he  shall  have  a 
deciding  vote  in  the  case  of  a tie,  and 
that  the  veto  powers  are  lodged  in  the 
mayor.  Now  the  only  change  that  you 
make  is  that  he  doesn’t  occupy  the  seat 
our  chairman  has  now.  You  are  not  sep- 
arating the  legislative  from  the  execu- 
tive functions  at  all  by  the  adoption  of 
this  clause. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  I believe  in  the 

present  system,  Mr.  Chairman,  I know  of 
no  reason  why  we  should  adopt  this  sub- 
stitute. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

as  I understand  it,  the  question  before 
the  house  now  is  the  debate  of  this  sec- 
tion of  the  report  which  authorizes  the 
council  to  elect  its  own  presiding  officer. 
Am  I right? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  correct, 

sir. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  The  most  dan- 

gerous member  of  the  City  Council,  or 
the  legislature,  or  of  congress,  is  the 
presiding  officer,  and  some  of  vyou  will 
agree  with  me  in  our  local  meetings  here 
that  a very  dangerous  man  is  the  pre- 
siding officer.  We  have  had  occasion 
twice  at  Springfield  to  drag  the  presid- 
ing officer  from  the  chair.  Now  to  allow 
our  City  Council,  patriotic  and  all  as  they 
are — lovers  of  Chicago  and  its  people  as 
they  all  are — to  allow  them  to  select  one 
of  their  number,  one  that  the  people  have 
not  passed  upon  his  qualifications,  his  ca- 
pacity, his  integrity,  his  fairness,  is  not 


November  30 


84 


1906 


what  I would  want  to  see  in  the  City  of 
Chicago.  He  is  not  responsible  to  the 
people.  He  would  be  responsible  wholly 
to  a clique  of  the  council,  or  to  some 
designing  part  of  the  council.  Let  us 
have  the  presiding  officer  elected  by  the 
people,  responsible  to  the  people,  if  you 
wish  well  by  the  people,  and  if  you  want 
this  council  to  obey  the  mandate  of  the 
people.  Now  it  is  known  that  there  are 
some  men  that  have  been  in  this  council 
who  have  been  determined  public  ene- 
mies from  the  time  they  came  to  the  coun- 
cil until  the  moment  they  left  it.  Those 
men  are  not  the  men  to  select  the  pre- 
siding officer.  I still  have  faith  in  the 
people  of  Chicago.  They  will  do  right 
if  they  are  given  the  opportunity.  Here 
is  a responsible  head  that  the  people  can 
name,  and  if  they  do,  you  and  they  will 
be  better  satisfied.  Now  we  can  only 
judge  the  future  by  the  past.  The  presid- 
ing officer  for  the  past  has  been  a very 
dangerous  man,  and  if  he  is  not  such  a 
man  as  can  be  reached  directly  by  the 
votes  of  the  sovereign  people  he  is  doubly 
dangerous,  and  I sincerely  trust  that  this 
convention  will  vote  down  this  proposi- 
tion, I will  vote  No  on  it. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Inasmuch  as  I 

made  the  motion  to  adopt  the  second  al- 
ternative, perhaps  I should  speak  in 
favor  of  my  motion.  I was  unwilling 
to  vote  for  the  other  two  propositions 
for  the  reasons  I then  stated.  I do 
think,  however,  that  some  improvement 
can  be  made  in  the  relationship  of  the 
City  Council  to  the  administration.  Un- 
der the  present  conditions,  we  all  admit, 
the  administration  is  too  much  the  City 
Council  and  the  aldermen  are  too  much 
the  administration.  Some  law  that  will 
provide  an  improvement  should  be 
adopted.  The  City  Council  should  be 
homogeneous  with  itself.  It  cannot  work 
to  the  best  efficiency  if  the  presiding  of- 
ficer is  different  from  it.  Aldermen  on 
the  floor  of  this  council  within  the  last 
few  years  have  felt  at  times  that  they 
are  not  in  entire  harmony  with  the  chair- 


man and  friction  arose.  The  chairman 
of  the  council  should  be  the  servant  of 
the  council.  The  chairman  is  provided  in 
order  to  give  expression  in  an  orderly 
way  to  the  desires  of  the  council,  and 
for  that  reason  it  is  desirable  that  he 
should  be  subject  to  it,  and  not  independ- 
ent. It  has  been  very  well  argued  by 
members  of  this  convention  that  the 
mayor  should  have  as  much  time  as  pos- 
sible to  devote  to  the  executive  func- 
tions. When  he  presides  over  the  coun- 
cil he  gives  not  only  the  Monday  night, 
but  considerable  time  during  the  week,  in 
order  to  be  up  to  date  on  all  the  ques- 
tions before  the  council.  The  time  at  his 
disposal  for  executive  work  is  limited.  It 
is  with  these  ideas  in  mind,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  I moved  the  adoption  of  sub- 
stitute number  2. 

MR.  DEVER:  I understand  from  the 

remarks  that  have  been  made  here  by 
several  members  that  the  only  purpose 
of  this  paragraph  was  to  take  from  the 
mayor  the  right  which  he  has  now  under 
the  law  to  preside  over  the  meetings  of 
the  City  Council.  It  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  veto  power.  I have  failed  to 
learn  from  any  one  that  the  fact  that 
the  mayor  presides  over  the  council  has 
caused  any  difficulty  or  abuse  of  that 
power.  It  is  the  one  thing  that  stands 
out  clearly.  In  the  last  twenty  years  I 
have  never  heard  anything  against  the 
fairness  of  the  mayor  in  conducting  the 
meetings  of  the  council,  nor  during  the 
five  years  that  I have  been  in  the  council 
has  anything  been  shown  on  that  point. 
I think  now  that  the  chief  officer  of  the 
city  presiding  at  the  meetings  of  the 
council  adds  dignity  to  the  proceedings 
and  they  are  more  thoughtful  and  or- 
derly, and  none  of  the  mayors  have  ever 
attempted  in  the  slightest  degree  to  en- 
croach upon  the  prerogatives  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  City  Council,  on  any  occa- 
sion that  I have  ever  heard  of  and  seen, 
and  1 have  tried  to  find  some  good  rea- 
son why  we  should  change  a law  that 
has  been  entirely  satisfactory  so  far  as 


November  30 


85 


1906 


I have  been  able  to  find  out.  He  is  re- 
sponsible to  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  he 
conducts  his  office  with  dignity  and  fair- 
ness. I think  it  will  be  a great  mistake 
to  change  the  system  under  which  we  are 
now  working.  We  don’t  know  what  the 
result  of  that  change  will  be.  We  may 
have  a man  presiding  over  us  who  may 
not  express  the  popular  will,  but  the 
mayor  by  his  election  by  the  people, 
does  personify  at  least  what  the  people 
want  during  his  term  of  office.  I can- 
not see,  and  I would  like  to  hear  some 
one  good  reason  why  this  change  should 
be  made. 

MR.  CRILLY : It  appears  that  we 

want  to  provide  a presiding  officer  for  the 
council  to  act  in  the  absence  of  the 
mayor — why  not  leave  it  as  it  is?  Leave 
it  to  the  City  Council  to  fill  that  office 
when  the  mayor  is  absent.  It  seems  to 
me  that  would  cover  it. 

MR.  DEYER:  That  is  the  practice 

now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 

ther discussion  upon  this  question? 

MR.  YOUNG:  I can  give  what  seems 

to  me  to  be  reasons  for  my  vote  in  sup- 
porting the  alternative  and  the  motion 
which  has  been  made.  I voted  against 
the  two  previous  alternatives  on  the 
ground  that  I did  not  want  to  see  the 
legislative  and  the  executive  power  of 
the  city  mixed  up  too  much.  I believe 
that  the  people  exercise  their  choice  just 
as  much  in  electing  the  City  Council  as 
they  do  in  electing  the  mayor,  and  if  we 
hold  up  the  mayor  in  his  executive  posi- 
tion, why  shouldn  ’t  we  stand  by  the 
council  whom  the  people  have  also 
elected.  We  elect  the  City  Council 
for  the  very  purpose  of  passing 
laws  and  we  should  hold  them  respon- 
sible for  the  laws  that  they  pass.  We 
elect  the  mayor  to  perform  executive  du- 
ties, and  we  should  hold  him  responsible 
to  that,  and  he  should  not  be  responsible 
for  the  legislative  acts.  It  is  not  a ques- 
tion as  to  whether  the  mayors  have  abused 
this  privilege  or  not.  It  is  rather  a ques- 


tion as  to  whether  we  should  burden  the 
mayor  with  all  of  the  executive  functions 
and  then  add  certain  legislative  func- 
tions. As  a result  of  this,  he  is  busy 
either  with  the  committees  or  with  the 
City  Council  a large  portion  of  the  time, 
which  might  better  be  devoted  to  execu- 
tive functions  of  his  office. 

MR.  BENNETT:  There  has  been  a 

great  deal  of  discussion  and  agitation 
with  reference  to  the  relation  of  the 
City  Council  to  its  presiding  officer, 
and  I think  the  question  arises  largely 
from  the  practice  in  other  places.  It 
occurs  to  me  that  if  the  mayor  is  to 
exercise  the  veto  power,  and  some  one 
must  do  that, — we  will  all  agree  upon 
that, — the  mayor  will  be  better  quali- 
fied to  intelligently  exercise  that  au- 
thority if  he  hears  the  discussion  upon 
the  measures  as  they  are  presented.  He 
would  be  at  somewhat  of  a disadvan- 
tage in  framing  his  vetoes  if  he  didn’t 
understand  the  subject  matter  of  the 
legislation  passed.  On  the  whole,  I am 
inclined  to  feel  that  if  we  leave  the 
veto  power  in  the  hands  of  the  mayor, 
the  services  of  the  city  will  be  better 
performed  by  his  remaining  as  the  pre- 
siding officer  of  the  council.  In  fact, 
I am  satisfied  that  that  would  be  the 
case. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Mc- 

Cormick’s motion  to  adopt  the  second 
alternative  to  number  two  the  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett, 
Brown,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Eidmann,  Fisher,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  McMillan,  McCormick, 
Merriam,  Pendarvis,  Powers,  Raymer, 
Revell,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Smulski,  Young — 25. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Burke,  Crilly,  Dover, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Erickson,  Gansbergen, 
Guerin,  Jones,  Linehan,  McKinley, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Robins,  Snow, 
Sunny,  Swift,  Thompson,  Vopicka, 
Werno — 20. 


November  30 


86 


1906 


(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  McMILLAN : Mr.  Chairman, 

may  I explain  my  vote.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I am  in  favor  of  this  alternative, 
excepting  the  last  clause  which  I would 
like  to  suggest  a change  in.  The  clause 
is  that  the  presiding  officer  of  the  City 
Council  be  elected  by  the  direct  vote 
of  the  people,  but  that  the  veto  power 
be  still  vested  in  the  mayor.  However, 
if  I can’t  vote  on  that  proposition,  I 
will  vote  Aye  on  this  alternative. 

MR,  FISHER:  I hope  that  is  not  the 

impression  that  prevails  among  the 
members  of  the  Convention.  We 
haven’t  reached  the  veto  power  as  yet. 
That’s  the  third  resolution.  Number 
three  of  this  same  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Proceed  with 

the  roll  call. 

MR.  WERNO:  If  my  understanding 

is  right,  it  is  on  the  adoption  of  the 
alternative  that  we  are  voting,  but  the 
mayor  is  to  retain  his  veto  power. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  veto  power 

is  not  included  in  this  proposition.  It 
simply  provides  that  the  present  pro- 
visions shall  be  continued,  but  that  the 
mayor  shall  not  preside  over  the  City 
Council. 

MR.  WERNO:  I vote  No  on  that. 

MR,  PENDARYIS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
think  my  vote  was  not  recorded. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  voted 

before  on  this  proposition,  have  you 
not? 

MR,  PENDARYIS:  No.  I think 

there  is  some  force  in  the  suggestion 
that  the  alderman  made  about  the 
presence  of  the  mayor  in  the  council 
during  the  discussion  of  the  questions, 
if  he  is  to  retain  the  veto  power.  If 
this  should  be  adopted,  it  disposes  of 
all  of  the  propositions  under  the  mayor, 
does  it  not? 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  a question 

which  I would  like  to  be  enlightened 
upon, — as  to  what  the  position  of  the 


Chair  is  if  we  adopt  the  second  alter- 
native to  number  two.  Would  it  still 
leave  us  to  adopt  b and  c of  the  first 
alternative  to  take  up  for  a vote  after- 
wards? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Undoubtedly. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  Then  I vote 

Aye  on  this. 

MR.  BENNETT:  If  I understand 

that  the  veto  question  is  not  to  be  in- 
cluded here,  then  I would  like  to 
change  my  vote  to  Aye. 

THE  CH  AIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett 

changes  his  vote  from  No  to  Aye. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  I would  like  to 

vote  Aye.  I didn’t  vote. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I would  like  to 

change  my  vote  from  No  to  Aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are 

twenty-five  Ayes  and  twenty  Noes. 
The  second  alternative  to  number  two 
is  adopted. 

MR.  ECKHART:  I move  now  that 

we  adjourn  to  two  o ’clock  Monday. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Wouldn’t  you 

have  a motion  put  that  the  resolutions 
as  to  the  mayor  be  adopted  as  they  now 
stand? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  a 

number  of  propositions  here  that  have 
not  been  considered  yet.  The  motion 
is  that  this  Convention  stand  adjourned 
until  two  o’clock  Monday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

assume  that  that  means  Monday  at  two 
o’clock,  and  Tuesday  at  two  o’clock, 
and  the  records  will  so  show. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Monday,  December  3rd,  1906, 
at  2 o’clock  P.  M. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

MONDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1906 


(Ihinujiv  (Elmrtrr  (ttnnnrutum 

Convened,  December  12,  190S 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  8TREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Rewell,  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Asst.  Secy 


* 

- 


December  3 


89 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Monday,  December  3,  1906 

2 O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  come  to  order.  The  Secretary  will 

0 call  the  roll. 

r*  Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 

/ Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 

/ nett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke,  Church, 

4 Cole,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dix- 

1 on,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J. 

( W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen, 

/ Guerin,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lath- 

• rop,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  McCormick, 

* McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Don- 
nell,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Powers, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard, 
Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Thompson,  Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wil- 
kins, Young,  Zimmer — 56. 

Absent — Carey  Clettenberg,  Cruice, 
Erickson,  Fitzpatrick,  Graham,  Haas, 
Harrison,  Hill,  Hunter,  MacMillan, 
Oehne,  Paullin,  Patterson,  Rainey,  Rin- 
aker,  Walker,  Wilson — 18. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

The  next  business  is  the  reading  of  the 
minutes  of  the  last  meeting,  if  a motion 
is  not  made  to  dispense  with  that. 

MR.  REVELL:  I move  that  the  read- 
ing of  the  minutes  be  dispensed  with. 

The  motion  prevailed  unanimously. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  By  turning  to 

the  proceedings  of  the  last  meeting,  at 
page  51,  will  be  found  the  place  at 
which  the  Convention  stopped  at  its 
last  meeting. 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman:  May 
I ask  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Con- 
vention to  present  a substitute, — an  al- 
ternative for  a matter  which  is  coming 
up  later  in  the  week?  I wish  to  present 
it  without  discussion  to-day  in  order  to 
get  it  into  the  records  and  in  order 
that  the  members  of  the  Convention 
may  have  time  to  look  the  matter  up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no  ob- 
jection, the  unanimous  consent  will  be 
given  and  the  matter  will  be  printed 
In  the  records  to  be  taken  up  at  some 
future  time. 

MR.  REVELL:  I would  like  to  have 
it  read. 


December  3 


90 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Revell: 

Alternative  to  VI,  the  City  Council. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

1.  The  charter  shall  provide  for  re- 
districting the  city  into  sixty  wards. 

2.  Each  ward  shall  nominate  candi- 
dates for  aldermen,  who  shall  be  voted 
on  by  the  entire  city. 

3.  The  terms  of  aldermen  shall  be 
four  years. 

4.  One-fourth  of  the  aldermen  to  re- 
tire each  year. 

5.  No  alderman  shall  be  elected  to 
succeed  himself. 

6.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  $5,000  per  an- 
num, and  he  shall  have  a secretary. 

7.  Aldermen  shall  give  their  entire 
time  to  serving  the  city  as  aldermen 
during  the  term  for  which  they  are 
elected. 

8.  Aldermen  shall  have  office  in  their 
respective  wards,  at  which  they  shall 
be  found  during  the  hours  to  be  de- 
termined by  ordinance  or  otherwise. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  the  matter  will  lay  over  until 
the  subject  is  reached.  The  next  mat- 
ter before  the  Convention  is  the  first 
alternative  to  Number  2,  at  the  top  of 
the  left-hand  column.  The  Chair  is  un- 
der the  impression  that  that  is  covered 
by  the  second  alternative  to  Number  2, 
which  has  already  been  adopted.  On 
the  same  page  appears  the  second  al- 
ternative to  Number  2,  which  appears 
to  cover  substantially  the  same  subject 
of  this  alternative.  The  Secretary  will 
read  b of  the  first  alternative  to  Num- 
ber 2. 

THE  SECRETARY  read  b of  the  first 
alternative  to  Number  2,  as  printed  at 
page  51  of  the  proceedings. 

MR.  FISHER:  Question,  Mr.  Chair- 

man. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  reading  of  that  section. 
What  will  you  do  with  it? 


MR.  FISHER:  I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  b of  the  first 
alternative  to  Number  2 shall  be  adopt- 
ed. The  matter  is  before  the  house  for 
discussion. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  on  that. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Church,  Cole, 
Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhardt,  B.  A., 
Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Guerin; 
Jones,  Lathrop,  Lundberg,  McCormick, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  Pendarvis,  Post, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Robins,  Shedd,  Snow, 
Taylor,  Wilkins — 26. 

Nays — Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  De- 
ver,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Hoyne,  Kittleman, 
Linehan,  McGoorty,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shep- 
ard, Sunny,  Swift,  Thompson,  Vopicka, 
White,  Zimmer — 21. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  DEVER:  I am  not  clear  on  it. 

I am  not  clear  whether  the  section  of 
the  paragraph  that  is  being  voted  upon 
takes  away  from  the  mayor  his  veto 
power.  I understand  that  it  takes  away 
his  veto  power. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No.  This  is  the 
left-hand  column  of  page  51,  the  second 
paragraph — b. 

MR.  DEVER:  I desire  to  change  my 
vote  to  nay. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Change  your  vote 
after  the  roll  call,  alderman. 

MR.  DIXON:  I request  that  the 

absentees  be  called,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  can’t.  The 

roll  call  is  on  now. 

MR.  DEVER:  I want  to  be  recorded 
No.  I haven’t  followed  the  proceed- 
ings closely  enough.  I am  in  favor  of 
having  the  mayor  preside  at  the  meet- 
ings of  the  council. 

MR.  DIXON:  I ask  for  a call  of  the 
absentees. 

THE  SECERETARY:  Those  absent 

or  not  voting: 


December  3 


91 


1906 


Badenoch,  Baker,  Burke,  Carey,  Clet- 
tenberg,  Cruice,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Erickson, 
Fitzpatrick,  Foreman,  Graham,  Haas, 
Harrison,  Hill,  Hunter,  MacMillan, 
Oekne,  Paullin,  Patterson,  Powers,  Rai- 
ney, Rinaker,  Smulski,  Walker,  Werno, 
Wilson,  Young — 27. 

(During  the  roll  call.) 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  Mr.  Chairman,  what 
is  the  roll  call  on? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  section  under  discussion. 

THE  SECRETARY  read  the  section 
as  above. 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  I vote  Aye,  Mr. 

Chairman,  although  I do  not  think  that 
the  matter  is  just  in  the  shape  that  I 
would  like  to  see  it  in. 

THE  SECRETARY  proceeded  calling 
the  names. 

Mr.  SHEPARD:  As  I understand  it, 

b of  the  first  alternative  to  Number  2 
is  the  only  paragraph  that  we  are 
voting  on. 

The  Chairman:  b — that  is  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I desire  to  change 

my  vote  to  No  on  that. 

MR.  WILKINS:  Wilkins  changes 

his  vote  from  No  to  Aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

further  changes?  Ayes,  26;  noes,  21. 
The  motion  is  carried.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  next  paragraph,  c. 

THE  SECRETARY  read  c,  as  it  ap- 
pears on  page  51  of  the  proceedings. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I would  like  to 

ask  the  committee  that  sent  in  this 
report  what  they  mean  by  an  adminis- 
trative officer.  Do  they  mean  the  head 
of  a department? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I presume  that 

would  mean  any  department  head  of  the 
city  of  Chicago;  any  officer  charged 
with  the  administration  of  any  depart- 
ment’s work.  Gentlemen,  the  matter  is 
before  the  house  for  discussion. 

MR.  ECKHART:  I move  its  adop- 

tion, Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  dis- 
cussion on  that  question,  gentlemen? 


MR,  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Ben- 

nett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  is  not  a desirable  provision  to  in- 
sert in  a charter.  Under  the  previous 
section  which  was  adopted,  the  mayor 
has  the  right  to  send  messages  to  the 
council.  If  he  has  any  ideas  to  express 
to  the  council,  he  can  do  so  by  mes- 
sage. I don’t  think  that  the  presence 
of  an  administrative  officer  would  tend 
to  harmony  or  to  the  accomplishing  of 
good  results. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  If  an  amendment 

would  be  in  order,  I would  like  to 
amend  by  striking  out  the  word  “ shall” 
and  put  in  the  word  “nay, ” so  that  he 
is  not  bound  by  this,  but  he  can  do  as 
he  pleases  in  the  matter. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  for  information  from 
whatever  committee  this  came.  If  we 
adopt  this  number  c after  the  adoption 
of  b,  as  I understand  it,  the  mayor 
would  have  a right  to  a seat  in  the  city 
council,  would  have  the  right  to  speak 
and  present  messages,  and  certainly  he 
can  present  messages  now.  Now,  if  we 
adopt  c,  the  mayor  can  send  in  the  com- 
missioner of  public  works  to  the  coun- 
cil and  he  would  have  the  right  to  a 
seat  and  to  present  messages  and  speak 
on  any  subject  that  might  come  up,  but 
he  would  have  no  right  to  a vote.  At 
the  next  session  of  the  council,  as  Mr. 
Swift  suggested,  he  can  send  the  keeper 
of  the  pound,  and  it  would  be  the  same 
thing,  and  at  the  following  session  he 
may  send  the  chief  of  police,  at  the 
next  session  the  chief  of  the  fire  depart- 
ment, and  at  each  session  he  could  send 
in  a different  head.  I don’t  know  that 
any  good  would  come  out  of  it,  and  I 
would  like  to  hear  from  the  committee 
that  brought  it  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 
ther discussion? 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  an  explana- 

tion as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  ad- 


December  3 


92 


1906 


ministrative.  I apprehend  that  the 
meaning  here  that  is  intended  is  that 
the  mayor  and  the  heads  of  the  city  de- 
partments be  given  seats  and  have  the 
right  to  speak  in  the  council.  The  de- 
partments heads  would  have  the  right 
to  speak  regarding  their  respective  de- 
partments. If  this  means  that  the 
poundkeeper  can  be  sent  in  to  the  coun- 
cil, I certainly  would  not  favor  it. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  If  the  mayor 

wasn’t  there  he  could  send  in  some  per- 
son to  come  for  him. 

MR.  POST:  I will  move,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  it  be  changed  to  “through 
the  head  of  an  administrative  depart- 
ment,” instead  of  through  an  adminis- 
trative officer  of  the  city, — make  it 
“through  the  head  of  an  administra- 
tive department  of  the  city.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  vote 

will  be  upon  Mr.  Revell’s  motion  to 
strike  out  “shall”  and  insert  “nay.” 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  How  many  ad- 

ditional seats  would  there  then  be? 
How  many  of  those  administrative  heads 
would  have  seats? 

MR.  ECKHART  (B.  A.):  Not  more 

than  one  at  a time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  kindly 

formulate  your  amendment? 

MR.  POST:  At  least  only  one  at  a 

time  would  have  the  floor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  vote 

will  be  upon  Mr.  Revell’s  amendment, 
to  strike  out  the  word  “shall’  and  put 
in  “may.”  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question?  All  those  in  favor  will  say 
Aye. 

The  motion  prevailed  unanimously. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  Mr.  Post, 

what  is  yours? 

MR.  POST:  Strike  out  all  after  the 

words  “an  administrative  officer  of  the 
city”  and  insert  “heads  of  administra- 
tive departments  of  the  city.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  amendment.  All  those 
in  favor  of  it  will  signify  by  saying 
Aye. 


MR.  BENNETT:  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I move  to  table  the  paragraph  as 
read  and  amended. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  one  minute, 
till  I take  this  vote. 

The  motion  was  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  amendment 

is  lost,  and  the  resolution  stands  as  orig- 
inally amended. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I move  to  table  the 
resolution  as  amended. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  a 
roll  call? 

MR.  RE  YELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

hope  that  that  will  not  be  done,  unless 
Mr.  Bennett  can  see  some  good  reason 
why  the  mayor  should  not  have  a seat 
or  attend  the  council  if  he  so  wishes. 
It  strikes  me  that  by  striking  out  the 
word  “shall”  and  inserting  “may” 
the  mayor  can  see  that  he  is  represent- 
ed properly  if  he  so  derires,  it  seems 
to  me.  He  may  know  that  a certain 
matter  is  coming  up  which  it  would 
be  of  very  great  benefit  to  the  members 
of  the  council  to  have  some  person  un- 
derstanding that  question  present  in 
order  to  explain  it,  if  he  could  not  be 
present  himself,  and  it  certainly  would 
be  of  very  great  benefit  to  the  city  and 
its  people  if  the  mayor  or  the  proper 
officer  who  understands  the  question 
could  be  present.  This  simply  changes 
it  so  that  it  is  not  compulsory  upon 
the  mayor,  but  he  may  do  this,  if  he  so 
desires. 

MR.  BENNETT:  As  I understand  it, 
we  have  adopted  b,  and  that  gives  the 
mayor  the  right  to  be  present,  to  send 
messages  and  communications.  Section 
c,  which  we  are  now  debating  upon,  sim- 
ply authorizes  him  to  send  a sub- 
stitute. Now,  my  motion  is  that  Sec- 
tion c be  placed  on  file.  I can  see  no 
possible  good  which  will  come  from  the 
adoption  of  this  resolution,  but  I can 
see  a great  deal  of  confusion  that  might 
arise.  The  administrativ-e  officers  are 
all  under  the  direction  of  the  council, 
and  the  proceedings  of  the  council  are 


December  3 


93 


1906 


all  matters  of  record,  and  the  mayor, 
if  he  is  not  present,  may  advise  himself 
of  what  is  done,  and  at  a subsequent 
meeting  he  can  send  in  his  recommenda- 
tion or  suggestion  with  a veto. 

MR.  ECKHART  (B.  A.):  I don't 

see  any  objection  to  the  adoption  of 
this  proposition.  I can  see  no  objections 
to  having  the  head  of  a department  of 
the  city  administration  furnish  such 
information  and  representing  the  mayor, 
as  the  mayor  can  do  this  through  a 
message,  if  the  information  is  desired. 
It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  not  a ma- 
terial proposition,  and  I cannot  see  any 
objection  to  it.  I cannot  see  why  we 
could  object  to  it.  It  it  not  supposed 
that  all  the  administrative  officers,  in- 
cluding the  poundkeepers  and  the 
bridgetenders,  will  be  present  at  every 
meeting  of  the  city  council,  but  it  is 
simply  that  the  mayor  can  have  some- 
body there  to  carry  out  the  rights  and 
privileges  which  he  has  under  the  pre- 
vious resolution.  I don't  see  why  there 
should  be  any  possible  objection  to  this. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I don't  think  the 

council  should  be  burdened  with  this. 
The  members  of  the  council  know  how 
the  business  is  carried  on;  any  informa- 
tion that  is  desired  from  the  head  of 
departments  is  received  in  the  way  of 
written  communications  or  are  made  by 
the  committee,  and  it  is  reported  as  a 
rule,  transmitted  to  the  council  as  the 
report  of  such  committee.  I have  no 
objection  to  the  mayor  being  present, 
but  I surely  would  object  to  having 
anyone  that  he  might  recommend  or 
designate  appear  at  any  time  and  take 
up  the  time  of  the  council  on  matters 
of  legislation.  The  heads  of  depart- 
ments are  executive  officers;  they  are 
assistants  to  the  mayor.  Any  infor- 
mation they  have  can  at  all  times  be 
given  to  him,  and  is  given  to  him;  the 
heads  of  these  departments  appear  be- 
fore the  committee  and  answer  such 
questions  as  may  be  asked  for  them 
either  in  writing  or  verbally,  but  in 


most  cases  the  recommendation  is  di- 
rect in  writing  from  the  heads  of  de- 
partments. I don't  think  that  the  mem- 
bers of  this  council  should  be  burdened 
by  the  appointment  of  such  officers. 

I think  the  membership  of  the  council 
should  consist  absolutely  of  members 
elected  by  the  people,  and  no  one  else. 
There  is  only  one  case  that  I know  of 
where  an  outsider  was  permitted  to 
speak  in  the  city  council,  and,  I think, 
it  is  a bad  precedent.  I don't  think  it 
will  ever  be  permitted  again.  I think 
it  is  a mistake  to  have  anyone  address 
the  council  while  they  are  assembled 
as  members  of  the  city  council  and  as 
the  legislative  body  of  the  municipality. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 
ther discussion?  If  not,  the  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll  upon  Alderman  Ben- 
nett's motion  to  file. 

Yeas  — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brown,  Church,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Hoyne, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan, 
Lundberg,  McCormick,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Owens,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Ro- 
senthal, Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Thompson,  Yopicka,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 37. 

Nays — Brosseau,  Cole,  Crilly,  Eck- 
hart, B.  A.,  Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Mer- 
riam,  O'Donnell,  Post,  Revell,  Robins 
—11. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yeas,  37;  nays, 

11.  The  motion  to  file  is  carried.  The 
Secretary  will  read  No.  3,  reading  the 
section  and  all  the  alternatives. 

The  Secretary  then  read  No.  3 and 
the  alternatives,  as  they  appear  at  page 
51  of  the  proceedings. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  be- 

fore the  house  is  the  alternative  to 
No.  3. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I move  that  it 

be  placed  on  file. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  alternative  to 


December  3 


94 


1906 


No.  3 be  placed  on  file.  Any  discus- 
sion on  the  question? 

A VOICE:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor signify  by  saying  aye.  Opposed, 
no.  The  motion  is  carried. 

MR.  RAYMOND:  I move  the  adop- 

tion of  No.  3. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  and 
seconded  that  No.  3 be  adopted,  the 
veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall  be  as  now 
prescribed  by  law.  Any  discussion? 
If  not,  as  many  as  favor  that  say  aye. 
Those  opposed  say  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  4. 

The  Secretary  then  read  No.  4 as  it 
appears  at  pages  51  and  52  of  the  pro- 
ceedings. > 

MR.  EIDMANN : I move  that  altern- 
ative No.  4 be  placed  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

assume  that  motions  to  lay  on  the  ta- 
ble, or  to  file,  are  not  intended  to  shut 
off  debate;  at  least,  they  will  not  have 
that  effect. 

MR.  DEVER:  I listened  with  a great 
deal  of  interest  to  Mr.  Fisher’s  discus- 
sion the  other  day  on  the  question  of 
the  administrative  and  legislative  power 
of  the  mayor,  and  his  views  with  regard 
to  putting  those  under  two  heads,  and 
I was  very  much  impressed  with  the 
force  of  his  argument.  I voted  against 
the  motion,  but  possibly  with  some  mis- 
givings as  to  whether  I was  right  or 
wrong  in  that.  It  seems  to  me  in  this 
case  it  is  desirous,  and  I believe  we  will 
all  assume  that  it  is  desirable  that 
neither  one  department  nor  the  other 
should  have  a controlling  power  over 
each  other.  The  council,  the  legislative 
department,  should  not  be  placed  under 
the  control  of  the  mayor,  neither  should 
the  mayor  or  the  executive  department 
be  put  at  the  mercy  of  the  council.  It 
is  desirable  to  separate  these  two  de- 
partments, or  at  least  to  arrange  it  so 
that  they  will  co-operate  effectually  with 


each  other,  and  so  that  they  can  get 
along  with  each  other.  It  seems  to  me 
it  becomes  necessary  to  adopt  this  al- 
ternative to  No.  4.  That  gives  the 
mayor  and  the  city  council,  whether  the 
term  be  fixed  for  two  years  or  four 
years,  or  any  other  term,  that  gives 
them  the  same  length  of  time  to  serve 
in  office.  It  has  been  a matter  of  well- 
known  history  here  that  the  mayors 
who  have  sat  in  the  presiding  officer’s 
chair  have  had  and  do  have  and  exer- 
cise constantly  a controlling  influence 
over  the  deliberations  and  the  conduct 
of  the  aldermen  to  some  extent.  And 
even  to  go  further  than  that,  it  is 
within  the  knowledge  of  perhaps  all  of 
us  who  have  been  watching  the  affairs 
of  this  city  that  the  mayors  who  have 
occupied  the  chair  have  interested 
themselves  in  the  nominees  for  office 
of  the  various  parties,  and  have  said 
to  the  people  of  the  various  wards  who 
they  should  nominate  for  political  office 
for  certain  offices.  Now,  if  you  should 
give  the  mayor  a four  years’  term  and 
give  the  aldermen  a two  years’  term, 
then  the  power  of  the  mayor  over  the 
aldermen  and  over  the  nominations, 
why,  he  would  control  absolutely  the 
legislation  of  this  council.  We  have  it 
to  some  extent  to-day,  and  have  had  it 
to  a greater  extent  in  times  past;  if  you 
give  them  more  power,  they  will  take 
advantage  of  it.  Now,  an  alderman  is 
only  human,  and  it  is  sometimes  diffi- 
cult for  some  of  us  to  come  to  the 
council.  Now,  some  men  in  certain 
sections  of  the  city,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, get  the  nominations  for  the 
office,  and  in  reference  to  this  I believe 
that  a man  should  hold  public  office  free 
from  the  control  of  the  city  administra- 
tion or  the  control  of  the  county  office. 
I believe  the  aldermen  should  be  elect- 
ed for  four  years  if  the  mayor  has  a 
four-year  term,  so  that  such  an  ap- 
pointee will  know  that  he  will  hold 
office  for  four  years,  and  that  will  have 
some  influence  in  the  matter  of  nomi- 


December  3 


95 


1906 


nating  candidates  for  certain  offices.  I 
think  that  section  should  be  adopted. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I am  very  much 
in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  this  al- 
ternative; but  the  recommendation  of 
our  committee  on  municipal  elections 
and  tenure  of  office,  alternative  No.  4, 
will  be  practically  the  same  as  No.  4, 
because  the  committee  recommends  that 
the  term  of  the  aldermen  should  be  four 
years,  that  the  aldermen  be  elected  for 
four  years,  one-half  of  the  aldermen  to 
be  elected  every  two  years,  so  that  the 
two  would  be  equivalent.  Now,  it 
strikes  me  as  undesirable  that  the 
office  of  mayor  should  be  exalted  over 
that  of  the  aldermen.  It  would  be  in 
reality  subordinating  the  legislative  de- 
partment to  the  executive  department. 
It  strikes  me  no  department  should  be 
subordinated  to  another.  In  the  nation 
we  have  our  senators  elected  for  six 
years,  and  our  representatives  elected 
for  two  years,  and  the  president  elected 
for  four  years,  something  of  a balance; 
in  other  words,  the  president  occupies 
the  middle  time.  It  strikes  me  it  would 
be  a very  unfortunate  thing  to  put  in 
this  term  of  office  of  four  years  and  not 
have  the  term  of  office  of  the  aldermen 
four  years.  It  would  be  simply  exalt- 
ing the  office  of  mayor  in  the  way  in- 
dicated, which  should  not  be  allowed;  it 
would  be  subordinating  the  office  of  al- 
dermen to  that  of  the  mayor,  which 
should  not  be  subordinated. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  before  we 

vote  on  this  we  should  get  clearly  be- 
fore our  minds  the  situation  we  have 
created  by  the  measures  now  adopted. 
In  the  discussion  we  have  had  thus  far 
as  to  the  functions  of  the  mayor  and 
the  manner  of  his  selection,  it  has 
been  proposed  that  the  mayor  should 
be  separated,  as  far  as  possible,  from 
the  legislative.  Personally,  it  is  my 
own  conviction  that  no  one  department 
is  to  have  precedence  over  the  other; 
that  in  all  cases  the  legislative  depart- 
ment should  be  the  policy  determining 


department,  and  that  that  department 
should  control  the  men  who  are  merely 
to  carry  out  and  administer  that  de- 
partment. I have  already  expressed  my 
views  on  that.  The  Convention,  how- 
ever, has  decided,  as  I understand  it, 
has  decided  for  the  reason — at  least  it 
would  appear  so  from  the  trend  of  the 
debate — that  it  did  not  wish  to  sub- 
ordinate the  mayor  to  the  city  council. 
You  are  now  face  to  face  with  the  prop- 
osition as  to  whether  you  will  subordi- 
nate the  legislative  to  the  executive; 
you  have  created  a mayor  who  has  the 
veto  power,  and  who  has  the  power  to 
appoint  various  heads  of  departments. 
Someone  must  appoint  the  subordinate 
executive  officials,  and  that  must,  in 
the  nature  of  things — must  be  the  chief 
executive,  the  mayor.  If  you  leave  the 
formation  of  the  government  in  that 
shape,  it  means  you  will  have  a mayor 
who  is  going  to  have  the  power  of  the 
appointment  of  all  the  heads  of  depart- 
ments, and  if  he  is  elected  for  four 
years,  and  the  members  of  the  council 
are  elected  for  only  two  years,  why,  in- 
evitably the  influence  of  the  mayor  will 
be  overwhelming,  and  if  it  is  exerted 
in  the  right  direction  it  will  be  at  his 
dictation.  If  we  are  going  to  keep  up 
the  theory  of  having  two  departments 
independent  of  each  other,  of  relative- 
ly equal  responsibility,  you  must  make 
them  co-ordinate,  and  on  equal  terms. 
You  must  not  create  an  official  who 
knows  that  in  two  years  he  must  go 
to  the  people  for  re-election,  and  in  the 
executive  chair  sits  a man  who  is  there 
for  four  years.  However,  it  seems  to 
me  that  this  alternative  and  the 
main  proposition  to  which  it  is 

the  alternative  will  be  much 

more  intelligently  considered  if  we  de- 
fer action  upon  this  at  this  time  and 
take  it  up  when  we  are  considering  the 
term  of  office  of  the  aldermen,  when 
that  comes  up  for  our  consideration.  I 
think  we  can  then  more  intelligently  de- 
cide on  what  recommendation  to  make, 


December  3 


96 


1906 


when  we  decide  this  matter,  when  we 
decide  whether  we  will  make  the  alder- 
manic  term  four  years. 

I move  that  No.  4 and  the  alternative 
be  postponed  for  action  in  connection 
with  the  decision  and  deliberation  of 
this  Convention  upon  the  term  of  office 
of  aldermen. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  Any  discus- 
sion? If  not,  all  those  in  favor  signify 
by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  4. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

be  permitted  to  make  a suggestion?  I 
see  my  late  lamented  friend,  a native 
of  Russia,  resident  of  Paris,  citizen  of 
the  world,  Mr.  Ostrogorsky,  is  down  in 
the  proceedings  as  Mr.  Oscar  Gorsky, 
which,  I apprehend,  is  a fair  statement 
of  what  was  understood.  Of  course,  it 
occurs  to  me  if  these  minutes  that  are 
taken  by  our  efficient  stenographers  are 
to  be  printed  and  sent  broadcast  with- 
out revision,  some  of  us  are  apt  to  get 
into  trouble;  I don’t  know  whether 
libel  suits  or  other  things  might  follow, 
but  I did  not  suppose  that  a transcript 
of  the  proceedings  would  be  printed  and 
sent  broadcast  without  some  revision,  to 
ascertain  whether  it  is  correct  or  not. 
I have  not  examined  the  rest  to  know 
whether  the  accuracy  in  other  respects 
is  the  same  as  regard  to  the  name  of 
the  distinguished  gentleman  whom  I 
have  named. 

MR.  POST:  What  is  the  name? 

MR.  FISHER:  His  name  is  Ostro- 

gorsky— one  name. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  the  gentleman’s  name  will  be 
corrected  officially. 

MR.  FISHER:  Is  it  the  intention, 

may  I ask,  of  having  the  notes  tran- 
scribed regularly  and  printed  and  sent 
out  in  this  way? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 


MR.  FISHER:  Without  revision? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  it  is  re- 

vised as  far  as  it  is  possible  to  revise 
it.  It  is  the  intention  to  get  the  day’s 
work  in  the  hands  of  the  Convention 
at  the  succeeding  meeting,  and  we  will 
try  to  get  it  as  accurately  as  possible. 
Perhaps  there  won’t  be  any  more  hard 
names  to  spell. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I suggest  that  if 

any  such  thing  happens  again,  the  name 
be  spelled  out  in  writing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:'  If  there  is  no  ob- 
jection it  is  so  Ordered.  The  secretary 
will  read  No.  4. 

The  secretary  then  read  No.  4 as  it 
appears  at  page  51. in  the  proceedings. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  second  alternative  to  No.  1. 

MR.  FISHER:  Not  for  the  purpose 
of  debate,  but  I think  at  this  time,  it 
will  be  well  to  call  attention  to  a mat- 
ter which  has  not  been  explained  here- 
tofore to  the  Convention,  namely:  that 
the  committee  on  rules  in  adopting  the 
order  of  these  various  propositions,  and 
their  alternatives  intended  to,  and  sup- 
posed that  they  had  adopted  the  policy 
of  putting  first  the  main  proposition 
or  recommendation  of  the  committee 
having  the  subject  matter  in  charge.  I 
think  we  should  understand  how  these 
alternatives  came  to  be  presented  as 
alternatives  and  not  as  main  proposi- 
tions. No.  1,  as  I understand  it,  is  the 
recommendation  of  the  committee  on 
election;  the  other  alternatives  are  in- 
tended to  represent  other  views  pre- 
sented to  the  committee  on  rules. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 
upon  the  second  alternative  to  No.  1, 
which  the  secretary  will  read. 

The  secretary  thereupon  read  the 
second  alternative  to  No.  1 as  it  ap- 
pears at  page  52  in  the  proceedings. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I move  that  it 
be  placed  on  file. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 
have  heard  the  motion  that  the  second 
alternative  to  No.  1,  providing  for  the 


December  3 


97 


1906 


nomination  of  elective  city  officers,  be 
placed  on  file. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Does  that  not  raise 
the  question  as  to  whether  this  is  a 
proper  section  to  insert  in  the  charter? 
It  occurs  to  me  we  should  have  a 
general  election  law  in  this  state,  and 
that  the  provisions  with  reference  to 
elections  should  go  in  such  a law.  Per- 
haps I am  wrong,  but  it  occurs  to  me 
it  is  a subject  that  does  not  belong 
in  a city  charter. 

MR.  FISHER:  While  speaking  to  this 
proposition  made  to  table  this  matter, 
I think  Alderman  Bennett  is  incorrect 
in  the  general  principle  that  is  laid 
down,  for  this  reason:  First,  if  we 
are  to  have  any  special  modification  for 
the  City  of  Chicago,  differing  from 
the  rest  of  the  state,  and  in  all  of 
the  general  laws  we  have  had  on  the 
subject  there  has  been  an  attempt  to 
create  special  divisions,  there  is  under 
the  present  law  such  an  attempt,  that 
should  be  done  under  this  amendment, 
and  as  a part  of  this  charter;  at  least 
as  a special  provision  to  it;  therefore,  it 
will  have  to  be  adopted  as  a part  of 
this  charter,  although  it  had  to  be 
done  by  separate  bill,  as  is  proposed  in 
the  first  matter  that  we  postponed  until 
the  end,  and  we  all  recognize,  I think, 
first,  that  the  commissions  in  the  City 
of  Chicago  are  radically  different,  not 
only  from  the  commissions  in  the  rest 
of  the  state,  I mean  the  rural  parts 
of  the  state,  but  also  from  the  com- 
missions which  prevail  in  other  cities 
in  the  state;  and  certainly  that  has 
been  the  practice  heretofore,  and  I 
think  we  all  recognize  that  there  is  a 
very  strong  public  demand  in  this 
city,  and  that  is  found  not  among  the 
masses  of  the  people  only,  but  among 
those  that  are  active  in  politics,  that 
a differentiation  can  be  made  by  which 
the  officers  of  the  city,  the  aldermen, 
or  whatever  their  office  is,  shall  be 
selected  by  nomination  by  petition  and 
not  by  means  of  the  present  somewhat 


complicated  machinery  of  our  direct 
primaries.  Now,  personally  I am  in 
favor  of  the  original  proposition,  or  re- 
commendation of  the  committee  having 
this  matter  in  charge. 

MR.  BEEBE:  This  brings  up  the 

question  of  electing  a large  number  of 
men  through  the  city  as  a whole.  If 
we  elect  our  aldermen  from  the  city 
as  a whole,  it  will  be  difficult  to  vote 
for — I believe  it  is — sixty,  under  No. 
1 of  the  alternative  proposition  pre- 
sented this  afternoon,  under  any  other 
system  than  the  party  system.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  are  to  elect  our 
aldermen  by  wards,  I think  the  system 
presented  by  the  committee  will  be 
much  the  best. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I don’t  know 
that  there  is  such  a recommendation  as 
to  elect  the  aldermen  from  the  city 
as  a whole. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  has  been 
a suggestion  by  Mr.  Revell 

MR.  RE  YELL:  There  was  a subse- 
quent suggestion  made  this  afternoon 
that  provides  for  that  matter,  but  it 
does  not  provide  for  sixty  aldermen 
being  elected  at  one  time  or  in  any 
one  year. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  there  is  no  fur- 
ther discussion,  we  will  have  the  secre- 
tary call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  T. 
J.,  Fisher,  Jones,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Mc- 
Cormick, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merri- 
am,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Post,  Raymer, 
Revell,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Sethness, 
Shedd,  Taylor,  Thompson,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  White,  Young,  Zimmer — 32. 

Nays— Baker,  Bennett,  Church,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Eidman,  Erickson,  Guerin,  Hoyne, 
Kittleman,  Lundberg,  Pendarvis,  Pow- 
ers, Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Swift,  Wilkins — 20. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yeas,  32;  Noes, 
20.  The  motion  to  table  is  carried. 


December  3 


98 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  alterna- 
tive to  No.  1. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  In  regard  to  alterna- 
tive No.  1,  I move  the  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  and 
seconded  that  the  first  alternative  to 
No.  1 be  adopted.  The  motion  is  open 
to  the  house  for  discussion. 

MR.  COLE:  I don’t  very  often  envy 
the  people  who  have  a large  vocabulary 
of  eloquent  words,  but  I do  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  for  it  seems  to  me  we  have 
come  to  the  most  important  item  in 
the  whole  charter.  There  are  com- 
plaints made  all  over  the  city  constantly 
in  regard  to  our  mayor  and  alderman 
playing  politics  in  their  offices.  There 
are  arguments  brought  forward  in  re- 
gard to  the  contention  that  we  should 
have  a mayor  who  is  a mayor;  a busi- 
ness mayor;  and  a business  mayor  and 
a political  mayor  don’t  jibe  together, 
and  they  cannot  jibe  together.  There 
is  only  one  way  to  divorce  the  mayor 
from  politics.  The  parties  themselves 
will  be  strengthened  by  the  making  of 
this  a non-political  nomination.  I do 
not  know,  and  I cannot  see  at  all  where 
there  is  any  direct  connection  between 
the  city — the  municipality  and  the  state. 
I am  willing  to  concede  that  parties 
are  necessarily  desirable  in  state  af- 
fairs and  national  affairs.  I am  willing 
to  concede  that  party  organization 
should  be  carried  on  in  county  affairs, 
but  it  seems  to  me  it  becomes  a point 
now  of  the  utmost  importance  whether 
politics  are  at  all  involved  in  municipal 
affairs.  Why  should  not  we  divorce 
municipal  affairs  from  politics?  I don’t 
see  where  the  election  of  a mayor  and 
aldermen  can  be  in  any  way  connected 
with  a republican  or  a democratic  nom- 
ination any  more  than  the  representa- 
tive or  the  president  of  the  First 
National  Bank,  or  the  election  of  a man- 
ager of  Marshall  Field’s  store.  I be- 
lieve if  you  attempt  to  act  in  one 
thing  that  can  bring  about  reform  in 
the  city  administration  this  is  the  one 


thing  more  than  anything  else  that  we 
should  act  upon,  and  we  should  decide 
in  future  that  the  election  of  city 
officers  shall  be  by  petition  only.  Let 
us  divorce  republicanism  from  munici- 
pal affairs;  let  us  divorce  democracy 
from  municipal  affairs.  Let  us  nominate 
and  elect  mayors  who  will  be  mayors 
instead  of  having  them  take  up  their 
time  interviewing  political  parties  and 
having  them  elect  them  as  head  of  the 
party.  Let  us  divorce  the  parties  from 
municipal  politics  so  that  the  mayor 
shall  be  elected  by  the  city  and  decide 
in  favor  of  it  as  opposed  to  any  other 
method. 

MR.  JONES:  I am  in  favor  of  the 
motion,  because  I believe  that  nomina- 
tion by  petition  would  not  accomplish 
what  Mr.  Cole  suggests.  We  know  that 
any  man  that  becomes  a candidate  for 
any  office  in  this  city  must  have  a vote- 
getting organization  behind  him. 
Throughout  the  century  we  have  been 
working  up  a system  whereby  the  polit- 
ical party  has  become  a vote-getting 
organization,  and  the  man  who  secured 
the  nomination  by  a political  party  has 
back  of  him  a vote-getting  force — the 
vote-getting  force  of  that  party.  Now, 
if,  by  such  a plan  as  this,  we  should 
eliminate  the  political  party,  the  can- 
didate would  have  to  devise  a vote- 
getting organization  in  some  other  way; 
and  as  far  as  I can  see,  there  are  only 
two  ways  in  which  he  would  get  it. 
One  would  be  in  case  he  were  a very 
wealthy  man  and  had  sufficient  funds 
to  organize  a vote-getting  machine  of 
his  own;  and  the  second  would  be  in 
case  he  is  backed  by  some  special  in- 
terest which  is  desirous  of  seeing  his 
election.  I believe  that  the  elimination 
of  the  party  as  a vote-getting  organiza- 
tion would  be  inadvisable,  therefore, 
because  it  would  bring  in  either  the 
power  of  the  wealth  of  the  individual, 
or  it  would  make  supreme  special  in- 
terests in  the  city  which  might  have 
an  interest  in  the  candidacy  of  a par- 


December  3 


99 


1906 


ticular  man.  That  would  be  the  result 
if  this  petition  plan  should  eliminate 
the  party  system.  But  I believe  it 
would  not  eliminate  the  party.  It  would 
make  the  party  irresponsible.  We  are 
in  favor  of  the  primary  election  sys- 
tem, in  order  that  the  party  may  be 
controlled  and  its  leaders  be  compelled 
to  recognize  the  desires  of  the  rank 
and  file.  By  this  petition  plan  the 
leaders  of  the  party  would  get  together 
in  a caucus  and  decide  upon  a particu- 
lar man  to  be  supported  by  the  party, 
and  they  would  get  petitions  filed,  and 
that  man  would  be  the  nominee;  but 
the  people  of  the  party  would  have  no 
vote,  and  will  have  done  nothing  in  the 
matter.  Now,  the  direct  primary  ob- 
ject is  to  prevent  the  leaders  themselves 
from  selecting  a nominee,  and  compel 
them  to  go  back  to  the  rank  and  file 
to  select  the  nominee. 

I believe  the  march  of  progress  is 
from  the  uncontrolled  political  party, 
to  the  political  party  controlled  by  the 
primary  election,  and  if  you  now  take 
the  step  of  eliminating  the  primary 
election  and  going  back  to  the  petition, 
you  go  back  to  over  a century  ago,  be- 
fore the  political  convention  system 
was  adopted.  Then  men  were  nomi- 
nated by  petition,  and  by  anonymous 
letters.  Now,  there  is  another  move- 
ment to  reduce  the  number  on  the 
ticket,  and  establishing  the  petition 
plan  would  simply  block  instead  of 
remove  objection  from  that  standpoint. 
Instead  of  having  one  nominee  from 
each  of  several  parties,  you  would  have 
a larger  number  of  names  and  a greater 
number  of  parties.  I,  therefore,  am  in 
favor  of  the  primary  election  plan,  as 
opposed  to  the  petition  plan,  because 
I believe  the  petition  plan  will  not 
eliminate  the  party;  and  if  it  did,  it 
would  be  objectionable,  because  it 
would  create  another  organization. 
And,  in  the  second  place,  I am  opposed 
to  it,  because  it  would  make  the  party 
irresponsible,  and  the  primary  election 


law  places  in  the  hands  of  the  people 
the  nominations  for  city  offices;  and 
that  is  where  they  should  be  placed. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  to  sub- 
stitute No.  1 for  the  alternative  to 
No.  1.  It  is  that  the  elected  city  offi- 
cers shall  be  nominated  only  by  peti- 
tion of  qualified  voters. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  reduce 
your  amendment  to  writing,  please? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  is  already 
printed  here.  I substitute  No.  1 for 
the  alternative  to  No.  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 
have  heard  the  motion  as  made.  Would 
it  not  be  well  to  permit  a vote  to  be 
taken  on  each  one  of  these  matters? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Except  if  the 

first  alternative  to  No.  1 would  be  car- 
ried, that  wrould  put  an  end  to  No.  1. 
Therefore,  at  this  juncture,  I move  No. 
1,  which  becomes  first,  as  a substantive 
to  the  alternative. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 
the  motion  of  Mr.  Rosenthal  to  sub- 
stitute No.  1 for  the  first  alternative 
to  No.  1.  In  other  words,  to  substitute 
the  petition  plan  for  the  direct  prim- 
ary plan. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Will  you  kindly 
state  the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Will  you  kindly 
state  the  pending  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  pending  ques- 
tion is  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  motion  to  sub- 
stitute No.  1 for  the  first  alternative 
to  No.  1. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Why  cannot  we — 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I rise  to  a point 
of  order.  The  original  motion  was  due 
virtually  to  what  is  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
desire  to  accomplish  by  his  motion.  As 
I understand,  the  original  motion  was 
to  take 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  alterna- 
tive to  No.  1. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  The  first  alter- 

native to  No.  1? 


December  3 


100 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  The  first  motion 
is  to  substitute  the  alternative  itself. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir,  the  pro- 
position itself. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I beg  pardon. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I wish  to  say  a 
word  on  that  proposition.  The  report 
of  our  committee  went  over  this  ques- 
tion: That  was  that  we  were  in  favor 
of  nominating  all  the  aldermen  by  pe- 
tition. We  expressed  no  opinion  upon 
the  question  of  the  nomination  of  the 
mayor.  However,  it  seems  to  me  that 
there  is  no  danger  of  doing  away  with 
the  party,  as  such,  or  of  making  an 
irresponsible  party,  or  having  irrespon- 
sible nominations.  In  other  places 
where  the  same  system  has  been  tried, 
it  has  been  found  to  work  very  ef- 
fectively. Nor  is  there  any  danger 
of  having  a large  number  of  nomina- 
tions, because  there  are  places  in  which 
it  is  sufficient  for  only  eight  or  ten 
people  to  nominate  candidates  for  of- 
fices, yet,  as  a rule,  only  two  or  three 
are  nominated.  I,  myself,  believe  that 
the  direct  primary  method  may  be 
found  to  be  a great  disappointment,  for 
it  will  not  accomplish  what  the  people 
suppose  we  are  accomplishing  by  the 
direct  primaries.  Now,  let  us  have  one 
election  at  which  people  can  express 
their  opinion  and  express  it  definitely 
and  decisively.  If  a person  wants  to 
come  before  the  people  as  a candidate, 
give  him  the  opportunity  to  come  be- 
fore them.  The  party,  instead  of  being 
less  responsible,  will  be  more  respon- 
sible than  it  was  before,  and  for  this 
reason,  in  my  opinion:  because  the 

party  knows  now  that  it  is  very  difficult 
to  place  some  other  man  in  nomination 
for  a particular  office,  with  a provision 
such  as  this,  and  with  a party  such 
as  we  have  here.  Then,  again,  the  party 
will  be  particular  about  making  nomi- 
nations, because  it  knows  that  a direct 
candidate  can  be  put  up  by  petition. 


Therefore,  I am  in  favor  of  substituting 
this. 

MR.  WHITE:  In  order  that  I may 
vote  intelligently  on  this  proposition,  I 
would  like  to  ask  if  it  is  contemplated, 
in  case  this  first  alternative  is  adopted, 
that  the  election  shall  take  place — the 
nominations,  rather,  shall  take  place 
under  the  present  direct  primary  law, 
which,  by  the  way,  is  not  a direct  pri- 
mary law  at  all;  or  whether  it  con- 
templates the  formation  of  some  special 
primary  law  which  shall  be  a primary 
law  for  the  City  of  Chicago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I presume  the  lat- 
ter is  the  intention,  but  it  is  to  secure 
information  from  this  convention  the 
committee  is  after,  whether  some  direct 
primary  law  shall  be  adopted. 

MR.  RAYMER:  A few  minutes  ago, 
when  the  question  of  the  term  of  the 
mayor  was  up  for  consideration,  one 
of  the  arguments  used  was  that  if  you 
differentiated  between  the  term  of  the 
mayor  and  the  aldermen,  the  mayor,  be- 
ing in  office  for  four  years,  would  de- 
sire to  side-track  the  aldermen  to  pre- 
vent his  renomination,  owing  to  the 
fact  that  he.  would  go  on  two  years  still 
in  office,  and  that  would  make  him 
doubly  strong;  that  would  give  him 
leverage  with  the  political  party  that 
would  be  strong  enough  to  defeat  the 
aldermen.  It  seems  to  me,  gentlemen, 
that  if  the  report  of  the  committee  is 
adopted,  that  you  eliminate  entirely 
from  that  argument  the  fact  that  the 
mayor  will  have  anything  to  do  with 
an  alderman  securing  renomination. 
Nomination  by  petition  would  enable  a 
man  to  act  more  independently  than  he 
would,  if,  fearing  the  mayor’s  opinion, 
he  would  permit  his  judgment  to  be 
governed  or  actuated  by  the  mayor.  I 
think  that  if  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee is  adopted,  you  take  away  from 
that  argument  its  strongest  point,  and 
I believe  that  people  who  desire  to 
run  for  office— for  municipal  office — the 


December  3 


101 


1906 


people  in  his  neighborhood  should  at 
least  have  the  right  and  the  privilege  of 
nominating  him  if  they  so  desire.  As 
it  is  today  it  is  a well  known  fact  that 
if  a political  organization  does  not  de- 
sire a man  for  a candidate,  it  is  im- 
possible, almost,  under  our  present  sys- 
tem, for  him  to  become  a candidate 
without  a great  deal  of  expense.  But 
my  judgment  is  that  if  the  report  of 
the  committee  is  adopted,  it  would  re- 
sult in  a much  better  condition  than  we 
have  today,  and  it  would  absolutely,  in 
my  opinion,  eliminate  politics  from  your 
aldermanic  board,  and  I think  that 
should  be  done. 

MR.  WHITE:  May  I now  speak  very 
briefly  to  this  proposition:  If,  as  you 
say,  it  is  contemplated  to  have  a real, 
genuine,  direct  primary  law  of  the 
City  of  Chicago 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  pre- 
sumption. 

MR.  WHITE:  I understand.  Then, 
personally,  I should  be  in  favor  of  the 
direct  primary  system  of  nomination; 
theoretically,  I think  nomination  by  pe- 
tition is  very  pleasant  to  think  about, 
but  it  undoubtedly  has  some  disad- 
vantages. I think  Senator  Jones  strikes 
the  key  note  of  the  difficulty,  and  the 
danger  of  the  petition  proposition,  in 
the  fact  that  the  man  who  seeks  nomi- 
nation by  petition,  if  he  has  plenty  of 
wealth,  for  instance,  will  certainly  have 
an  advantage  over  the  man  who  has 
little  or  no  wealth;  and,  secondly,  the 
temptation  to  great  corporate  interests, 
not  only  with  their  immense  wealth 
back  of  them,  but  with  their  immense 
following  of  one  kind  or  another,  to 
circulate  petitions,  would  practically 
bring  about  the  nomination  of  that  kind 
of  men  that  one  would  wish  to  dis- 
courage in  a great  city  like  this.  That 
is  one  of  the  greatest  dangers  in  the 
petition  proposition,  and  for  that  reason, 
chiefly,  I am  in  favor  of  the  direct 
primary  instead  of  nomination  by  pe- 
tition. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  I desire  some  in- 
formation. I am  somewhat  confused 
after  listening  to  Mr.  Rosenthal  in  re- 
gard to  these  two  propositions.  The 
proposition  submitted  by  the  commit- 
tee ’s  alternative  is  that  city  officers 
shall  be  elected  only  by  the  petition  of 
qualified  voters,  and,  still,  in  his  talk, 
he  goes  on  and  he  states  what  the  party 
may  do.  The  party  will  be  more  guard- 
ed and  careful  in  regard  to  the  kind 
of  men  they  put  up.  I will  ask  Mr. 
Rosenthal  how  the  republican  or  the 
democratic  parties  are  going  to  make 
nominations  under  the  provisions  of 
this  section.  If  John  Smith,  or  John 
Jones,  or  John  Brown,  went  out  and  got 
up  a petition  for  Mr.  Williams  as  the 
democratic  nominee  for  mayor,  why 
could  not  four  or  five  other 
citizens  go  out  and  get  up 
this  same  petition,  and  then  decide 
who  is  the  democratic  candidate  for 
mayor?  I take  it,  if  this  is  adopted, 
you  do  away  with  the  parties  entirely, 
and  that  any  man  desiring  to  run  for 
mayor  will  go  out  and  get  up  a peti- 
tion signed  by  a certain  number  of 
qualified  voters  of  50  or  100  men,  and 
appear  as  a candidate  for  mayor,  and 
that  all  such  shall  have  their  names 
printed  on  the  ticket  in  alphabetical 
order.  Am  I right? 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  Under  this  rule, 
I believe  I am  not  allowed  to  speak 
again  on  this  proposition. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I have  asked  a 
question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan 

asked  the  question  and  you  have  the 
right  to  reply. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I see  no  obstacle 
in  the  democratic  party  nominating  a 
man,  or  the  republican  party  confirming 
a nomination  already  made  by  petition, 
or  withdrawing  the  strength  of  the 
party  from  a man  nominated  by  peti- 
tion. The  only  thing  we  take  away  is 
the  legal  efficacy  of  a party  nomina- 
tion, and  it  seems  to  me  that  is  a 


December  3 


102 


1906 


good  thing  to  take  away  in  all  muni- 
cipal elections.  It  is  true  that  we  are, 
in  a measure,  reverting  to  old  systems. 
Wherever  that  old  system  was  tried, 
originally,  it  was  found  to  work  ex- 
cellently; and  wherever  it  has  been 
worked  in  recent  times,  it  has  been 
worked  excellently;  and  it  seems  to  me 
it  is  time  to  restore  that  system  to  our 
municipal  elections.  It  also  has  been 
found  that  the  direct  primaries  have 
in  certain  places  been  manipulated,  but 
they  cannot  be  manipulated  more  than 
in  the  great  party  matters.  Now,  they 
can  be  carefully  manipulated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 
further  discussion  of  the  question 

MR.  FISHER:  Pardon  me,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  going 
to  vote  on  a question  that  is  of  vital 
importance,  as  Mr.  Cole  has  said,  and 
that  we  should  clearly  understand  what 
we  are  voting  on  and  what  the  effect 
of  the  vote  will  be.  Now,  I think  that 
it  is  within  the  knowledge  of  every 
one  in  this  Convention  that,  as  a matter 
of  fact,  national  party  lines  cut  no 
real  figure  in  municipal  elections  in 
the  City  of  Chicago  in  a real  funda- 
mental sense;  and,  it  seems  to  me,  that 
the  figure  which  national  party  lines 
cut  in  the  election  of  mayor  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  today,  is  merely  with 
regard  to  the  machinery  of  the  nomi- 
nation and  election  of  mayor.  I would 
like  to  ask  the  members  of  this  con- 
vention, what  is  the  principle  of  the 
republican  party  with  regard  to  public 
utilities  in  this  city,  if  any  man  can 
answer  it.  I mean  the  party,  as  a party. 
What  does  the  republican  party,  as  a 
party,  believe  in  the  municipal  owner- 
ship and  operation  of  public  utilities? 
Is  it  for  or  against  municipal  owner- 
ship and  operation,  or  is  it  for  or 
against  private  ownership  and  opera- 
tion under  regulation?  We  all  know 
that  within  the  republican  party,  as 
now  constituted,  and  within  the  demo- 
cratic party,  as  now  constituted,  there 


are  large  bodies  of  men  who  differ  on 
such  questions  of  municipal  import  as 
distinguished  from  national  politics. 
You  remember  when  we  ran  a republi- 
can candidate  for  mayor.  It  has  hap- 
pened already.  Let  us  talk  about  the 
realities  that  exist  before  us.  At 
the  last  election  in  this  city,  the  re- 
publican party  nominated  a gentleman 
for  mayor,  who,  according  to  common 
understanding,  wrote  his  own  platform 
on  that  question,  and  so  stated  at  the 
time,  and  so  stated  on  the  platform  dur- 
ing the  campaign.  Did  he  represent  the 
voice  and  the  opinion  of  the  republican 
party  in  doing  it?  It  may  be  he  re- 
presented the  opinion  of  the  majority  of 
that  body;  but  there  was  a large  num- 
ber of  men,  who,  as  republicans,  felt 
constrained  to  vote  for  the  candidate 
of  another  party,  although  they  dis- 
agreed with  the  platform  adopted  by 
that  party.  So  it  was  with  the  demo- 
cratic side.  So  it  is  with  all  of  us. 
You  cannot  by  any  possibility  success- 
fully operate  a party  which  is  organ- 
ized on  national  and  state  lines,  and  fit 
that  party  to  a municipal  election.  It 
never  has  been  done,  and  it  never  will 
be  done.  The  lines  of  cleavage  of  the 
different  parties  are  divided.  The  lines 
upon  which  they  are  agreed  in  national 
and  state  elections,  are  not  the  same 
lines  governing  a municipal  election. 
We  all  know  it  is  so.  Here  are  two 
great  parties  which  are  formed,  let  us 
say,  on  two  sides,  where  a fundamental 
issue  has  been  involved  on  the  question 
of  slavery,  or  the  question  of  tariff,  or 
any  other  question  of  that  sort  upon 
which  men  divide,  all  through  this  land. 
Now,  it  by  no  means  follows  that  in 
this  certain  body  of  men,  believing  in 
a tariff,  or  a certain  party  of  men  being 
adherents  of  free  trade,  or  something 
other  than  a tariff,  that  the  same  body 
of  men  will  divide  in  anything  like  that 
way  on  a municipal  question  relating 
to  public  utilities,  or  anything  else. 
Yet  you  are  in  this  position:  having  or- 


December  3 


103 


1906 


ganized  a great  political  party,  and 
dividing  it  on  national  and  state  lines, 
that  party  having  its  organization  ex- 
tending into  and  over  each  one  of  the 
districts  out  of  which  it  is  composed — 
if  that  party  has  an  organization,  as 
today  it  has, — you  are  in  this  position, 
that  that  organization  is  created  along 
those  lines.  For  instance,  you  have  the 
republican  party.  That  republican 
party  organizes  affairs  by  election  dis- 
tricts and  electing  delegates  to  the 
larger  districts,  and  the  convention 
elects  the  delegates  to  a still  larger 
convention  for  the  state.  And  the  or- 
ganization starts  at  the  top  or  the  bot- 
tom, as  you  please,  and  extends  from 
one  extreme  to  the  other.  Now,  that 
party  organization  works  on  national 
and  state  lines.  Now,  there  comes  a 
municipal  election,  and  it  proposes  to 
nominate  a candidate  for  mayor,  and 
his  views  on  the  tariff  or  any  other 
national  question  cut  absolutely  no 
figure  in  the  proposed  election.  There 
is  no  possible  point  where  it  touches 
the  proposition  of  a municipal  election. 
Now,  what  is  going  to  happen?  You 
say:  “There  must  be  an  organization 
for  vote  getting.  There  must  be  some 
sort  of  an  organization  behind  the  can- 
didate. ’’  Now,  we  have  all  our  sym- 
pathies in  this  question  of  a municipal 
election  within  the  party  organization, 
which,  so  formed,  proceeds  to  elect  a 
delegate  and  make  nomination  for 
mayor.  Now,  it  always  happens — and 
I am  speaking  to  gentlemen  who  have 
some  knowledge  of  practical  politics — 
it  always  happens  that  the  intelligent, 
wise,  party  politicians,  instead  of  be- 
ing glad  of  a proposition  of  that  kind, 
are  uniformly  embarrassed  by  it.  Take 
the  question,  for  instance,  of  public 
utilities.  That  is  a question  that  will 
alienate  a large  body  of  members  of 
that  party,  no  matter  what  position 
they  take  in  regard  to  it,  and  the  re- 
sult is  that  they  will  straddle  the  pro- 
position, or  you  make  a candidate  stand 


on  his  own  platform,  so  that  it  invari- 
ably becomes  an  embarrassment.  They 
say:  “We  don’t  want  to  take  the  posi- 
tion of  the  republican  party  in  favor 
or  against  municipal  ownership,  for  this 
reason:  If  we  declare  in  favor  of  mu- 
] nicipal  ownership  of  public  utilities  in 
1 the  City  of  Chicago,  there  are  a large 
number  of  our  adherents — a great  body 
of  republicans — who  are  not  in  favor  of 
that  idea.  They  belong  to  the  republi- 
can party,  but  with  regard  to  the  ques- 
tion of  public  utilities,  they  are  not 
with  us.  They  are  interested  in  tariff 
and  other  national  questions.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  we  take  a position 
against  municipal  operation  of  public 
utilities  in  this  city,  we  are  going  to 
alienate  a large  body  of  the  rank  and 
file  of  our  party  who  have  thought  upon 
it,  and  thought  over  issue,  and  are  in 
favor  of  municipal  ownership  of  public 
utilities.  The  result  is  that  one  of  two 
things  is  inevitable.  You  can  consider 
all  possible  alternatives,  but  they  come 
down  to  two:  You  must  either  adopt 
one  platform  on  one  side  or  other  of 
this  question,  and  alienate  those  who 
do  not  believe  in  it;  or  you  must  strad- 
dle the  proposition.  We  all  know  what 
is  the  usual  method  that  is  adopted:  It 
is  to  straddle,  if  it  can  be  done;  or  it 
is  a platform  which  does  not  mean 
anything,  if  it  can  be  gotten  up  so  that 
it  doesn’t  mean  anything.  If  the  public 
sentiment  is  so  aroused  on  the  question 
it  will  not  tolerate  a straddle,  and  then 
the  handling  of  the  whole  question  is 
passed  up  to  the  individual  candidate. 
Then  the  appeal  is  to  the  people  that 
the  democrats  shall  support  the  demo- 
cratic candidate,  because  he  is  a demo- 
cratic candidate;  and  that  the  repub- 
licans shall  support  the  republican  can- 
didate, because  he  is  a republican.  In- 
stead of  fighting  out  your  campaign  on 
the  real  issue,  you  are  getting  a fictitious 
issue,  which  either  wrecks  or  defeats 
him,  and  does  not  represent  republican- 
ism or  democracy,  and  does  not  repre- 


December  3 


104 


1906 


sent  the  principle  applicable  to  the  par- 
ticular question. 

Now,  I will  ask  any  man  in  this 
house  whether  he  believes  it  is  possible 
to  organize  and  to  get  up  an  organiza- 
tion of  a great  political  party  on  na- 
tional lines — a party  that  is  intended  to 
fight  out  a national  or  state  election,  and 
still  keep  that  party  united  on  munici- 
pal ownership  questions.  It  cannot  be 
done;  it  never  has  been  done.  Now,  if 
you  nominate  the  other  way,  you  will 
have  growing  up  in  your  cities  what 
ought  to  grow  up  in  your  cities,  namely, 
municipal  parties.  These  municipal  par- 
ties will  nominate  their  own  candidates; 
men  who  believe  in  one  thing  or  the 
other.  They  will  advocate  the  election 
of  the  man  who  believes  on  this  side 
of  a question,  and  they  will  oppose  the 
other.  Of  course,  it  is  difficult,  as  I 
said  the  other  day,  for  any  man  to  put 
himself  in  a position  where  he  clearly 
understands  how  a change  of  this  sort 
will  operate,  unless  the  machinery 
stands  which  will  exist  when  the  pres- 
ent machinery  is  destroyed  for  that 
purpose.  If  we  nominate  by  petition, 
— everybody  nominated  by  petition, 
then  any  body  of  men  who  believe  in 
any  policy  for  which  any  candidate  can 
stand,  can  nominate.  The  republican 
party  and  the  democratic  party  can 
still  nominate  its  men,  if  it  wishes,  and 
hold  caucases  and  conventions  and  se- 
lect its  men  in  the  ordinary  way  that 
it  can  now  be  done.  It  merely  will 
have  a petition  circulated  and  filed  and 
the  man  petitioned  for  becomes  the 
candidate,  and  you  will  find  at  once  that 
instead  of  that  party  being  able  to 
put  its  candidate  by  force  of  the  party 
machinery  before  the  people — you  will 
realize  that,  the  republican  party  and 
the  democratic  party 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Excuse  me,  Mr. 
Fisher,  your  time  is  up. 

MR.  SNOW : In  the  discussion  on 

this  point  so  far,  it  seems  to  me  most 
remarkable  that  those  gentlemen  who  ad- 


vocate a change  to  nomination  by  peti- 
tion, apparently  fail  to  grasp  the  full 
extent  of  the  change  which  would  be 
brought  about  if  that  system  of  nomina- 
tion were  adopted. 

Mr.  Fisher,  in  his  very  able  discussion, 
insists  upon  comparing  nomination  by 
petition  with  nomination  by  the  present 
political  machinery  through  the  present 
political  convention.  This  Convention 
has  already  passed  upon  that  phase  of  the 
question  and  has  voted  we  would  put 
aside  a nomination  by  the  old  line  politi- 
cal party  in  convention  assembled. 

The  proposition  before  this  Convention 
at  this  time  is : shall  nominations  be 

made  by  direct  primary,  in  which  the  man 
receiving  a majority  of  the  votes  of  all 
citizens  desiring  to  participate  in  that 
election  shall  express  his  choice  in  select- 
ing their  candidate  for  office,  or  shall 
there  be  as  many  nominations  and  as 
many  men  upon  the  ticket  as  little  groups 
of  individuals  decide  to  put  upon  it? 

Now,  as  a matter  of  fact,  the  purpose 
should  be  to  secure  at  the  last  election, 
the  final  election,  an  opportunity  for  the 
voters  to  decide  upon  the  best  man  who 
has  been  placed  before  them.  If  the  men 
are  placed  before  them  by  petition  in 
unlimited  numbers,  in  the  practical  work- 
ings out,  it  may  easily  happen  that  the 
man  who  is  backed  by  some  special  inter- 
est, the  man  whose  election  will  not  be 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  people  as  a 
wrhole,  will  get  onto  that  ticket  with 
enough  others  put  there  by  his  friends 
to  so  split  and  divide  the  vote  that  the 
man  who  has  special  interest  behind  him 
may  easily  be  elected. 

Now,  if  you  are  going  to  select  by 
direct  primaries,  all  men  who  desire,  or 
for  whom  there  is  any  public  desire  that 
they  become  a candidate,  get  an  oppor- 
tunity in  a first  trial  at  that  primary 
election,  and  they  are  then  reduced  to  an 
irreducible  minimum,  between  which  the 
voters  have  a final  choice  and  in  which 
a majority  can  easily  control. 

Now,  if  it  were  a question  between  the 


December  3 


105 


1906 


nomination  by  petition  and  a nomina- 
tion by  the  delegate  convention,  in  the  line 
of  a national  political  organizaton,  there 
might  be  force, — I will  go  further,  there 
is  force  to  the  argument  which  has  been 
advanced;  but,  as  between  nomination  by 
petition,  where  a few  individuals  can  put 
up  as  many  men  as  they  see  fit,  and  a 
nomination  by  direct  primary  from  tvhich 
will  come  but  two  or  three  people  which 
will  come  before  the  people  for  final 
choice,  it  seems  to  me  there  can  be  no 
question  as  to  which  will  give  the  best 
result  in  the  end. 

But  just  a word  on  the  question  of 
petition.  In  these  days,  we  hear  a great 
deal  and  see  a great  deal  about  this 
question  of  government  by  petition:  of 
the  inalienable  right  of  citizens  to  peti- 
tion. Now,  as  a matter  of  fact,  no  form 
of  bringing  men  before  the  public  can  be 
more  open  to  serious  objection,  more 
open  to  danger  than  this  form  of  un- 
limited petition.  No  safeguards  what 
ever  are  thrown  around  it;  simply  a 
question  of  taking  out  a list,  getting  any 
number  of  names  to  sign  it,  and  then  put- 
ting that  in  as  a part  of  governmental 
machinery. 

We  have  had  experience  with  petitions 
of  that  kind  in  Chicago.  The  Board  of 
Election  Commissioners  of  Chicago  more 
than  once  have  found  it  necessary  to 
throw  petitions  out  because  of  the  fraud- 
ulent manner  in  which  they  were  brought 
up,  made,  collected.  If  we  are  going  to 
propose  that  nominations  shall  be  made  by 
petitions,  then,  at  least,  we  should  wait 
until  we  have  some  proper  safeguard  in 
the  manner  of  collecting  those  petitions. 
The  idea  of  nominations  by  petition  is 
an  imported  idea.  It  has  been  worked 
in  some  of  the  European  governments, 
notably  in  Switzerland.  But,  if  the  gen- 
tlemen will  bear  in  mind,  the  petitions 
there  are  as  carefully  safeguarded  as  our 
primary  elections  or  our  elections  in  this 
country.  In  some  of  the  Swiss  cantons 
the  voter  must  appear  at  a public  polling 
place  and  sign  that  petition,  and  he  must 
prove  his  right  as  a voter  to  sign  it.  But 


with  us,  government  by  petition  has  been 
simply  the  circulating  of  a petition  in  the 
dark,  and  too  frequently  the  preparing 
of  a petition  from  a city  directory  or  a 
voting  sheet. 

It  seems  to  me,  gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, that  the  whole  question  now 
hinges  not  on  the  nomination  by  petition 
as  opposed  to  political  nominations,  but 
which  will  bring  about  a best  result.  A 
large  number  of  names  upon  the  final 
ballot  when  an  election  is  held,  or  those 
names  sifted  down  through  the  medium 
of  a direct  primary  in  which  every  citi- 
zen who  desires  to  express  his  choice  will 
be  given  an  opportunity,  and  only  one 
choice. 

MB.  WEBNO:  It  seems  to  me  that 

the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  against 
nominations  by  petition  are  laboring  un- 
der a misapprehension,  or  either  I don’t 
understand  the  situation.  It  does  not 
seem  to  me  it  makes  any  difference.  The 
man  who  gets  the  largest  number  of 
names  is  not  the  only  man  who  is  going 
to  get  on  that  petition.  It  will  not  be 
necessary  to  get  a majority  of  the  voters 
of  the  City  of  Chicago,  if  a man  wants 
to  become  a candidate  for  mayor;  nor  do 
I understand  it  is  necessary  for  a man 
to  get  a majority  of  the  voters  of  his 
ward  if  he  wants  to  become  a candidate 
for  alderman.  I don’t  see  why  it  should 
cost  a great  deal  of  money.  I don ’t  think 
there  is  anything  in  that  argument. 

ME.  O’DONNELL:  We  know  that 

the  parties  in  this  state  are  committed  to 
direct  primaries.  The  Democratic  party 
has  adopted  resolutions,  and  they  have 
decided  in  their  party  councils  that  they 
were  in  favor  of  direct  primaries.  I be- 
lieve the  present  state  administration  is 
also  committed  to  direct  primaries,  and 
I think  the  people  were  promised  a direct 
primary  election  law.  That  has  failed 
in  some  particulars, — judging  from  the 
laws  passed  recently, — but  there  is  a 
movement  on  foot,  I am  informed,  to 
make  the  neeessary  corrections  and  give 
us  a direct  primary  election  law. 


December  3 


106 


1906 


Now,  there  exists  upon  the  statute 
books  a law  authorizing  the  nominations 
by  petition.  It  has  worked  very  wTell  in 
some  communities ; it  has  worked  very 
well  in  some  wards  in  the  city.  Now, 
why  cannot  we  adopt  both  those  systems 
here?  The  petition:  keep  it  where  it  is 
in  the  law ; and  also  have  your  direct 
primary?  I believe  we  can  have  both. 
They  can  go  on  side  by  side  in  the  matter. 

To  bring  this  matter  before  the  Con- 
vention, Mr.  President,  I offer  this  amend- 
ment and  ask  that  it  be  substituted  for 
both  sections  now  under  discussion,  and 
move  its  adoption. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  O’Don- 
nell: The  elective  city  officers  shall  be 

nominated  only  by  petition  or  by  and 
under  a system  of  direct  primaries. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : ' Gentlemen,  you 
have  heard  the  substitute.  The  substi- 
tute is  before  the  house  for  discussion. 

MR.  LINEHAN : I don ’t  see  anything 

to  be  accomplished  by  that.  A man  who 
believes  in  nomination  by  petition  believes 
that  there  is  no  occasion  for  party  or- 
ganization in  municipal  affairs.  This 
straddles  the  question  and  makes  us  be- 
lieve in  both  parties  as  well  as  petitions. 
Those  who  are  in  favor  of  nomination  by 
petition  want  an  opportunity  to  test  their 
vote  on  that.  We  would  like  that  oppor- 
tunity, and  you  might  as  well  give  it  to 
us,  because  we  will  have  to  move  to  lay 
that  on  the  table  if  you  do  not.  We 
have  got  to  register  our  votes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Chair  has  no 

desire,  the  Chair  has  no  discretion  except 
to  put  all  resolutions  and  motions  that 
are  offered.  Mr.  O’Donnell  offers  it  as  a 
substitute,  and  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Chair 
to  give  the  convention  an  opportunity  to 
vote.  The  question  is  on  the  substitute 
of  Mr.  O’Donnell.  All  those  in  favor, 
signify  by  saying  aye.  Opposed,  nay. 
The  substitute  is  lost.  The  question  re- 
verts to  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  proposition. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I would  like  to 

make  this  point  of  order : that,  while 
ostensibly  the  question  is  ‘germane  to 
the  maiti  question,  yet,  in  fact,  it  seems 


to  me  that  there  is  such  a wide  diversion 
that  the  question  ought  to  be  separate, 
and  matters  of  such  moment  and  impor- 
tance to  this  Convention  should  be  met 
squarely  by  a separate  vote  on  each 
question.  One  presumes  that  there  shall 
be  a party  and  that  nominations  shall 
be  made  in  a certain  way,  namely:  by 
direct  primaries;  the  other  provides  that 
there  shall  be  no  party.  That  is,  as  we 
now'  understand  it,  and  that  nominations 
shall  be  by  petition.  Therefore,  it  seems 
to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  question  should 
be  divided,  and  that  we  first  should  pass 
upon  the  question  as  to  the  policy  of  the 
Convention  in  regard  to  nomination  by 
petition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  appears  to  be 

the  state  of  the  question  before  the 
house  now.  A vote  upon  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal ’s  substitute  would  bring  the  mat- 
te?,— 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  It  has  been  my 

observation  and  experience,  Mr.  CEair- 
man,  that  nearly  all  legislation  that  is 
practical  comes  from  the  experience  of 
men,  rather  than  from  their  theories. 
We  have  here  before  us  three  proposi- 
tions, one  of  which  has  been  tried  to  a 
large  extent,  which  we  have  just  voted 
down.  We  know,  from  experience,  that 
there  are  objections  to  that  system.  We 
know  also,  or  we  can  see,  if  not  from 
experience,  that  there  are  objections  to 
the  first  alternative  that  is  submitted, 
and  that  there  are  also  just  as  serious 
and  weighty  objections  to  the  main  prop- 
osition. Now7,  both  of  these  two  prop- 
ositions that  are  under  consideration  in 
this  motion  are,  to  a large  extent,  ex- 
perimental. The  question  of  nominating 
by  petition  only  is  a very  nice  one  to 
sit  in  this  room  and  think  about  and  be- 
lieve that  it  would  prove  a cure-all  for 
the  objections  that  have  been  raised  to 
the  system  that  we  have  tried ; but,  when 
we  get  down  to  practical  experience,  it 
can  easily  be  seen,  as  has  been  pointed 
out  here  this  afternoon,  that  it  will  not 
prove  unobjectionable  in  all  respects, 
but  the  probabilities  are  that  we  will 


December  3 


107 


1906 


meet  with  just  as  serious  objections  in 
the  trial  of  that  system  as  under  the 
one  which  we  have  already  been  working 
under. 

Now,  these  questions  were  discussed 
at  some  length  in  the  Committee,  which 
has  submitted  its  report;  but,  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  Gentlemen,  that  Committee  was 
almost  evenly  divided  upon  the  prop- 
ositions, and  most  of  these  questions 
which  were  controverted  were  carried  by 
a vote  of  about  five  to  four  or  four  to 
three,  in  nearly  every  instance. 

I think  Senator  Jones  and  Mr.  White 
have  struck  the  keynote  of  objection  to 
nominating  by  petition  only,  and  I think 
those  who  have  had  experience  in  the 
obtaining  of  candidates  for  alderman 
throughout  the  various  wards  will  bear 
out  the  statement  that  you  will  not  al- 
ways find  the  best  candidate  or  the  most 
available  candidate,  or  the  most  desirable 
candidate,  if  he  must  be  obtained  by  peti- 
tion without  some  organization  behind 
him,  or  without  some  alluring  prospect 
of  success  at  the  election.  It  would  be 
a nice  thing  if  all  that  were  needed 
were  for  a man  to  circulate  a petition 
and  get  the  necessary  signatures  and 
nothing  else  be  done  about  his  election 
but  to  submit  his  candidacy  to  a vote  of 
the  people,  but  you  know  and  I know 
that  that  is  only  the  preliminary  part  of 
the  work,  and  that  does  not  mean  his 
election.  The  election  means  the  expen- 
diture of  a large  amount  of  money,  I 
sorry  to  say.  And  one  of  the  most 
serious  propositions  in  this  district,  in 
most  of  the  wards,  is  financing  a can- 
didate for  alderman ; and  you  are  not 
going  to  get  men  to  seek  that  position 
by  petition  unless  there  is  some  way 
provided  in  advance  for  making  his 
campaign  and  making  it  successful 

If  you  have  reached  this  point  in 
progress  and  development  of  nomination 
by  political  parties, — and  in  most  of  the 
wards  of  the  city  they  nominate  only 
first-class  desirable  men,  and  that  is  the 
state  and  condition  of  the  Council  at  the 
present  time,  and  when  a man  has  made 


a good  record  in  this  Council  it  is  almost 
impossible  for  the  organization  in  his 
ward  to  turn  him  down,  but  they  are 
almost  forced  to  accord  him  a renom- 
ination and  he  comes  back  to  the  City 
Council. 

Now  Mr.  Chairman,  I think  I can 
see  that,  in  the  first  alternative  we  have 
the  advantage  of  the  main  proposition. 
We  have  there  the  right  to  go  before  the 
people  with  candidates  by  petition,  when 
they  are  presented  at  the  direct  pri- 
maries. We  have  the  advantage  of  the 
main  proposition  and  in  the  main  prop- 
osition itself  or  in  the  alternative ; you 
also  have  the  advantage  of  party  or- 
ganization behind  a desirable  candidate. 

I don ’t  think  we  have  reached  the 
point  when  we  want  to  say  that  the  only 
way  to  present  candidates  for  nomina- 
tions for  aldermen  or  'for  Mayor  is  by 
petition.  We  have  not  reached  the  point 
when  we  can  afford  to  discard  the  ser- 
vices of  party  organization.  I believe, 
moveover,  and  rather,  that  we  should 
continue  the  effort  within  the  party  or- 
ganization to  compel  them  to  support 
good  nominees;  re-elect  good  aldermen. 
Retain  the  advantage  that  we  have  in 
party  organization  and  not  force  men 
to  seek  the  office  by  petition;  to  seek 
organization  support  outside  of  the  reg- 
ular party  organization,  and  to  seek 
possibly  in  ways  that  should  not  be  done 
that  financial  aid  that  is  necessary  in 
making  a campaign. 

That  is  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
ought  to  so  legislate  as  to  make  it  prac- 
tically impossible  for  the  man  repre- 
senting special  interests;  and  the  whole 
tendency  of  modern  education,  even  in 
direct  primaries,  and  by  petition  is 
against  the  man  of  unlimited  means  in 
politics.  The  whole  tendency  is  to  cut 
out  and  confine  the  avaricious,  or  those 
men  who  have  means  and  can  put  up 
their  campaign  funds. 

Those  are  serious  questions,  and  I 
don  Jt  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we 
are  ready  to  say  that  the  only  way  the 
present  needs  is  by  petition  alone. 


December  3 


108 


1906 


This  involves  another  question  which 
was  discussed  in  our  Committee.  It  in- 
volves the  question  of  the  change  in  our 
ballot,  if  we  nominate  by  petition  only, 
so  that  we  will  have  at  the  spring  elec- 
tion one  form  of  ballot  to  be  voted,  and 
in  the  fall  another  form.  That  is  to 
say,  if  we  nominate  by  petition  only, 
and  have  a number  of  candidates,  then 
a man  must  vote  a ticket  by  voting  for 
every  candidate.  He  must  be  educated 
in  that  form  o'f  voting ; while,  in  the  fall, 
he  does  not  have  to  be  educated  in  vot- 
ing. That  is  involved  in  the  proposi- 
tion of  nomination  by  petition  alone. 

That  question  also  was  discussed  in 
our  committee,  and  upon  that  question 
there  was  a great  deal  of  sentiment  in 
our  Committee. 

I think  if  we  are  going  to  abandon 
the  present  system,  I think  the  next  is 
the  direct  primary  which  will  give  us 
the  nomination  by  petition  as  well  as  the 
party  nomination. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

like  for  the  moment  the  question  of  per- 
sonal privilege,  if  there  is  going  to  be 
any  further  debate. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I didn't  get 

your  question. 

MR.  POST : I wish  for  a moment  a 

question  of  privilege.  Do  you  propose 
to  postpone  this  matter  until  a later 
date?  If  you  are  going  to  vote  on  this 
question  now, — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any 

further  debate  on  the  question? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  a 

word. 

MR.  POST : Then  I would  like  a word. 
I have  got  to  leave  the  Convention  to 
keep  an  engagement,  which  is  a public 
engagement,  and  I wish-  to  make  a re- 
quest of  the  Convention  for  my  personal 
accommodation. 

There  are  three  questions  to  follow 
soon,  which  I regard  as  of  very  great 
importance.  I see  no  reason  why  they 
should  not  be  passed  until  tomorrow  so 
that  I may  participate  in  the  debate, 


and  so  that  I may  be  able  to  vote  upon 
the  question. 

I should  like  to  vote  aye  for  Mr. 
Rosenthal’s  motion.  The  three  questions 
I would  like  to  have  passed  are  that 
pertaining  to  the  right  of  suffrage  for 
women;  I should  like  an  opportunity  to 
oppose  the  proposition  as  made  by  the 
report. 

I should  like  also  an  opportunity  to 
oppose  the  question  or  proposition  of 
holding  spring  elections  in  May. 

And  I should  like  also  the  oppor- 
tunity to  suggest  an  amendment  to  the 
question  of  the  dismissal  of  the  civil 
service  employes. 

And  if  the  Convention  will  accommo- 
date me  to  that  extent,  I will  move  that 
those  three  subjects  be  passed  until  to- 
morrow. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I doubt  very  much 

whether  we  will  be  able  to  accomplish 
anything  by  that.  It  seems  to  me  it  is 
asking  a great  deal  of  this  Convention 
to  ask  to  have  a number  of  subjects 
de'ferred  from  time  to  time.  This  ques- 
tion arose  the  other  day,  that  matters 
be  postponed,  because  one  of  the  gen- 
tlemen had  engagements.  We  have  had 
engagements  and  we  have  had  important 
committee  meetings  this  afternoon, 
which  we  have  simply  shifted  for  the 
purpose  of  attending  this  afternoon.  I 
don’t  think  this  ought  to  be  ground. 

MR.  POST:  It  is  very  easy  to  vote 

my  question  down. 

MR.  SMULSKI : Point  of  order.  My 

point  of  order  is  that  the  question  of 
personal  privilege  asked  is  not  a ques- 
tion of  personal  privilege. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  point  of  or- 

der is  well  taken. 

The  question  now  is  upon  the  prop- 
osition to  substitute  number  1 for  the 
first  alternative  to  number  1. 

MR.  LINEHAN : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  call  your  attention  now  to  the 
fact  that  not  a solitary  objection  has 
1 been  pointed  out  to  the  evils  there  would 


December  3 


109 


1906 


be  to  the  petition  but  what  are  in  ex-  < 
istence. 

You  say  the  ballot  will  have  to  be 
changed.  The  man  that  was  capable  of 
voting  the  ballot  at  the  last  election  is 
capable  of  voting  a ballot  at  any  elec- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
motion  to  substitute. 

MR.  THOMPSON:  I would  like  to 

ask  the  Convention  to  adopt  a rule  that 
we  take  up  these  matters  as  they  come. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Convention 

adopted  a policy  of  proceeding  by  a 
process  of  elimination.  Are  you  talking 
to  the  question? 

MR.  THOMPSON:  My  reason  for 

bringing  up  this  matter  is  this,  that  I 
have  no  desire  to  vote  against  nomina- 
tions by  petitions,  but  I have  not  heard 
anything  yet  in  this  Convention  that 
would  convince  me  that  the  people  are 
deprived  of  any  rights  when  they  are 
given  the  privilege  of  a direct  primary; 
and,  for  that  reason,  I am  of  the  opin- 
ion that  a motion  to  substitute  number 
1 here  for  the  first  alternative  is  in  con- 
travention of  the  rules  of  this  Conven- 
tion, because  it  seeks  to  suspend  the 
rules  without  going  through  the  proper 
form;  and  I will  make  that  point  of  or- 
der. And,  for  that  purpose,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I desire  an  opportunity  to  vote 
upon  the  matter  of  the  people  having 
retained  direct  primary. 

My  point  of  order  is  that  the  motion 
to  substitute  number  1 for  the  first  al- 
ternative is  out  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Chair  rules 

the  point  of  order  not  well  taken.  It  is 
within  the  province  of  this  Convention 
to  substitute  any  section  for  any  other. 
The  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Brosseau, 

Brown,  Burke,  Cole,  Dever,  Fisher,  Guer- 
in, Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty,  Mer- 
riam,  Owens,  Raymer,  Revel  1,  Robins, 
Rosenthal,  Rethness,  Taylor,  Vopicka, 
Werno — 22. 


, Nays — Baker,  Bennett,  Church,  Crilly, 

Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Hoyne, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lundberg,  McCormick, 
McKinley,  O’Donnell,  Pendarvis,  Pow- 
ers, Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Snow,  Sunny,  Swift,  Thompson,  White, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 30. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BAKER : A question  o’f  infor- 

mation. As  I understand  it,  this  is  a 
motion  to  substitute  number  1 for  al- 
ternative number  1.  Is  that  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

to  substitute  number  1 for  the  alter- 
native to  number  1. 

MR.  BAKER:  Has  there  been  pre- 

sented here  or  outlined  any  particular 
plan  how  these  nominations  by  petition 
should  be  made? 

MR.  SMULSKI:  Simply  a leap  in  the 

dark. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I don’t 
think  that  is  a fair  statement  of  the 
question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Pending  the  roll 

call,  Mr.  Fisher,  you  are  out  of  order. 

MR.  FISHER:  I ask  for  information. 

As  I understand  it  these  resolutions  are 
intended  to  merely  state  the  general  na- 
ture of  the  direct  primary. 

MR.  HOYNE:  I don’t  know  exactly 

what  we  are  voting  on. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A motion  was 

made,  Mr.  Hoyne, — 

MR.  HOYNE:  — to  substitute  num- 
ber 1 for  the  alternative? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  substitute 

number  1 for  the  alternative  to  num- 
ber 1. 

MR.  HOYNE:  I understood  it  was 

the  other  way.  I vote  nay. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  a motion 

to  substitute,  yeas,  22;  nays,  30.  The 
motion  to  substitute  is  lost.  The  ques- 
tion reverts  to  the  original  motion  to 
adopt, — 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  the  fol- 

lowing substitute.  This  is  really  what 


December  3 


110 


1906 


was  passed  by  our  Committee.  It  is 
stated  in  more  general  terms. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal— Elective  city  officers  (with  the  ex- 
ception of  aldermen)  shall  be  nominated 
under  a system  of  direct  primaries.  An 
alderman  shall  be  nominated  only  by  a 
petition  of  qualified  voters. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  offer  that 

as  a substitute  for  what?  For  the  pend- 
ing question? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  As  a substitute 

for  the  alternative  that  is  now  before 
the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Substitute  for 

alternative  number  1 ? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Number  1;  yes, 

sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  that  this  be  substituted  'for  alter- 
native number  1. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I rise  to  a point  of 

order.  It  seems  to  me  that  substitute 
contains  the  very  question  we  have  voted 
upon,  and  has  been  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No.  Are  you 

ready  for  the  question?  Call  the  roll 
upon  the  motion  to  substitute. 

Yeas  — Beilfuss,  Brosseau,  Brown, 
Burke,  Cole,  Dever,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Fisher,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty, 
Merriam,  Owens,  Rosenthal,  Sethness, 
Taylor,  Yopicka,  Werno — 18. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Church, 
Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eck- 
hart, B.  A.,  Eidmann,  Hoyne,  Jones, 

Kittleman,  Lundberg,  McCormick,  Mc- 
Kinley, O ’Donnell,  Pendarvis,  Powers, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Robins,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Swift,  White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer 
—32. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  substitute,  yeas,  eighteen;  nays,  thir- 
ty-two ; the  motion  is  lost.  The  question 
reverts  upon  the  adoption  of  the  first 
alternative  to  No.  1. 

MR.  FISHER:  I suppose  in  the  de- 

bate, it  has  not  been  advocated,  and  I 
don ’t  suppose  it  is  intended  to  exclude 
the  independent  nomination  by  petition. 


Now,  so  that  the  matter  may  be  fully 
before  the  house,  I move  that  the  fol- 
lowing be  added  to  alternative  No.  1 
now  before  the  house,  ‘ ‘ With  appro- 
priate provision  for  indepednent  nomi- 
nation by  petition.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen  you 

have  heard  the  motion;  all  those  in  fav- 
or signify  by  saying,  aye ; those  op- 
posed, no.  All  those  in  favor  of  the 
adoption  of  the  alternative  to  No.  1 
signify  by  saying,  aye ; those  opposed,  no. 

MR.  BENNETT:  What  is  the  amend- 
ment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  secre- 

tary read  the  amendment  as  presented 
by  Mr.  Fisher? 

THE  SECRETARY':  By  Mr.  Fisher: 

“Add  the  following  to  alternative  No. 
1:  ‘ With  appropriate  provision  for  in- 

dependent nomination  by  petition.” 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Read  it  all. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “First  alterna- 

tive to  No.  1 as  amended  by  Mr.  Fisher: 

‘ ‘ Elective  city  officers  shall  be  nominated 
by  direct  primaries  with  appropriate  pro- 
vision for  independent  nominations  by 
petition.  ’ ’ 

MR.  WHITE:  I suggest  that  that  be 

received  and  printed  in  the  minutes  and 
taken  up  and  discussed  tomorrow.  I am 
not  ready  to  vote  on  that  today. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  it  the  desire 

o’f  the  Convention  to  put  the  entire  al- 
ternative to  No.  1 over  until  tomorrow? 

MR.  WHITE:  No;  let  the  portion 

of  alternative  No.  1 that  we  have 
adopted  stand;  this  is  the  amendment, 
which  I think  we  should  have  at  least 
a day  to  think  about. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 

will  be  upon  the  suggestion  as  amended, 
upon  the  first  alternative  to  No.  1. 

MR.  SWIFT:  Without  the  amend- 

ment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  was 

under  the  impression  that  the  amend- 
ment had  been  adopted. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  The  amendment 

is  merely  the  present  law ; a man  can 
run  as  independent  if  he  has  a certain 


December  3 


111 


9061 


number  of  names  to  the  petition.  That 
is,  under  the  general  election  law. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I presume  Mr. 

Fisher  wanted  to  be  sure  it  would  not  be 
left  out,  so  he  put  in  the  amendment. 

MR.  FISHER:  I wanted  to  be  sure 

that  when  that  came  up  for  discussion, 
when  we  came  to  discuss  these  pro- 
visions we  would  have  a chance  to 
discuss  them,  because  the  present  law 
provides  for  excluding  the  name  of  one 
nominated  by  petition  if  he  is  a 
man  who  has  signed  any  petition 
at  the  primaries,  or  has  voted  at 
the  primaries.  The  question  is  here  for 
a second,  and  I think  it  should  be  dis- 
cussed, I don’t  care  particularly  about 
discussing  it  now,  but  I don’t  want  to 
be  foreclosed  from  the  privilege  of  de- 
fending it. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : I presume  there 

will  be  an  opportunity  to  defend  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  the  first  alternative 
to  No.  1 as  amended.  The  Secretary 
will  please  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Burke,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eekhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart, 
J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Hoyne,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lundberg, 
McCormick,  McCoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Pendarvis, 
Powers,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins,  Rosen- 
thal, Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow, 
Taylor,  Thompson,  Yopicka,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 44. 

Nays — Beebe,  Church,  Shanahan, 
Swift — 4. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BEEBE:  I desire  to  explain  my 

vote.  I believe  as  this  is  put  it  means 
a plurality  direct  primary,  and  that 
kind  of  a law  in  my  judgment  has  never 
been  successful  in  a large  territory, 
therefore,  I vote  no. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

have  the  floor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  If  I can’t  get  a whole 


loaf,  I believe  in  taking  a half  a loaf; 
I vote,  aye. 

MR.  FISHER  : In  explanation  of  my 

vote,  I want  to  state  that  this  is  the 
best  proposition  for  which  this  Conven- 
tion is  now  prepared  to  vote;  therefore, 
I vote  aye. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I don’t  under- 

stand this  to  be  interpreted  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  Mr.  Beebe  has  interpreted 
it;  I do  not  suppose  that  by  voting  aye, 
I am  voting  for  a plurality  direct  pri- 
mary law,  a mere  plurality  direct  pri- 
mary law. 

MR.  FISHER : That  question  is  open. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  On  the  assump- 

tion that  I am  not  voting  for  a mere 
plurality  direct  primary  law  in  munici- 
pal elections,  I am  voting,  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  record 

so  show. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  the  theory 

that  I am  voting  for  a direct  plurality 
primary  law,  I will  vote,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  record 

also  show  that. 

MR,  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  is  it 

possible  to  call  for  the  division  of  a sub- 
ject before  a vote  is  announced  on  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir;  not 

pending  roll  call. 

MR.  WHITE:  Well,  I wish  to  make 

this  statement:  I am  in  favor  of  a 

direct  primary ; Mr.  Fisher  has  voted 
upon  an  amendment  I am  not  in  favor 
of;  perhaps  the  Chair  will  explain  to 
a layman  how  he  may  understand  how  he 
is  going  to  vote;  I would  like  to  vote 
against  half  of  it  and  in  favor  of  the 
other  half. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Vote  both  ways? 

MR.  WHITE:  Well,  I would  like  to 

vote  for  it;  I will  vote,  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  adopt,  forty-four  yeas  and  four  nays. 
The  Chair  assumes  that  the  original  is 
thereby  disposed  of. 

MR.  ECKHART(  B.  A.):  In  view  of 

the  fact  that  a number  of  the  delegates 
have  left  the  council  chamber,  I will 


December  3 


112 


1906 


now  move  that  we  adjourn  until  two 

0 ’clock  tomorrow. 

ME.  JONES:  May  I have  the  floor 

for  a second  to  make  another  motion  be- 
fore that  is  seconded? 

MR.  BURKE:  I second  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  it? 

MR.  JONES:  I would  like  to  have 

the  floor  to  make  a motion  on  another 
matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  Mr.  Eckhart 

will  hold  his  motion  for  the  time,  that  is 
all  right. 

ME,  ECKHART:  Certainly,  I will. 

MR.  JONES:  I would  like  to  call  at- 

tention to  this,  this  report  of  the  rules 
committee  on  the  subject  of  education, 
the  eighteenth  chapter,  I notice  on  page 
nine  of  this  small  booklet — page  56,  I 
should  say;  I notice  that  the  report  of 
the  committee  on  education  is  practically 
the  only  report  which  is  not  reduced  to 
the  form  of  a resolution.  The  rules 
committee  merely  present  that  whole  act 
which  has  been  prepared  by  the  Educa- 
tion Committee,  which  covers  seven 
pages  of  this  book;  I wish  to  make  a 
motion  that  that  portion  of  the  report 
relating  to  education  be  referred  to  the 
Rules  Committee  with  instruction  to  pre- 
pare a resolution  representing  the  dif- 
ferent propositions  embodied  in  the  re- 
port, and  re-report  it  to  the  Convention 
at  some  future  date. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I object  to  that  mo- 

tion; that  is,  I object  to  debating  it  at 
this  stage  of  our  proceedings.  I think 
it  is  a question  that  is  a very  fair  one, 

1 think  it  is  a question  that  may  be  de- 
bated, therefore,  as  Chairman  of  that 
Committee  I object  to  it  at  this  stage  of 
this  session.  I would  be  very  glad  to 
discuss  it  at  some  other  session,  but  not 
at  the  tail-end  of  this  session.  I be- 
lieve the  motion  to  adjourn  is  in  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart  has 

withdrawn  his  motion  to  adjourn,  as  I 
understand  it,  to  give  Mr.  Jones  the 
floor. 


MR.  ECKHART : I renew  my  mo- 

tion to  adjourn  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  matter  is  be- 

fore the  house,  Mr.  Eckhart. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  it  would  be 

clearer  to  the  Convention  if  I called 
their  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  rea- 
son why  that  report  was  left  there  in 
that  way  was  because  it  went  so  much 
into  detail  that  to  prepare  these  reso- 
lutions would  be  to  prepare  so  many  res- 
olutions that  it  would  put  all  the  rest 
of  the  matter  before  the  Convention; 
and  for  that  reason  the  preparing  of 
these  resolutions  or  alternatives — and 
that  was  the  suggestion  of  the  Commit- 
tee on  Rules — that  the  Committee  would 
recommend  that  the  educational  matter 
should  be  made  a special  order  of  bus- 
iness for  some  special  session.  It  should 
be  discussed  as  a whole,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  proper  way  to  handle  this 
matter  is  to  take  it  up  when  we  get  to  it. 

MR.  ECKHART:  In  that  connection, 

I desire  to  ask  for  the  Committee  on 
Rules,  Procedure  and  Plan,  that  the 
subject  under  discussion  be  made  a 
special  order  at  a proper  time,  to  be 
discussed  then  so  that  we  may  go  into 
the  details  of  it. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  reference  to 

this  matter  now  before  the  house,  I de- 
sire to  submit  this: 

1 1 The  only  elective  city  officers  not 
including  the  aldermen  and  municipal 
judges,  shall  be  the  mayor  and  city 
treasurer;  the  city  treasurer  shall  be  ex- 
officio  city  collector.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  matter  will 

go  over  until  the  subject  is  taken  up  for 
discussion;  the  question  is  upon  the  mo- 
tion to  adjourn  until  two  o’clock  to- 
morrow. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I have  an  amend- 

ment which  I wish  to  offer  and  have 
published,  so  that  it  be  taken  up  at  the 
next  session. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it,  please. 


December  3 


113 


1906 


THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Ben- 
nett: The  charter  shall  provide  as  fol- 

lows : 

“xxn. 

“5.  SECTION  . Nothing  in 

this  act  shall  be  construed  to,  modify, 
impair  or  affect,  or  to  confer  upon  the 
City  Council  power  to  pass  any  ordi- 
nance modifying,  impairing  or  conflict- 
ing with,  the  provisions  of  Section  18, 
of  an  act  entitled  ‘An  Xct  to  provide 
for  the  annexation  of  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages  or  parts  of  same  to 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages  ’ 
approved  April  25,  1889,  or  any  provis- 
ion of  any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to  the 
sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  or  creating 
or  defining  criminal  offenses  or  relating 
to  the  prosecution  and  punishment  there- 


of, nor  shall  any  amendment  or  addi- 
tion be  made  to  the  charter  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  except  by  the  General  As- 
sembly, by  which  this  section  or  any 
part  thereof  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
be  abrogated,  repealed  or  annulled. n 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  will  be  pub- 
lished and  taken  up  at  the  proper  time. 
The  Convention  will  now  adjourn  until 
two  o’clock  P.  M.  tomorrow. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Tuesday,  December  4,  1906,  at 
2 o’clock  P.  M. 


MEMORANDA. 


This  memoranda  indicates  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings). 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished, and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 

school  system  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 

stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 

provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 


the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2: 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  The  Mayor  is  still  pending: 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 

Alternative  to  4:  The  terms  of  office 

of  the  mayor  shall  be  the  same  as  that 
of  the  members  of  the  city  council. 


December  3 


114 


1906 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropriate 
provision  for  independent  nominations 
by  petition. 

Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of 
the  Convention,  but  not  acted  upon. 

BY  MR.  REVELL: 

Alternative  to  VI.  The  City  Council. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

1.  The  charter  shall  provide  for  re- 
districting the  city  into  sixty  wards. 

2.  Each  ward  shall  nominate  candi- 
dates for  aldermen,  who  shall  be  voted 
on  by  the  entire  city. 

3.  The  terms  of  aldermen  shall  be 
four  years. 

4.  One  fourth  of  the  aldermen  to  re- 
tire each  year. 

5.  No  alderman  shall  be  elected  to 
succeed  himself. 

6.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  $5,000  per  annum, 
and  he  shall  have  a secretary. 

7.  Aldermen  shall  give  their  entire 
time  to  serving  the  city  as  alderffien 
during  the  term  for  which  they  are 
elected. 

8.  Aldermen  shall  have  offices  in  their 
respective  wards  at  which  they  shall  be 
found  during  hours  to  be  determined  by 
ordinance,  or  otherwise. 


BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

As  an  amendment  to  Chapter  IV.  en- 
titled ELECTIONS.  By  adding  the  fol- 
lowing proposition  numbered  6: 

6.  The  only  elective  city  officers  (not 
including  aldermen  and  municipal 
judges)  shall  be  the  Mayor  and  City 
Treasurer.  The  City  Treasurer  shall  be 
ex-officio  city  collector. 

BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

XXII. 

5.  SECTION Nothing  in  this  act 

shall  be  construed  to  modify,  impair  or 
affect  or  to  confer  upon  the  city  council 
power  to  pass  any  ordinance  modifying, 
impairing  or  conflicting  with  the  pro- 
visions of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled 
“An  act  to  provide  for  the  annexation 
of  cities,  incorporated  towns  and  vil- 
lages or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incor- 
porated towns  and  villages  ’ ’ approved 
April  25th,  1889,  or  to  any  provision  of 
any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to  the  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  or  creating  or  de- 
fining criminal  offenses  or  relating  to 
the  prosecution  and  punishment  thereof, 
nor  shall  any  amendment  or  addition  be 
made  to  the  charter  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, except  by  the  General  Assembly, 
by  which  this  section,  or  any  part  thereof 
shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  be  abro- 
gated, repealed,  or  annulled. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1906 


GUjtragn  (Eljartrr  (Ennurntimi 

Convened,  December  12, 1900 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  asst.  Secy 


♦ 


■ 


' 


December  4 


117 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Tuesday,  December  4,  1906 

2 O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention . 

THE  CHAIRRMAN:  The  Conven- 

tion will  come  to  order.  The  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke,  Church, 
Cole,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.W.,  Dixon, 
T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Guerin, 
Haas,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Line- 
han,  Lundberg,  MacMillan,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Ray- 
mer,  Revell,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Swift, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 55. 

Absent — Carey,  Clettenberg,  Cruice, 
Erickson,  Fitzpatrick,  Graham,  Harri- 
son, Hill,  Hunter,  McCormick,  Oehme, 
Patterson,  Powers,  Sethness,  Smulski, 
Sunny,  Thompson,  Walker,  Wilson— 19. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

MR.  SWIFT:  Rising  to  a question 

of  privilege,  I note  that  unintentionally 
the  gentlemen  of  the  press  recorded  me 
as  being  opposed  to  a direct  primary. 
I wrish  to  state  that  on  the  contrary,  I 
am  greatly  in  favor  of  it,  and  so  argued, 
but  I was  opposed  to  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Fisher,  and  I so  voted.  I 
would  like  to  have  it  corrected  in  the 
records. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  records  will 

so  show  it. 

MR.  REVELL:  I notice  in  the  rec- 

ords a typographical  error  in  connection 
with  the  amendment  that  I offered  yes- 
terday, in  regard  to  striking  out  the 
word  “shall”  and  putting  in  the  word 
“may.”  In  my  notice,  and  later  on 
again,  they  used  the  word  “nay”  in- 
stead of  1 1 may.  ’ 1 

THE  SECRETARY:  What  page? 

MR.  REVELL:  It  is  in  page  91. 

The  last  column  on  page  91,  and  the 
next  page  is  the  same. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Put  in  the  word 

“may”  instead  of  “nay.” 


December  4 


118 


1906 


THE  SECRETARY:  It  appears 

1 1 may  ’ ’ on  page  92. 

MR.  REYELL : It  is  there  in  the 

motion,  and  later  on.  Let  it  be  looked 
over  and  later  on  insert  the  ‘‘may” 
instead  of  ‘ 1 nay.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

further  corrections  or  amendments.  If 
not,  the  record  will  stand  the  record  of 
the  meeting  of  December  3.  The  first 
matter  to  come  before  the  Convention  is 
number  2 on  page  52. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I desire  to  make 

a motion  at  this  time.  I move  that  sec- 
tion 10,  on  Revenue,  and  section  18,  on 
Education,  be  made  special  orders  for 
a time  to  be  fixed  by  this  Convention, 
in  order  that  all  the  members  of  the 
Convention  may  have  due  notice  of  the 
subject  to  be  under  discussion,  so  that 
we  may  have  a full  attendance  when 
these  two  matters  are  taken  up  for 
consideration.  I think  those  are  two 
of  the  most  important  sections  in  this 
charter,  and  every  member  should  be 
permitted  to  vote  upon  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  revenue  and  education  be 
made  special  orders  for  next  week,  tak- 
ing up  the  one  first,  and  disposing  of  it, 
and  then  taking  up  the  other  on  the 
succeeding  days.  Does  that  meet  your 
views?  It  has  been  moved  and  seconded 
that  the  Revenue  section  of  the  pro- 
posed charter  be  made  a special  order 
for  the  first  meeting  of  next  week  and 
that  the  educational  section  be  taken  up 
as  a special  order  immediately  after  the 
disposing  of  the  revenue  section. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Number  2,  on  Page  52,  the 
upper  left  hand  column. 

The  Secretary  read. 

MR.  COLE : Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

the  adoption  of  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded. 

MR.  WHITE:  For  information,  Mr. 

Chairman,  does  that  cover  the  printing 


the  names  on  the  ballot  alphabetically, 
or  what  is  the  intention? 

MR.  CHAIRMAN : I presume  so. 

That  is  the  method  usually  followed. 

MR.  COLE:  Alphabetically  or  alter- 

nately, or  any  way  that  you  want  it. 
That  is  a matter  of  detail.  The  only 
question  which  we  have  in  hand  now 
is  the  matter  of  principle  itself. 

MR.  JONES:  I should  like  to  offer 

an  amendment  that  the  consideration  of 
this  paragraph  2 be  deferred  until  after 
we  have  disposed  of  paragraph  4.  I 
make  that  motion  for  this  reason:  When 
we  consider  number  4 we  shall  determine 
whether  or  not  the  municipal  judges 
shall  be  elected  in  the  fall  as  at  present, 
or  in  the  spring.  If  they  are  elected 
in  the  fall,  the  ballot  must  necessarily 
conform  to  the  general  ballot  for  nation- 
al, state  and  county  offices,  and  it  will 
not  be  possible  to  have  two  systems  of 
listing  candidates  upon  that  ballot.  I 
would  therefore  suggest  that  this  clause 
2 be  deferred  until  after  we  have  dis- 
posed of  clause  4. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I sug- 

gest that  that  will  straighten  itself  out. 
Any  action  that  we  take  here  will  not 
want  to  be  contrary ' to  the  law  of  the 
land. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Jones’  motion  or  amendment, 
to  defer  consideration  of  this  proposi- 
tion until  number  4 is  disposed  of.  Are 
you  ready  for  the  question? 

The  motion  was  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

lost.  The  question  reverts  upon  num- 
ber 2.  Is  there  any  discussion  of  this 
section  ? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I take  it  that  if 

you  adopt  this  section  you  do  away  with 
the  party  column  on  the  official  ballot, 
and  also  do  away  with  the  circle  at  the 
top  of  the  party  column.  That  the  can- 
didates for  the  office  of  mayor  will  all 
be  printed  under  the  appellation  Mayor, 
and  all  the  candidates  for  city  clerk 
under  that  of  City  Clerk. 


December  4 


119 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : I presume  that ’s 

the  intention. 

MR.  DIXON : I should  like  to  ascer- 

tain, Mr.  Chairman,  if  that  would  do 
away  with  any  party  name  on  the  bal- 
lot. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I presume  that ’s 

the  intention. 

MR.  FISHER:  I don’t  understand  it 

in  that  light.  I don’t  understand  that 
we  are  passing  upon  that  question  now. 
I think  that  it  can  be  fairly  said  that 
all  those  who  have  taken  up  any  discus- 
sion of  the  subject  of  ballot  reform  in 
recent  conventions  and  in  conferences  of 
all  kinds  in  regard  to  ballot  reform  are 
agreed  upon  the  main  proposition,  name- 
ly, that  in  municipal  elections,  the  party 
circle  and  the  party  column  should  be 
abolished,  but  there  is  a distinct  division 
of  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  you 
should  abolish  the  name  of  the  party 
after  the  candidate,  or  an  emblem  indi- 
cating that  he  is  the  representative  of 
a certain  party.  I understand  that  all 
are  agreed  upon  the  question  that  it  is 
desirable  that  the  candidate  should  be 
so  placed  that  the  voter  should  be  able 
to  make  an  intelligent  choice,  and  any- 
thing which  would  aid  him  in  that  choice, 
such  as  the  marking  that  John  Jones  is 
a candidate  of  the  Democratic  party  and 
William  Smith  is  the  candidate  of  the 
Republican  party — that  should  go  on  the 
ballot.  There  is  a division  of  opinion 
there,  and  I don’t  understand  that  we 
are  crossing  that  bridge  now  at  all.  All 
that  we  are  voting  upon  now  is  that  the 
candidates  shall  be  named  on  the  ballot 
after  the  names  of  the  office  for  which 
they  are  candidates,  and  we  are  to  de- 
cide afterwards  whether  or  not  there 
should  be  a party  designation.  This,  as 
I understand  it,  doe:>  not  mean  to  abolish 
parties. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Under  this  pro- 

vision, a man  desiring  to  vote  the  Demo- 
cratic or  the  Republican  tickets  would 
be  unable  to  do  so  unless  he  would  go 
down  on  the  ticket  and  select  the  can- 


didate of  his  party  from  each  of  the 
offices. 

MR.  FISHER:  Undoubtedly.  As  I 

understand  it,  if  there  were  three  candi- 
dates, John  Jones,  Democrat;  William 
Smith,  Republican,  and  John  Johnson, 
Prohibitionist,  they  would  all  appear 
after  the  name  of  Mayor,  and  the  candi- 
dates for  City  Treasurer  would  be  simi- 
larly arranged,  and  the  Aldermen  will  be 
similarly  arranged  and  the  voter  will  se- 
lect his  candidates  from  the  lists  of  the 
different  offices  and  mark  them  accord- 
ingly. He  will  not  put  down  one  single 
mark  covering  the  entire  ticket,  but  he 
will  mark  each  man  that  he  is  to  vote 
for. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  this  sec- 

tion— this  motion — is  intended  frankly 
to  prevent  anybody  who  desires  to  vote 
a straight  party  ticket  from  achieving 
that  result  with  the  least  amount  of  ef- 
fort to  himself.  As  the  ballot  is  now 
arranged,  a man  who  desires  to  make  a 
selection  of  candidates  regardless  of  par- 
ty affiliation,  is  in  a position  to  do  so. 
There  are,  however,  a large  number  of 
citizens — a large  number  of  voters — as 
is  shown  in  every  election,  who  are  per- 
fectly willing  and  content  to  accept  the 
judgment  of  the  nominating  conventions 
or  the  nominating  power  of  their  party 
as  to  the  qualifications  of  the  man  placed 
upon  the  ticket.  If,  in  the  judgment 
of  any  citizen,  the  Convention  has  made 
an  error — has  not  nominated  as  good  a 
man  as  he  thinks  should  have  been  nomi- 
nated— under  our  present  form  of  ballot, 
that  citizen  can  exercise  his  right  by 
marking  upon  that  ballot,  if  he  so  de- 
sires, but  there  are  a very  large  number 
of  voters  who  are  satisfied  with  the 
work  of  the  Conventions,  and  it  certainly 
strikes  me  that  in  arranging  the  ballot, 
there  is  no  reason  why  an  individual,  or 
a large  number  of  individuals,  who  desire 
to  vote  a straight  party  ticket,  should 
not  be  given  that  opportunity.  Now,  it  is 
true  that  they  would  get  the  same  op- 


December  4 


120 


1906 


portunity  by  going  through  all  the 
names,  provided  a list  is  furnished  which 
they  knew  contained  the  names  of  the 
candidates  of  their  particular  party,  but 
the  point  which  I make  is  that  that  ele- 
ment of  our  citizenship  which  desires  to 
vote  a ballot  regardless  of  party  affilia- 
tion can  do  it  under  the  present  law,  and 
this  is  an  unnecessary  hardship  to  put 
upon  that  element  who  are  simply  con- 
tent to  accept  a party  designation.  To 
require  them  to  go  through  the  ballot, 
pick  out  all  those  who  are  the  candi- 
dates of  their  party — to  require  them  to 
take  the  necessary  time  to  accomplish 
this  result,  may  be  desired,  but  it  seems 
to  me  that  the  present  system  permits  of 
this,  and  at  the  same  time  makes  it  pos- 
sible for  those  who  are  not  so  well  pre- 
pared to  differentiate — who  are  prepared 
to  accept  the  candidates  who  have  been 
nominated  by  the  political  organizations 
or  by  organized  public  sentiment — it 
gives  them  an  opportunity  to  vote  as 
they  may  be  desirous  of  doing,  with  the 
least  possible  effort.  For  that  reason, 
I shall  oppose  the  motion  to  substitute. 

MR.  COLE:  I don’t  understand  that 
this  motion  does  away  with  the  party 
designation  at  all.  It  does  do  away 
with  the  party  circle.  The  ticket  could 
be  arranged  and  in  my  estimation  it 
would  be  a better  way  to  arrange  a 
ticket  in  which  all  of  the  naminees’ 
names  will  be  under  the  different 
offices.  You  can  have  a column  for 
the  Republican,  and  after  that  the  dif- 
ferent offices  running  along,  and  have 
one  Democratic,  and  so  on,  so  that  a 
person  can  very  easily  see  that  any- 
one that  wants  to  vote  the  straight 
party  ticket  can  very  easily  do  so, 
only  those  wishing  to  do  so  would  have 
to  mark  the  name  of  each  candidate.  It 
does  away  with  the  party  circle,  but 
not  with  the  party  designation.  It 
may  be  so  arranged  * * * 

MR.  PEND  A R VIS:  May  I ask  Mr. 

Cole  a question?  I should  think  that 


this  does  away  with  the  party  designa- 
tion. Don’t  you  think  so?  (Reads  the 
resolution.)  Under  this  resolution,  if 
we  adopted  it,  all  the  candidates  for 
mayor  would  have  to  be  in  one  column, 
under  the  name  of  mayor,  and  the 
aldermen  under  the  name  of  aldermen. 
You  could  not  possibly  have  on  the 
ballot  a designation  for  a Republican 
or  Democrat. 

MR.  COLE:  You  don’t  necessarily 

have  to  have  a column  with  their  names 
there.  You  can  have  the  designation 
there,  calling  them  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 
ther discussion  upon  this  proposition? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  The  Australian 

ballot  law  was  introduced  into  the 
United  States  some  twenty  years  ago. 
The  first  law  was  adopted  in  the  state 
of  Massachusetts  in  the  year  1888.  The 
original  Australian  ballot  law,  as  it 
was  known  in  the  country  where  it 
came  from,  provided  for  such  a form 
of  ballot  as  is  here  recommended.  The 
Australian  ballot  law,  as  it  came  over 
here  to  us,  provided  for  no  party  em- 
blem or  column,  and  it  has  no  party 
designation  of  any  character.  When 
this  law  was  taken  up  by  the  various 
states,  following  the  year  1888,  in 
which  the  state  of  Massachusetts 
adopted  it,  within  two  years  from  that 
time,  more  than  one-half  of  the  states 
had  adopted  the  principle  of  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot.  When  it  was  adopted 
in  this  country  it  provided  for  a party 
circle  or  emblem  and  a party  column. 
The  party  column  is  bad  enough,  using 
the  party  name,  because  there  we  would 
have  also  the  party  emblem,  so  that  in 
the  state  of  Maryland,  for  example, 
all  that  a Republican  had  to  do  was 
to  mark  his  cross  after  the  picture  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,  which  stood  at  the 
head  of  the  Republican  column,  and 
all  that  a member  of  Tammany  Hall 
has  to  do  is  to  mark  his  ballot  under 
a star,  which  stands  for  that  organiza- 
tion. These  things  have  never  been 


December  4 


121 


1906 


integral  parts  of  the  Australian  ballot 
law,  and  they  never  should  have  been 
put  in  there.  Judge  Brown  stated  in 
a discussion  of  this  question,  a few 
days  ago,  that  at  the  time  that  this 
law  was  adopted  in  the  Illinois  legis- 
lature the  committee,  of  which  he  was 
a member,  which  was  in  charge  of  this 
law,  were  undecided  whether  or  not 
they  should  wait  until  the  next  session 
of  the  legislature  and  get  the  law  into 
proper  form,  or  whether  they  should 
hurry  it  through  with  the  party  circle 
and  the  party  column,  and  they  de- 
cided that  they  should  hurry  the  law 
through,  and  it  was  argued  at  that  time 
in  that  committee  that  the  proper 
thing  to  do  was  to  get  this  law  adopt- 
ed,— to  adopt  the  principle  of  it, — and 
then  in  succeeding  sessions  it  could  be 
amended.  It  is  some  twenty  years 
since  that  time,  and  it  has  not  yet  been 
amended.  Apparently  the  state  at  large 
doesn’t  care  for  it,  but  to  my  mind, 
for  questions  in  municipal  elections,  it 
appears  to  me  that  there  is  a very  dis- 
tinct demand  and  a strong  public  sen- 
timent for  abolishing  the  party  circle 
and  the  party  column.  This  is  not  a 
novelty.  It  is  not  a new  thing.  Al- 
ready there  are  fifteen  states  where  it 
is  in  operation.  One-third  of  the 
states,  comprising  at  least  one-half  of 
the  population  of  the  United  States, 
have  abolished  it,  and  there  the  party 
circle  or  column  are  unknown.  This  is 
true  in  Massachusetts,  in  Iowa  and  in 
Minnesota,  and  in  every  case  where  the 
pa~ty  circle  and  the  party  column  have 
been  taken  off  the  ballot  it  has  pro- 
duced a great  development  of  inde- 
pendent voting. 

Now,  there  are  gentlemen  here  who 
state  that  they  favor  at  the  top  of  the 
ballot  a party  circle,  and  the  party 
column.  With  these  gentlemen  I differ 
decidedly.  As  I understand  it,  they 
have  neither  a party  circle  or  a col- 
umn, and  they  are  getting  on  very  well.  1 
.We  ought  not  to  be  confused  on  this 


matter,  and  I warn  the  gentlemen  of 
the  Convention  against  being  confused 
in  the  principle  of  this  scheme.  There 
are  at  least  three  ways  in  which  this 
scheme  can  be  arranged  for.  The  bal- 
lot can  be  arranged  in  alphabetical  or- 
der, or  placing  them  in  fixed  order, 
placing  one  party  first,  or  put  in  the 
parties,  which  is  the  practice  that  was 
followed  in  the  last  election.  That  is 
a matter  of  detail  and  can  be  arranged 
later.  I am  frank  to  say  that  we  have 
been  having  altogether  too  much 
straight  voting  in  cities,  and  I am  will- 
ing to  place  these  restrictions  here,  so 
that  in  our  American  cities  we  will  have 
less  straight  party  voting  and  a great 
deal  more  of  independent  voting.  There 
is  no  difficulty  whatever,  for  a man  who 
wishes  to  vote  a straight  ticket  to  do 
it  with  the  Massachusetts  system.  He 
can  do  so  very  easily.  But  the  ballot, 
as  it  is  now  arranged,  not  only  permits 
him  to  vote  a straight  ticket,  but  in- 
vites him  to  do  so,  and  there  is  where 
the  objections  come  in.  If  you  want 
to  preserve  the  principle  of  straight 
party  voting  in  our  municipalities,  if 
we  are  satisfied  with  the  principle  of 
voting  as  it  now  stands  is  satisfactory, 
I should  say  vote  this  down.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  if  you  are  tired  of  the 
straight  ticket  and  want  independent 
voting  upon  fair  treatment  and  fair 
terms,  with  straight  party  voting,  then 
I should  say  vote  Yes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understand 

that  the  only  motion  before  the  house 
is  on  the  adoption  of  No.  2,  para- 
graph 2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  No.  2 and  the 
second  paragraph,  on  the  left-hand  col- 
l umn  of  page  52. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Then  I have  a 

substitute  to  that  paragraph  which  I 
will  produce  and  which  I will  ask  the 
Secretary  to  read.  This  came  from 
the  Committee  on  Election,  and  I would 
like  to  speak  for  a moment  on  it. 


December  4 


122 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  the  substitute. 

THE  SECRETARY : ‘ ‘ The  names  of 

all  the  nominees  for  each  office  shall 
be  printed  on  the  ballot  under  the  title 
of  the  office  for  which  they  are  candi- 
dates in  alphabetical  order,  and  the 
designation  of  the  party,  if  any,  to 
which  they  belong.” 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I do  not  know 

whether  this  proposition  as  it  came 
from  the  steering  committee  intended 
that  the  designation  of  the  party  should 
be  given  or  not,  but,  at  any  rate,  it 
was  the  sense  of  the  majority  of  the 
Committee  on  Municipal  Election  that 
the  party  designation  ought  not  to  be 
left  off.  This  is  a means  of  identify- 
ing the  men.  But  there  is  a wide  dif- 
ference between  placing  all  the  candi- 
dates under  the  one-party  column  in  a 
municipal  election  and  simply  designat- 
ing the  party  to  which  that  candidate 
may  hapen  to  belong.  It  seems  to  me 
that  unless  we  pass  a measure  of  this 
sort  we  are  not  making  any  progress  in 
our  municipal  affairs.  We  have  all 
agreed  that  party  politics — pure  party 
politics — as  such,  ought  to  be  elimi- 
nated in  municipal  affairs.  Then,  if 
pure  party  politics,  as  such,  ought  to 
be  eliminated  in  municipal  elections, 
we  ought  to  have  municipal  issues;  and 
why  not  have  a ticket  issued  in  such 
a manner  that  the  choice  of  the  voter 
may  be  between  the  particular  candi- 
dates and  not  simply  between  parties? 
And  if  it  is  a fact  that  a ticket  framed 
as  this  ticket  would  be  is  not  suited 
to  the  unintelligent  voter,  let  us  seek 
to  disqualify  the  unintelligent  voter, 
so  that  only  the  intelligent  voter  should 
be  able  to  vote  at  the  municipal  elec- 
tion. The  principle  is  well  stated  by 
Professor  Merriam,  that  the  circle  never 
had  any  place  in  the  Australian  ballot 
system.  At  the  time  of  the  reform 
party  in  this  city,  and  the  Introduction 
of  the  Australian  ballot  system,  it  was 


never  intended  to  put  a circle  at  the 
head  of  a party  column.  The  circle 
was  there  at  the  primaries,  because 
it  was  insisted  upon  by  persons  who 
preferred  their  party  before  the  coun- 
try, if  I may  put  it  that  way. 

MR.  COLE:  I merely  want  to  say 

that,  as  the  mover  of  the  original  mo- 
tion, I am  willing  to  accept  the  substi- 
tute, and  I want  to  put  myself  on  rec- 
ord as  saying  that  the  object  is  not 
to  do  away  with  the  party  method  or 
the  party  name,  but  simply  to  do  away 
with  the  circle. 

MR.  SCHEDD:  I offer  a substitute 

to  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  amendment,  that 
after  the  word  ‘ ‘ Candidate  ’ ’ we  should 
introduce  the  words:  “ Under  their 

respective  separate  party  column.” 
That  would  do,  away  with  the  circle, 
which  seems  to  be  objectionable,  but  it 
would  not  identify  the  party.  It  seems 
to  me  that  doing  away  with  the  entire 
matter  under  the  proposed  plan  would 
confuse  the  voter.  I think  this  would 
eliminate  the  objectionable  feature,  and 
I propose  the  amendment. 

MR.  SHEPHERD:  I second  the  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  Shedd.  That  solves 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shedd,  what 
is  your  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Shedd  ’s  substitute  for  Mr„ 
Rosenthal ’s  substitute. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “To  No.  2. 

After  the  word  ‘Candidates’  add  ‘Un- 
der their  respective  party  columns,’  so 
that  the  entire  section  shall  read:  ‘2. 

The  names  of  all  the  nominees  for  each 
office  shall  be  printed  on  the  ballot 
under  the  title  of  the  office  for  which 
they  are  candidates  under  their  re- 
spective party  columns.’  ” 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  whether,  in  the  opin- 
ion of  Mr.  Shedd  if  this  were  done,  that 
the  candidate  would  be  labeled  any  less 
Republican  or  Democratic  than  he 
would  if  a circle  was  alongside  the 


December  4 


123 


1906 


name  of  the  party.  It  does  not  seem 
to  me  that  it  would  cure  the  situation 
very  much,  if  that  is  what  is  desired. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 
ther discussion  on  this  subject? 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I per- 

sonally wish  that  this  substitute  might 
be  deferred  until  we  voted  on  the  en- 
tire matter.  It  seems  to  me  that  some 
of  us  are  in  the  position  we  were  in 
yesterday.  Here  are  two  different 
methods  of  carrying  out  a general  prop- 
osition in  detail.  It  may  be  if  some 
of  these  learned  gentlemen  were  to  have 
a little  more  time  to  think  about  it 
they  would  find  three  of  four  other  dif- 
ferent methods  of  doing  it,  and  there 
would  be  some  chance  to  have  a choice. 
Here  are  two  matters  of  detail  thrust 
upon  us  without  any  consideration  ex- 
cept this,  which  is,  after  all,  a prac- 
tically impromptu  debate.  Would  it 
not  be  better  to  withdraw  the  substi- 
tutes and  see  where  we  stand  on  the 
main  proposition?  As  I understand  the 
two  substitutes,  they  are  matters  of  de- 
tail, and  I would  like  to  have  an  op- 
portunity to  consider  the  main  propo- 
sition before  we  consider  the  details. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  A little  of  the 

party  history,  probably,  would  be  of 
some  moment  now.  I had  the  honor  of 
introducing  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives in  the  legislature  the  Australian 
ballot  law.  That  is  a bill  prepared  by 
a committee  here  in  Chicago.  It  was 
drawn  under  the  lines  of  the  Australian 
ballot  law,  pure  and  simple;  that  no 
circles,  party  designations,  or  anything 
of  that  character,  will  be  upon  it.  The 
bill  was  referred,  of  course,  to  the 
Committee  on  Elections  of  the  House 
of  Representatives  ,and  there  the 
question  was  taken  up.  We  had  a 
great  many  sessions,  and  then  presented 
the  bill,  and  this  present  Australian  bal- 
lot law  is  the  law  drawn  by  the  com- 
mittee. It  seems  that  when  the  bill 
was  introduced  by  myself,  appeals  were 


showered  in  from  every  section  of  the 
state,  and  the  result  was  that  the  com- 
mittee drafted  the  present  law;  and  the 
reason  why  the  party  circle  was  adopt- 
ed was  particularly  because  of  the 
length  of  the  ballot,  especially  in  presi- 
dential elections.  That  was  the  only 
reason  that  had  been  given  at  that 
time  why  the  circle  was  placed  at  the 
head  of  the  column,  and  the  party  des- 
ignation. Although  theye  were  inclined 
to  a party  designation,  to  some  extent 
the  controlling  thing  was  the  length  of 
the  ballot. 

Now,  in  these  municipal  elections,  I 
cannot  imagine  a city  ticket  that  will 
contain  more  than  twelve  or  fifteen 
names  hereafter.  You  will  have  nine 
candidates  for  judges,  a mayor  and  an 
alderman  in  a party  column.  It  seems 
to  me  that  it  makes  little  difference 
whether  you  have  a*  circle  at  the  top  or 
not,  where  the  number  of  candidates  is 
so  few  that  the  voter  can,  with  a great 
deal  of  ease,  make  an  intelligent  selec- 
tion. However,  there  are  a great  many 
of  us  here  proud  of  our  parties,  and  it 
would  not  do  to  eliminate  them,  prob- 
ably, from  this  proposed  charter.  But 
I cannot  see,  Mr.  President,  that  it 
makes  a great  deal  of  difference.  Now, 
I am  inclined  to  favor  the  amendment 
offered  by  Mr.  Shedd  to  the  existing 
proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  want  to 

speak,  Mr..  McMillan? 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  we 

have  come  to  the  crossing  of  the  ways 
on  this  whole  question  of  politics  in 
municipal  affairs.  I do  not  think  this 
Convention  ought  to  pass  on  this  mat- 
ter until  it  understands  exactly  what 
it  is  doing.  If  we  vote  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Shedd  and  vote  down 
the  original  proposition,  or  the  substi- 
tute of  Mr.  Rosenthal,  we  might  as  well 
understand  now  as  at  any  other  time 
that  we  are  voting  directly  to  perpet- 
uate party  control  of  municipal  elec- 


December  4 


124 


1906 


tion^;  that  we  are  voting  to  permit 
national  parties  to  be  the  controlling 
and  dominating  features  in  all  munic- 
ipal elections.  We  have  already  voted 
in  favor  of  the  proposition  that  was 
involved  in  our  first  resolution  under 
this  head  that  elective  city  officers  shall 
be  nominated  under  the  system  of  di- 
rect primaries.  Now,  the  direct  pri- 
mary, with  all  the  improvements  we 
can  get  into  it,  means  in  the  end  only 
one  thing,  and  that  is  a party  nom- 
inee. There  are  some  gentlemen  who 
believe  that  a party  primary  should  be 
open  to  men  who  do  not  belong  to  the 
party.  I am  not  one  of  those  men. 
I am  unable  to  see  how  any  man  has  a 
right  to  vote  at  a party  primary,  di- 
rect or  otherwise,  who  is  not  willing 
to  state  that  he  belongs  to  that  party 
and  ordinarily  acs  with  it.  The  party 
primary  is  intended,  to  select  nominees 
of  that  party  as  the  party  nominee, 
and  it  should  not  be  controlled  by  men 
who  do  not  belong  to  the  party.  Now, 
we  have  voted  in  favor  of  nomination 
by  direct  primaries,  and  independent 
nominations  by  petition.  Now,  having 
gone  on  record  on  that,  if  we  add  to 
that  the  proposition  that  we  shall  print 
nominees  under  some  column — say,  all 
the  Republican  nominees  down  one  col- 
umn, and  all  the  Democratic  nominees 
in  another  column,  you  are  absolutely 
perpetuating  the  control  of  municipal 
elections  by  national  parties.  It  is 
true,  as  Alderman  Snow  has  said,  that 
a man  can  pick  them  out;  he  can  pick 
out  his  candidate.  But  I would  like 
to  ask  this  Convention  how  many  of 
you  feel  that  you  had  a fair  show  in  the 
last  election  in  this  city?  It  is  pos- 
sible under  the  present  law  to  pick  out 
the  candidate  you  desire  to  vote  for, 
but  the  minute  you  have  got  a Repub- 
lican column,  and  a Democratic  column, 
and  a Prohibitionist  column,  and  a So- 
cialist colmun,  and  a series  of  inde- 
pendents, and  whatever  other  parties 
there  may  be  in  a city  election,  and  no 


party  designation,  with  or  without  a 
circle  to  it,  the  ordinary  voter  who 
goes  into  the  polling  booths  is  con- 
fronted with  a pile  of  names,  and  he 
must  either  start  in  and  mark  those 
names  right  down  the  list,  instead  of 
putting  his  name  in  the  circle  at  the 
top;  he  must  pick  out  his  candidates 
from  them;  and  when  he  begins  to  pick 
them  out,  to  mark  Jones  here,  and 
Brown  there,  and  Smith  over  here,  why, 
he  thinks:  “I  am  jeopardizing  my 

ballot.  I never  can  get  them  all  picked 
out  from  all  over  this  sheet. ” I don’t 
say  that  all  men  will,  but  a large  num- 
ber will.  A large  number  of  men  are 
perfectly  willing  to  exercise  the  suf- 
frage intelligently,  but  they  are  unwill- 
ing to  take  any  chances  of  making  a 
mistake  on  their  ballot.  They  are  apt 
to  get  confused  in  the  manner  of  exer- 
cising their  right.  It  seems  to  me  we 
should  decide  whether  we  are  in  favor 
of  having  national  parties  in  the  city 
election,  and  having  them  dominate 
those  elections  in  the  future  as  they 
have  in  the  past.  If  you  vote  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Shedd’s  amendment,  you  will 
have  simply  removed  the  possibility  of 
making  one  mark  in  the  circle  at  the 
top  of  the  ballot  paper.  You  still  have 
the  alternative  of  going  right  down  the 
column. 

There  is  another  intelligent  method 
of  voting  in  municipal  elections.  There 
was  one  suggested  in  the  National  Civic 
Federation  in  New  York  recently,  in 
which  there  was  a representative  from 
cities  all  over  the  country.  I have 
never  heard  at  any  such  convention  any 
individual  advocating  independent  vot- 
ing at  municipal  elections  who  is  not 
opposed  to  the  principle  of  the  party 
column  and  the  party  circle.  As  Mr. 
O’Donnell  has  well  pointed  out,  I will 
assume  that  you  are  going  to  reduce 
the  number  of  nominees.  You  will  try 
to  get  the  nominations  in  municipal 
elections  few  enough  so  that  you  will 
have  no  more  blanket  ballots  such  as 


December  4 


125 


1906 


we  had  in  the  last  election,  if  we  can 
avoid  it.  Why  not  put  in  each  place 
the  names  of  the  candidates  with  the 
party  designation,  if  you  wish;  or  the 
party  emblem,  if  you  wish,  so  that  the 
common,  intelligent  man  who  wishes 
to  exercise  his  right  with  intelligence, 
and  has  a fair  degree  of  intelligence, 
will  come  to  the  ballot,  in  the  booth, 
and  say:  1 ‘Here  are  the  candidates 

for  mayor;  I will  intelligently  pick 
out  my  candidate  for  mayor.  " So  that 
he  won't  vote  for  every  Republican  or 
Democratic  nominee  on  the  list,  but  will 
have  to  pick  them  out  and  at  least 
read  the  names  of  the  opposing  candi- 
dates before  he  exercises  his  right. 

That  will  not  be  by  the  blanket  bal- 
lot. You  will  give  the  man,  if  you 
adopt  that  law,  a chance  to  vote  intel- 
ligently with  the  independents,  and  not 
handicap  him  as  he  is  now.  For  when 
a man  comes  in  and  simply  marks  the 
party  ticket  in  the  party  circle,  he  sim- 
ply votes  down  one  column  marked 
with  these  nominations.  Now,  having 
adopted  the  principles  of  the  party 
nomination — having  adopted  the  prin- 
ciples of  direct  primaries — if  you  add 
this  to  it,  if  you  make  no  change  in  it, 
in  my  judgment,  you  have  taken  no  step 
whatever  to  improve  election  conditions 
in  this  city. 

Now,  it  is  all  very  well  to  talk  about 
parties.  I believe  in  parties. 
I believe  in  parties  that  are 
intelligently  formed  upon  some  princi- 
ple upon  which  a party  can  be  formed. 
As  I said  the  other  day,  you  will  per- 
petuate the  national  parties.  You  have 
the  republican  party  and  the  democratic 
party  divided  on  the  tariff  question, 
and  the  free  coinage  of  silver,  and  the 
maintenance  of  the  gold  standard,  and 
on  any  one  of  these  questions  on  which 
national  parties  are  divided.  When  you 
go  into  the  direct  primary  the  republi- 
can party,  which  is  an  organization  on 
the  tariff  question,  is  going  to  select 
a nominee  for  a municipal  office;  and 


in  that  direct  primary,  let  us  say,  one- 
third,  or  two-thirds  of  the  members  of 
the  party,  believe  in  a certain  policy, 
and  the  other  two-thirds  or  one-third, 
as  the  case  may  be,  do  not  believe  in 
that  certain  policy.  The  two-thirds  will 
win,  but  having  won,  the  remainder  of 
the  party  is  left  to  vote  for  the  nomi- 
nees on  that  primary  on  a municipal 
issue  when  the  party  lines  were  never 
formed  on  that  basis  at  all.  You  are 
going  to  handicap  the  independent 
voter  and  simply  perpetuate  the  control 
of  municipal  elections  by  national  party 
lines;  leaving  party  politics,  as  they 
have  in  the  past,  to  control  generally 
your  municipal  election. 

MR.  WHITE:  I move  that  we  leave 
on  the  table  the  two  substitutes  until 
we  have  passed  on  the  main  proposi- 
tion. 

A MEMBER:  I second  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 
the  motion  of  Doctor  White  to  leave 
on  the  table  the  two  substitutes  until 
we  have  passed  on  the  main  proposi- 
tion. 

MR.  WHITE:  Until  we  have  passed 

on  the  main  proposition,  so  that  we 
can  vote  on  the  matter  intelligently. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  defer  ac- 

tion on  the  two  substitutes  until  a vote 
is  taken  on  the  main  proposition.  All 
those  in  favor  of  Doctor  White's  motion 
will  signify  by  saying  aye,  opposed 
no;  the  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Brown, 
Burke,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Fisher, 
Guerin,  Haas,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  McGoor- 
ty,  McKinley,  Merriman,  O'Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Rev- 
ell,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shan- 
ahan, Shepard,  Snow,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Yopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Zim- 
mer—41. 

Nays — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Church,  MacMillan,  Shedd,  Young — 7. 


December  4 


126 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  vote  to  de- 

fer the  two  substitutes  until  a vote  is 
taken  upon  the  original  proposition  is: 
Yeas  41,  nays  7.  The  question  is  now 
upon  the  adoption  of  No.  2. 

MR.  SHEPHERD:  No.  2,  in  my 

judgment,  should  be  voted  down.  It 
is  part  of  the  proposition  that  was 
yesterday  voted  down,  and  is  incon- 
sistent with  the  scheme  adopted  yes- 
terday by  this  convention  that  nomi- 
nees shall  be  nominated  by — under  the 
direct  primary  system.  In  my  judg- 
ment we  adopted  a wise  and  proper 
course  yesterday.  And  if  we  are  to 
nominate  officers  through  the  party 
organization,  or  some  other  organiza- 
tion, we  should  fix  the  responsibility — • 
the  further  responsibility — of  placing 
them  in  the  proper  party  column. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further 

discussion  on  the  subject? 

MR.  JONES:  I wish  to  vote  against 
this  proposition;  not  alone  from  con- 
sideration of  the  merits  of  the  ques- 
tion, but  because  I believe  that  it  is 
a subject  which  should  be  governed  by 
the  general  election  laws  of  the  state.  | 
We  have  four  different  kinds  of  officers 
who  are  voted  upon:  National  officers, 
state  officers,  county  officers  and  mu- 
nicipal officers.  I believe  that  this  is 
a subject  which  should  not  be  dealt 
with  by  this  charter,  but  should  be 
left  for  the  legislature  in  making  up 
the  general  election  laws.  I do  not 
believe  that  we  should  have  a party 
column  for  the  fall  elections,  and  the 
ballot  arranged  on  the  plan  suggested 
by  this  proposition  for  city  elections. 
Therefore,  without  referring  to  the 
question  of  the  relative  merits  of  the 
two  plans,  I shall  vote  in  opposition 
to  the  proposition,  because  I believe 
that  the  whole  subject  matter  should 
be  governed  by  the  general  election 
laws  of  the  state. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  had  the  idea  that  the  chief  object 
of  the  charter  convention  was  to  de- 


vise a plan  for  reform  in  the  mu- 
nicipal government  of  Chicago,  in  re- 
gard to  the  consolidation  of  the  vari- 
ous taxing  bodies  in  the  city;  and 
shall  consider  the  question  of  provid- 
ing some  remedy  for  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  im- 
portance that  some  of  the  members  of 
this  Convention  are  making  of  this 
question  of  how  our  municipal  officers 
shall  be  elected  is  apt  to  prove  a 
stumbling  block  that  may  seriously  im- 
pede the  enactment  of  charter  legis- 
lation in  Springfield  this  winter.  Now, 
I do  not  believe,  and  I am  speaking 
from  some  experience  that  I have  had 
in  the  Illinois  General  Assembly — I do 
not  believe  that  charter  legislation  can 
be  passed  there  for  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, regardless  of  the  fact  that  it 
does  not  affect  other  municipalities  in 
the  state;  it  makes  no  great  sweeping 
changes  in  election  arrangements.  I 
believe  other  gentlemen  present  here 
who  have  had  some  experienc  in  the 
legislature,  will  bear  me  out  in  this 
statement — that  we  have  got  to  have 
the  votes  of  the  country  members  be- 
fore we  can  pass  this  charter  legis- 
lation; and  the  country  members  in 
the  legislature  are  very  strong  on 
the  question  of  party  organization. 
That  is  something  that  we  have  had 
to  contend  with  continuously,  and  with 
that  feeling  of  antipathy  that  exists 
to  a certain  extent  beween  the  city 
and  the  country,  we  are  going  to  run 
up  against  something  there  that  I be- 
lieve will  seriously  impede  us  in  se- 
curing charter  legislation.  To  me  it 
seems  that  it  is  a less  important  ques- 
tion than  the  securing  of  this  charter 
legislation.  I believe  the  best  thing 
to  be  done  is  to  leave  our  party  law 
alone;  otherwise,  we  shall  be  making  a 
mistake. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins. 

MR.  ROBINS:  In  favoring  the  pro- 


December  4 


127 


1906 


position  that  is  before  the  Convention 
at  this  time  I take  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent view  and  wish  to  speak  from  a 
different  point  of  view,  and  only  be- 
cause of  that  shall  I take  up  the  time 
of  the  Convention  with  my  remarks. 

I believe  that  the  permanence  of  a 
party  organization  in  the  state  and 
the  nation  is  secured.  They  are  here 
because  they  are  needed.  They  will 
remain.  I am  for  this  proposition  for 
just  the  reason  that  the  city  election 
in  the  spring,  if  it  adopted  now,  under 
the  party  column  provision,  that  be- 
fore the  election  shall  be  held  the  party 
organization  in  so  far  as  needed  will  be 
maintained. 

The  thought  I had  in  mind  is  this: 
The  old  break  in  American  politics 
was  on  political  questions.  The  pres- 
ent break  in  politics  is  on  industrial 
questions.  I suggest  to  my  friends  who 
are  interested  in  the  maintenance  of 
party  organization  that  they  grease  the 
way  for  the  rise  of  a new  party  in 
American  politics,  and  for  its  domina- 
tion in  the  great  industrial  cities.  I 
speak  of  the  socialist  party. 

That  is  the  party  that  can  count 
30,000  votes  in  the  last  election  when 
there  was  a great  division  upon  the 
necessity  for  separating  one  candidate 
from  another  in  the  matter  of  the 
municipal  court.  That  is  the  party 
that  can  hold  its  strength  in  a few 
years  to  the  extent  of  30,000  votes  in 
our  city;  promises  to  grow  steadily  and 
with  the  progress  of  the  nation  and 
the  development  of  education  in  the 
working  classes  to  throw  into  that  party 
the  discontented  and  it  will  be  effective 
simply  by  voting  for  the  socialistic. 

We  have  seen  it  rise.  Some  of  you 
may  discount  the  view  that  it  is  a 
growing  opinion  in  our  cities,  in  the 
larger  cities  everywhere,  not  to  be 
especally  regarded  in  national  politics 
anywhere;  but  to  be  merely  regarded 
by  the  intelligent  and  faithful  men, 
who  observe  the  course  of  affairs  in 


great  industrial  cities,  as  a light  mat- 
ter. 

Now  I suggest  to  the  gentlemen  here 
that  you  are  preparing  a way  in  main- 
taining the  party,  in  municipal  elec- 
tions, to  throw  the  First  Ward  and  ulti- 
mately the  City  of  Chicago  into  the 
control  of  the  socialist  party.  And 
while  you  may  think  that  that  is  a 
far  and  remote  contingency,  I say  to 
you  that  it  is  not  as  remote  as  it  might 
be. 

When  you  break  up  party  organiza- 
tion with  your  municipal  ticket  and  pre- 
serve organization  for  your  county, 
state  and  national  ticket,  you  will  pro- 
tect your  party  in  a part  only.  When 
you  maintain  your  classification  in  your 
city  politics,  you  pave  the  way  for  the 
rise  in  power  and  control  of  a party 
organization  more  compact  that  your 
own;  more  unreasoning  than  your  own; 
more  passionate  than  your  own;  more 
certain  to  vote  for  the  principle,  as 
they  say,  than  for  the  man;  utterly 
regardless  of  the  man;  tremendously 
enthusiastic  on  the  principle,  and  you 
give  it  the  strongest  possible  way  of 
expression  in  your  party.  And  for 
that  reason  I am  opposed  to  it. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  I want  to  speak  and 

emphasize  this  fact;  I want  to  warn 
these  people  here  that  if  they  confine 
the  issues  of  the  City  of  Chicago  to 
the  national  party  issues  it  will  be 
detrimental. 

MR.  SHEDD:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shedd. 

MR.  SHEDD:  I wish  to  submit  to 

this  Convention  that  when  I cast  my 
ballot  for  a candidate  on  municipal 
election,  I do  want  to  know  by  some 
method  the  party  to  which  he  belongs. 
I want  to  know  whether  he  is  a re- 
publican or  democrat,  or  whether  he 
is  a socialist  or  whatever  he  may  be. 
I want  to  vote  intelligently,  and  I 
believe  that  the  easy  and  intelligent 


December  4 


128 


1906 


way  for  the  people  of  this  city  to  vote 
is  by  voting  a party  column;  in  a 
circle  at  the  top  of  the  paper  so  that 
when  a voter  comes  to  look  over  the 
ballot  he  can  easily  determine  from 
the  position  of  the  party  on  the  ballot 
which  party  a large  majority  of  the 
candidates  belong  to  for  which  they 
wish  to  cast  their  ballot.  I submit 
that  probably  a large  majority  of 
people  who  voted  at  municipal  elec- 
tions have  for  the  last  one  hundred  and 
will  for  the  next  two  hundred  years  be 
guided  by  their  respective  parties. 

Every  voter  wants  an  easy  method 
of  separating  out  and  voting  for  the 
candidates  whom  he  prefers.  It  seems 
to  me  that  in  passing  the  second  clause 
here;  that  simply  tends  to  confuse 
rather  than  simplify  the  method  of 
voting,  and  I agree  with  the  gentleman 
who  spoke  second  before  me  that  to 
go  to  the  legislature  with  a new  sys- 
tem, an  entirely  new  system  of  an 
arrangement  of  candidates  at  munici- 
pal election,  will  utterly  fail;  and  it 
will  be  a very  large  matter  for  us 
to  bring  before  them.  I am  thoroughly 
opposed  to  the  printing  of  the  candi- 
dates on  the  ballot  in  any  other  way. 

ME.  McGOOETY:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McGoorty. 

MR.  McGOOETY:  I agree  with  Mr. 

Shedd.  If  it  is  both  desirable  to  have 
a ballot  that  makes  it  easiest  and 
most  certain  for  the  voter  to  vote, 
that  is  the  ballot  to  be  adopted.  I 
have  before  me  a copy  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts ballot.  There  the  candidates 
are  arranged  under  the  office  for  which 
they  are  to  be  elected  with  the  party 
designation  following  the  names  and 
a square  following  the  party  designa- 
tion. I submit  that  that  is  the  easiest 
and  simplest  form  of  ballot  that  can 
be  devised. 

When  we  consider  the  sort  of  the 
ballot  used  at  the  last  general  election, 
the  necessity  of  one  who  desires  to  vote 
for  the  individual  rather  than  for  the 


party  to  read  the  names  from  right 
to  left  over  that  entire  ballot,  it  is 
Very  hard,  and  harder  than  to  take  a 
ballot  like  this  one  where  the  candi- 
dates for  governor  are  all  in  one 
group  and  the  voter  sees  at  a glance 
that  John  Smith  is  the  democratic 
candidate  and  that  John  Brown  is  the 
prohibition-  candidate  and  so  on;  and  he 
can  speedily  and  readily  designate  his 
choice  for  that  office  and  so  on  for 
the  other  offices.  Now  that  is  no  radi- 
cal change.  There  is  no  disillusion 
about  that. 

I agree  with  Mr.  Church  that  this 
Convention  should  not  make  any  recog- 
nition or  formulate  any  plan  that 
rwo.uld  make  for  any  opposition  by 
the  general  assembly;  but  I am  not 
willing  to  admit  that  the  intelligence 
of  the  general  assembly  of  Illinois 
will  balk  and  say  in  advance  that  they 
will  defeat  a proposition  which  is 
tended  to  preserve  the  integrity  of 
party  organization;  and  I do  not  think 
it  would  be  any  more  likely  to  do  that 
in  the  State  of  Illinois  than  it  would 
in  Massachusetts  or  other  states.  And 
this  is  to  enable  the  party  voter  to 
vote  conveniently  and  to  intelligently 
exercise  his  right  of  franchise  by  sim- 
plifying the  ballot. 

The  whole  movement  toward  a re- 
formed election  has  among  other 
things  the  idea  to  lessen  the  number 
of  candidates.  Now  if  we  cannot  at 
one  step  materially  lessen  the  number 
of  candidates  we  can  at  least  make  it 
so  that  the  voter  can  vote  for  whom 
he  chooses. 

I was  surprised  to  hear  of  one  of 
the  leading  members  of  the  Chicago 
Bar,  who  said,  at  his  club,  after  some 
reflection,  that  he  had  decided  to  vote 
his  ticket  straight  lest  it  be  lost  and 
cast  aside  as  an  improper  ballot. 

I agree  with  the  suggestion  in  the 
amendment  made  by  Mr.  Rosenthal  that 
I the  party  designation  should  follow 
I the  name.  I think  that  was  implied 


December  4 


129 


1906 


in  the  main  proposition  upon  which 
we  argued  before.  We  desire  simplic- 
ity, and  we  desire  to  make  it  so  that 
the  voter  can  cast  his  ballot  according 
to  his  wishes. 

ME.  CHUECH:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Church. 

You  have  spoken  once  on  the  subject. 

ME.  CHUECH:  I want  4;o  say  just 

one  thing  on  this  subject. 

A MEMBEE:  I ask  that  he  be  given 
consent. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  It  must  be  by 

unanimous  consent. 

A MEMBEE:  Let  him  speak. 

ME.  CHUECH:  The  question  that 

has  come  into  my  mind  is  this:  There 
is  in  this  city  a commission  that  has 
been  authorized  to  select  voting  ma- 
chines for  the  City  of  Chicago.  Now, 
if  this  change  is  made  in  our  law  in 
regard  to  our  municipal  election  in  the 
spring  we  are  face  to  face  with  this  ob- 
jection: I understand  voting  machines 
are  to  be  adopted  very  soon.  We 

have  a machine  than  can  be  used  at 
the  spring  election,  but  cannot  be 
used  at  the  fall  election  if  we  change 
the  form  of  the  ballot.  This  is  a 
serious  thing  and  I think  this  con- 
vention ought  to  take  it  into  con- 
sideration. If  we  take  some  of  these 
machines  they  cannot  be  adapted  to 
the  form  of  ballot  suggested,  and  the 
machine  that  is  made  for  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot  fails  to  be  of  service 
when  we  use  this  other  form  of  ballot. 

ME.  FISHEE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Fisher. 

ME.  FISHEE:  Eeferring  to  what 

Mr.  Church  has  said  I think  he  is  mis- 
informed. I have  been  informed  by 
men  who  have  given  attention  to  the 
voting  machines  that  that  is  what  it 
will  do.  There  is  a form  of  voting 
machine  that  does  not  permit  of  the 
thing  contemplated  in  the  resolution 
No.  2.  But  there  is  a form  of  voting 
machine  that  will  permit  of  voting 
for  the  candidate  under  the  name  and 


under  the  party,  too.  There  is  a diffi- 
culty in  building  these  voting  machines 
to  enable  the  voter  to  vote  the  straight 
party  ticket  in  the  column  and  also 
vote  independently.  There  is  no  diffi- 
culty about  that  kind  of  a machine 
being  used  under  the  resolution. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Is  there  any 

further  discussion. 

A VOICE:  Question. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  If  not,  the  sec- 

retary will  call  the  roll  upon  the  adop- 
tion of  No.  2,  and  will  read  the  sec- 
tion to  be  voted  upon. 

The  secretary  read  section  2 as  it 
appears  at  page  52  in  the  proceedings. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Cole,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart, 
J.  W.,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Guerin, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Post,  Eainey,  Eevell,  Eobins,  Eosen- 
thal,  Swift,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno, 
White,  Zimmer — 29. 

Nays — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Church,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T. 
J.,  Haas,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
MacMillan,  Pendarvis,  Eaymer,  Eina- 
ker,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow, 
Wilkins,  Young — 21. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  adopt  No.  2 the  vote  stands 
yeas  29,  nays  21;  and  the  resolution 
is  adopted. 

ME.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  I offer 

this  resolution  that  the  candidates’ 
names  be  printed  after  the  party’s 
name. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  next  thing, 

I believe,  would  be  the  reading  of  Mr. 
Eosenthal ’s  substitute  covering  the 
same  ground  that  General  Young’s  mo- 
tion covers. 

The  secretary  read  Mr.  Eosenthal ’s 
resolution  as  printed  hereinbefore. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  I move  it  be 

adopted. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  by  Mr.  Eosen- 
thal that  it  be  adopted.  All  those  in 


December  4 


130 


1906 


favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 
posed no;  the  ayes  have  it,  and  it  is 
so  ordered.  That  disposes  of  Mr. 
Shedd’s  motion.  The  secretary  will 
read  No.  3. 

The  secretary  read  No.  3 as  it  ap- 
pears at  page  52  of  the  proceedings. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  White. 

MR.  WHITE:  I desire  to  make  a 

motion  to  strike  out  the  word  “no” 
in  the  first  line  and  substitute  the 
article  “a.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

amendment? 

MR.  WHITE:  I have  not  the  paper 

before  me,  but  I think  I am  correct. 
I move  to  amend  by  striking  out  the 
word  “no”  in  the  first  line  and  sub- 
stituting the  article  “a.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  effect  of 

that  would  be  to  make  the  proposition 
an  affirmatve  one. 

MR.  WHITE:  That  is  the  object. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  amendment  offered  by 
Dr.  White. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I move  to  lay  the 

substitute  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  appears  to 

the  Chair  that  this  matter  will  have 
to  be  voted  on  at  some  time  as  to 
whether  it  is  to  be  a negative  or  an 
affirmative  resolution;  but  if  the  gen- 
tlemen want  the  roll  called  on  the  mo- 
tion to  lay  it  on  the  table  I will  have 
it  called.  I will  call  upon  the  secretary 
to  call  the  roll. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I rise  to  a point 

of  order.  It  need  not  be  voted  on  in 
that  matter. 

MR.  POST:  The  president  of  this 

Convention  has  already  ruled  that  a 
motion  to  lay  on  the  table  does  not 
cut  off  debate. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  correct, 

sir. 

MR.  POST:  The  motion  I wish  to 

offer,  and  which  I wish  to  speak  on 
for  a moment  before  the  general  de- 


bate opens,  in  case  this  motion  is  treat- 
ed as  it  is,  is  that  the  clause  regard- 
ing suffrage  for  women  be  put  off  until 
a later  date,  until  as  soon  as  you 
please,  and  that  the  president  invite 
women  interested  in  the  subject  to  ad- 
dress the  Convention  at  that  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  let  the 
secretary  read  the  resolution? 

Resolved,  that  the  clause  regarding 
suffrage  for  women  be  made  a special 
order  for  a session  to  be  held  Decem- 
ber, 1906,  and  that  the  president  invite 
women  interested  in  the  subject  to  ad- 
dress the  Convention  at  that  time  on 
this  question. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I notice 

the  Convention  has  reached  the  con- 
clusion on  some  subjects  that  it  should 
set  certain  things  for  a certain  time 
and  have  persons  interested  in  that 
subject  invited  to  address  the  conven- 
tion and  discuss  that  in  person,  and 
to  participate  in  the  discussion  with 
the  convention.  This  subject,  it  seems 
to  me,  is  as  important  as  either  of  the 
other  questions  and  as  deserving  of 
that  kind  of  consideration. 

I beg  to  remind  the  convention  that 
when  the  people  of  this  city  sent  lead- 
ers of  this  city  to  try  and  get  an 
amendment  to  the  state  constitution 
under  which  action  such  as  we  propose 
might  be  taken,  that  the  women  of 
this  community  were  called  upon  to 
assist  in  procuring  the  adoption  of  that 
amendment  by  the  people,  and  that 
the  women  of  this  city  who  are  in 
favor  of  women’s  suffrage  responded 
to  that  request;  and  I think  it  is  not 
stating  too  much  to  say  that  if  it  had 
not  been  for  the  action  of  the  women 
in  this  community  who  are  in  favor 
of  women’s  suffrage,  we  would  have 
no  occasion  for  taking  up  this  question 
today  because  no  satisfactory  amend- 
ment would  have  gone  to  the  legisla- 
ture and  we  would  not  have  had  the 
opportunity.  As  I look  over  the  list 
of  this  convention  I do  not  see  a single 


December  4 


131 


1906 


woman  here  representing  anything,  and 
no  representative  whatever  of  any 
woman  or  their  rights. 

I say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  women 
who  favor  the  suffrage  should  be  given 
an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  I do  not 
think  that  it  would  be  proper  to  pro- 
ceed without  hearing  them.  I have 
reason  for  believing  they  may  have 
practical  resolutions.  I believe  that 
because  the  committee  which  had  that 
subject  under  consideration,  and  which 
has  reported  to  this  Convention,  did  get 
the  women  of  the  city  to  appear. 
Their  representative  women  appeared 
before  that  committee,  and  as  a re- 
sult of  the  discussion  that  they  pre- 
sented, at  least  one  convert  on  that 
committee  was  made  to  women's  suf- 
frage for  municipal  purposes.  If  women 
appear  before  this  convention,  they 
may  have  similar  results  and  may 
finally  determine  the  action  of  the  con- 
vention. I might  say  in  addition  to 
that,  that  the  committee  which  re- 
ported on  this  subject,  and  which  re- 
ported the  resolution  as  it  now  stands, 
that  there  should  be  no  women's  suf- 
frage provided  for  in  the  charter,  was 
almost  equally  divided.  The  vote  was, 
as  I remember  it,  five  for  this  resolu- 
tion and  four  against  it.  Now  under 
those  circumstances  I submit  that  we 
should  not  take  up  this  matter  this 
afternoon,  and  go  on  with  the  discus- 
sion to  the  exclusion  of  the  women  of 
this  community  who  ought  to  be  heard 
and  who  have  earned  the  right  to  be 
heard  on  this  question. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I do  not  op- 

pose the  resolution  fixing  a day  upon 
which  this  subject  shall  be  discussed; 
but  I do  object  to  that  part  of  the 
resolution  which  provides  that  the 
women  shall  be  heard  upon  the  subject 
in  this  Convention. 


The  subjects  that  are  under  consider- 
ation by  this  Convention  have  been  in 
the  hands  of  a standing  committee  now 
for  about  a year,  or  perhaps,  more  than 
that,  and  I understand  that  the  women 
were  given  an  opportunity  to  be  heard 
before  the  committee  that  considered  this 
specific  subject,  and  therefore,  I think 
that  they  have  said  perhaps  all  that 
they  desire  to  say.  That  committee  was 
very  able,  and  they,  no  doubt,  will  be 
able  to  present  their  views  upon  the 
floor  of  this  Convention. 

If  you  accede  to  the  request  voiced 
by  Mr.  Post,  that  the  women  be  heard, 
then  the  people  who  are  interested  in 
the  revenue  measure  that  has  been  made 
a special  order,  will  undoubtedly  wish 
to  be  heard.  The  people  who  are  in- 
terested in  the  matter  of  education  will 
undoubtedly  desire  to  be  heard,  and  what 
does  that  lead  to?  It  will  lead  to  this, 
that  you  will  be  in  session  here  for  three 
or  four  months,  and  will  not  be  able  to 
come  to  any  conclusion  and  reach  the 
legislature  in  time  for  the  legislature 
to  act. 

I think  it  would  be  a mistake  to  open 
this  Convention  to  everyone  who  desires 
to  be  heard  upon  any  subject,  and  that  is 
what  you  would  have  to  do  if  you  would 
accede  to  the  request  of  Mr.  Post. 

I am  heartily  in  favor  of  fixing  a day 
and  hour  when  this  subject  may  be  dis- 
cussed, but  I do  not  believe  you  ought  to 
throw  the  Convention  open  to  the  women 
or  anyone  else  on  this  subject. 

MR.  COLE:  As  one  who  favors  fe- 

male suffrage,  and  expects  to  vote  for 
it,  I think  the  best  way  is  to  take  up 
Mr.  Post's  motion  now.  I think  the 
speeches  should  be  confined  to  five  min- 
utes, and  we  can  take  a vote,  and  have 
it  out  of  the  way. 

MR.  O'DONNELL:  The  motion  of 

Mr.  Post  should  be  divided.  I feel  that 
Mr.  Post  is  speaking  as  a foremost  rep- 
resentative on  this  question  here,  and  I 
think  that  his  request  ought  to  be  en- 
titled to  some  respect  at  the  hands  of 


December  4 


132 


1906 


the  Convention.  It  is  an  important  sub- 
ject, and  ought  to  be  set  down  for  a 
day  and  hour  that  will  allow  the  Conven- 
tion to  talk  about  it. 

ME.  POST:  Now  is  the  accepted 

time. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I am  not  op- 

posed to  opening  up  the  door,  and  allow- 
ing the  women  to  come  in  again.  They 
were  before  our  Law  Committee,  and 
the  Committee  on  Elections,  and  they 
had  their  day  in  Court — also,  before  the 
Committee  on  Education,  too.  The  ques- 
tion is  divided. 

MR.  POST : I will  accept  the 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Does  Mr.  Post 

agree  to  divide  the  motion? 

MR.  POST : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  present 

question  before  the  House  is  to  set  the 
discussion  of  the  question  of  women ’s 
suffrage  for  some  day  certain  in  the  fu- 
ture. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  I want  to  say 

that  I am  informed  that  the  women 
have  appointed  a day  for  a public  meet- 
ing to  which  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion will  be  invited,  and  I think  it  is 
eminently  proper,  as  certain  statements 
with  reference  to  woman’s  suffrage  have 
been  made  in  the  press,  and  if  the 
women  desire  an  opportunity  to  answer, 
they  should  have  it. 

MR.  RAYMER:  For  the  purpose  of 

bringing  this  matter  before  the  Conven- 
tion, as  to  whether  we  shall  thresh  it  out 
now,  or  later,  I move  that  the  propo- 
sition to  set  a date  for  a hearing  of 
this  question  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  we 

can  accomplish  the  same  purpose  that 
Alderman  Raymer  has  in  mind  by  vot- 
ing on  the  proposition.  It  is  not  nec- 
essarily encumbering  the  parliamentary 
proceedings — 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  procedure  of 
this  house  has  robbed  a motion  to  lay 
on  the  table  its  significance  or  value. 

MR.  FISHER:  I want  to  say  as  a 

representative  of  this  Convention  who 


has  not  made  up  his  mind  on  this  ques- 
tion, that  I am  in  favor  of  the  first  part 
of  Mr.  Post’s  resolution.  As  everybody 
else  at  this  Convention,  I have  been  in 
receipt  of  an  immense  amount  of  liter- 
ature from  the  advocates  of  woman’s 
suffrage  in  the  municipal  election,  and 
personally  I can  see  arguments  both  pro 
and  con.  I understand  that  Mr.  Bade- 
noch  has  correctly  stated  the  situation 
when  he  says  that  the  women  have  de- 
sired an  opportunity  to  be  heard.  They 
have  so  communicated  their  desire  to 
me,  and  I understand  they  communicated 
their  desire  to  the  Committee  on  Elec- 
tions, before  whom  they  appeared,  and 
that  failing  to  grant  that  request,  they 
intend  to  have  a meeting  where  they  are 
going  to  invite  the  members  of  this 
Convention,  and  where  those  who  wish 
may  go,  and  those  who  do  not  wish, 
need  not  go,  but  all  who  wish  can  attend 
that  meeting.  It  seems  to  me  that  it 
would  be  a wise  thing  for  all  of  the 
members  of  this  Convention  to  hear  what 
the  women  wish  to  say  if  the  hour  and 
place  fixed  for  that  meeting  is  a con- 
venient one. 

It  would  be  wise  for  us  to  postpone 
action  on  that  account.  There  is  that 
particular  reason  for  it.  In  addition 
to  that,  this  is  a very  important  mat- 
ter, as  Mr.  Post  has  said,  and  I think 
that  every  member  of  this  Convention 
ought  to  be  notified  that  we  are  going 
to  vote  on  that  question  at  some  par- 
ticular date  in  the  future — come  here 
with  some  definite  expectation  that  he 
is  going  to  vote  pro  or  con  on  that 
proposition. 

It  seems  to  me  this  matter  should  fol- 
low the  method  we  have  adopted  with 
reference  to  education  and  revenue,  in 
both  particulars,  namely,  that  we  should 
set  a day,  and  also  that  we  should  not 
open  the  door  to  outside  representation. 
It  would  give  us  an  opportunity  to  hear 
what  the  women  have  to  say  on  this 
subject. 


December  4 


133 


1906 


MR.  YOPICKA:  It  seems  to  me  that 

the  motion  of  Mr.  Post  is  right.  We 
should  not  be  in  a hurry  to  pass  upon 
this  question  which  is  of  such  enormous 
importance.  I know  that  a great  many 
members  of  this  Convention  are  in  fa- 
vor of  allowing  the  ladies  to  vote  for 
school  trustees.  On  the  other  hand,  they 
are  not  in  favor  of  giving  them  the  en- 
tire right  to  vote.  I believe,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  if  we  postpone  action  on  this 
matter,  we  will  not  lose  anything  by  it, 
and  we  can  get  through  with  the  school 
question,  and  so  forth. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

on  Mr.  Raymer ’s  motion  to  table  Mr. 
Post’s  motion  to  fix  a date  certain  for 
the  discussion  of  this  subject. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brown,  Burke,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon, 
T.  J.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Haas,  Hoyne, 
Lathrop,  Lundberg,  McKinley,  Raymer, 
Shanahan,  Shepard,  White,  Young — 20. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Brosseau,  Church, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Fischer, 
Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  Mer- 
riam,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Paullin,  Pen- 
darvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Revell,  Robbins, 
Rosenthal,  Shedd,  Swift,  Taylor,  Vo- 
picka,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 30. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

whether  the  subject  of  women’s  suf- 
frage should  be  referred  to  some  date 
certain,  on  Alderman  Raymer ’s  motion 
to  lay  that  motion  on  the  table.  The 
“yeas”  have  20  and  the  “nays”  thirty. 
The  motion  to  table  is  lost.  The  matter 
will  be  deferred — take  its  place  with 
the  two  other  matters  that  have  not  been 
disposed  of.  Our  next  question  is  on 
the  second  part  of  Mr.  Post’s  motion, 
that  the  question  should  be  open  for 
discussion  by  members  of  the  Woman ’s 
Suffrage  Association. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I move  that  be 

laid  on  the  table. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  now  read  No.  4. 


The  secretary  read  No.  4 as  it  appears 
in  the  proceedings  at  page  52. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  It  strikes  me  that 

the  time,  around  the  first  of  May,  dis- 
franchises a lot  of  people  that  may 
want  to  vote.  If  they  have  to  vote  on 
the  first  Monday  in  May,  you  would 
see  that  they  would  not  have  thirty 
days’  residence  in  the  Ward  or  District. 
I think  it  would  be  better,  perhaps,  if 
that  was  the  first  Monday  in  June; 
however,  it  may  be  that  those  who  are 
responsible  for  the  insertion  of  the 
amendment  are  able  to  make  an  ex- 
planation that  is  satisfactory. 

MB.  BEEBE:  Hasn’t  the  Secretary 

read  just  one  section  too  much,  there? 
Isn’t  there  but  one  alternative  to  A? 
Should  not  the  alternative  be  taken  up 
first  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  that  is 

correct.  Mr.  Beebe  suggests  that  the 
alternative  to  A should  be  taken  up  be- 
fore B.  They  appear  to  be  two  differ- 
ent propositions. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  they  are. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Of  course,  they 

hang  together.  What  will  you  do  with 
the  alternative  to  A? 

MR.  COLE : I would  like  to  ask 

somebody  that  is  in  favor  of  that  to 
explain  why  alternatives  to  A should  be 
adopted — why  the  judges  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  should  be  elected  in  the 
fall  rather  than  the  spring? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  My  understand- 

ing was  that  it  was  the  desire  that  all 
municipal  officers  should  be  elected  at 
the  same  time. 

MR.  FISHER:  I remember  what  the 

discussion  was  in  the  Sub-committee 
and  the  Committee  on  Rules  about  that. 
The  Committee  on  Rules  adopted  the 
first  proposition,  which  I understand  was 
also  the  recommendation  of  the  Commit- 
tee, namely,  that  the  election  of  all  city 
officers  should  be  held  in  the  spring. 
The  que&tion  thereupon  arose  with  the 
Committee  whether  or  not  that  should 
include  the  Municipal  Court  judges,  and 


December  4 


134 


1906 


the  objection  to  it  was  only  this,  that 
that  would  involve  an  amendment  of  the 
Municipal  Court  Act  at  this  time,  and  it 
was  thought  it  would  perhaps  be  bet- 
ter to  let  the  Municipal  Court  Act  have 
a trial  before  we  amended  it.  We 
thought  that  to  amend  the  Act  might 
open  up  the  whole  subject  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act,  and  that  it  was  not 
advisable  at  this  time.  I am  merely 
stating  this  to  advise  the  Convention  as 
to  what  led  to  the  adoption  of  that  al- 
ternative resolution. 

Personally,  I think  it  would  be  pos- 
sible to  adopt  the  motion  without  amend- 
ing the  whole  act,  but  there  are  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature,  perhaps,  better 
qualified  to  speak  on  that  than  anybody 
else.  The  amendment  would  be  a very 
simple  one,  merely  changing  the  election 
of  Municipal  Court  officials  to  the 
spring,  and  not  at  the  time  of  the  state, 
county  or  national  elections.  Personally, 
as  I now  stand,  I am  in  favor  of  the 
original  proposition. 

MR.  COLE:  May  I ask  Mr.  Fisher 

a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly. 

MR.  COLE:  Suppose  we  should  adopt 
one  resolution  that  the  Municipal  Court 
judges  should  be  elected  in  the  spring, 
isn ’t  it  a fact  that  we  have  two  ses- 
sions of  the  legislature  before  the  elec- 
tions? 

MR.  FISHER : Yes. 

MR.  COLE:  Then  it  would  not  clash 

in  that  case. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I understand  the 

first  alternative  to  A is  now  before  the 
Convention  for  adoption.  It  seems  to 
me  that  this  Convention  should  adopt 
that  alternative  to  4-A;  that  is,  that 
all  municipal  officers  and  city  officers, 
including  the  Municipal  Court  judges, 
shall  be  elected  in  the  spring.  If  it  is 
not  before  the  Convention,  I move  the 
adoption  of  alternative  to  A.  That  is 
the  only  way  it  is  designated  in  the 
minutes. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  A of  No.  4. 

The  Secretary  will  read  alternative  to  A. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  alterna- 
tive to  A of  No.  4,  as  it  appears  in  the 
proceedings  at  page  52. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  is  the  clause 

in  favor  of  which  I rise  to  speak,  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  in  a word,  the  proposi- 
tions are  these: 

The  legislature  has  already  covered 
the  subject  of  Municipal  Court.  I think 
we  could  wisely  leave  that  to  work  out, 
and  leave  it  to  the  newly  elected  Mu- 
nicipal Court  judges  and  officers  and 
members  of  the  legislature  to  ascertain 
in  that  work-out  what  changes,  if  any, 
are  desirable,  and  not  go  back  and  try 
to  re-hash  the  question  of  charter 
amendments  covering  Municipal  Courts 
at  this  time. 

In  the  second  place,  we  should  keep, 
as  far  as  possible  the  election  of  our 
judges  removed  from  the  election  of 
other  officers.  That  does  not  obtain  ex- 
actly at  the  present  time,  but  the  first 
resolution  contemplates  that  city  judges 
shall  be  elected  at  the  same  time  other 
city  officers  are  elected. 

The  1870  constitution  provides  that 
Circuit  Court  judges  shall  be  elected  in 
June,  and  there  is  no  possible  way  to 
change  that  except  by  amendment  to  the 
constitution.  That  provision  of  our  con- 
stitution has  always  found  favor  among 
all  classes  of  people,  members  of  the 
organizations  in  this  state,  and  obtains 
today.  It  might  be  wise  in  the  future 
to  change  the  date  of  election  of  the 
Municipal  judges  to  some  date  in  June, 
or  at  some  other  time  when  the  county 
officers,  or  state  officers,  or  city  officers 
are  not  elected,  but  I deem  it  unwise 
to  place  the  nomination  or  election  of 
Municipal  judges  at  the  same  time  you 
would  elect  your  city  officers.  Instead 
of  the  public  mind  being  then  focused 
on  the  personnel  of  the  candidates  for 
those  judgeships,  they  would  go  through 
probably  with  the  head  of  the  ticket, 


December  4 


135 


1906 


and  those  names  under  the  candidate 
who  favored  some  public  measure  would 
t>e  swept  into  office,  and  perhaps  they 
would  be  men  of  inferior  qualifications 
to  those  on  some  other  ticket. 

In  my  judgment,  we  should  adopt  that 
clause  in  A,  or  adopt  A as  a whole,  pro- 
viding that  the  election  of  Municipal 
officers  should  be  held  in  the  spring  ex- 
cept the  election  of  Municipal  judges. 
I strongly  favor  this  proposition. 

MR.  BENNETT:  There  is  much 

force  in  what  Mr.  Shepard  has  said  upon 
this  subject.  There  is  one  question  that 
arises  in  my  mind,  and  that  is  this:  We 
are  proposing  to  specify  the  manner  of 
holding  Municipal  elections  of  Munici- 
pal judges  and  Municipal  officers.  If 
we  are  going  to  have  one  form  of  elec- 
tion for  Municipal  judges  for  the  city 
election  under  which  these  municipal 
elections  shall  come,  and  the  same  elec- 
tion we  have  another  election  law  and 
another  form  for  the  other  candidates 
the  question  arises  whether  there  will 
not  be  considerable  confusion  created 
thereby.  If  the  Convention  decides  upon 
separating  the  Municipal  officers  from 
the  Municipal  Court  care  should  be 
taken  that  the  Charter  does  not  conflict 
with  the  present  Municipal  Court  law 
providing  for  their  election. 

MR.  PENDARVIS : Since  the  report 

of  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure 
and  General  Plans  has  been  submitted 
to  the  Convention,  the  Committee  on 
Municipal  Court  has  had  this  matter 
under  consideration,  and  has  acted.  I 
don ’t  know  whether  that  action  has  been 
reported  to  the  Convention  or  not,  but 
the  action  was  to  this  effect,  that  the 
committee  would  not  recommend  to  the 
Convention  any  action  looking  to  a 
change  in  the  Municipal  Court  Act,  with 
one  exception,  and  deferred  action  until 
some  later  date  to  receive  any  sugges- 
tions that  might  be  made  by  the  judges 
of  the  Municipal  Court  after  it  had 
been  in  operation  for  some  time. 


Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  are 
two  or  three  things  that  this  Convention 
ought  to  consider  in  determining  whether 
or  not  to  ask  the  legislature  to  amend 
the  Municipal  Court  Act. 

The  question  of  the  time  of  the  elec- 
tion of  these  judges  was  very  long  and 
very  carefully  considered  by  the  last 
General  Assembly.  It  was  debated  from 
almost  every  standpoint,  and  everything 
that  has  been  suggested  here  today  was 
carefully  considered  by  the  committees 
that  had  this  legislation  under  consid- 
eration. 

The  bill  as  it  originally  came  into  the 
House  and  Senate  provided  for  the  elec- 
tion of  all  these  judges  at  one  time,  in 
June,  on  the  same  date  that  the  judges 
of  the  Circuit  Court  are  chosen.  In 
the  House  it  was  considered  that  that 
date  would  be  unwise  for  two  or  three 
reasons.  One  reason  was  that  it  would 
be  unwise  to  take  the  chance  of  hav- 
ing the  full  bench  go  off  at  one  elec- 
tion, and  in  the  second  place,  it  provides 
for  the  election  of  twenty-eight  judges 
of  the  Municipal  Court  at  one  time,  and 
for  six  years  on  the  same  date  of  four- 
teen judges  of  the  Circuit  Court,  mak- 
ing it  necessary  to  choose  forty-two 
judges  upon  one  date,  with  the  possi- 
bility under  the  law  of  having  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  judges  increased  by  nine. 

After  due  consideration,  it  was  de- 
cided in  the  House  Committee  that  inas- 
much as  these  officers  were  city  or  Mu- 
nicipal officers,  they  should  be  elected 
in  the  spring,  but  should  not  be  chosen, 
any  of  them,  in  the  year  that  the  may- 
oralty was  at  stake.  In  order  to  avoid 
changing  the  full  bench  at  one  time, 
they  were  divided  into  three  classes, 
as  the  law  now  stands.  The  bill  was 
so  recommended  at  that  time  by  the 
committee  and  so  passed  the  House. 
In  the  Senate  it  was  changed  to  the  fall 
and  when  it  got  into  the  conference  com- 
mittee, the  only  two  dates  that  were 
considered  were  fall  and  June. 


December  4 


136 


1906 


Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  by  the  action  of 
this  Convention,  and  by  the  bill  passed 
subsequently  by  the  House,  the  term 
of  office  of  the  mayor  was  extended  to 
four  years,  so  that  it  is  impossible  to 
provide  for  the  election  of  these  offi- 
cers in  the  spring  without  bringing  every 
other  election  at  the  same  time  that  the 
mayoralty  was  at  stake.  I felt  then  and 
I feel  today  that  it  would  be  unwise, 
notwithstanding  these  officers  are  city 
officers,  that  they  should  be  involved  in 
any  of  the  local  issues  that  may  arise 
when  the  mayor  is  to  be  chosen,  and  for 
that  reason  I am  in  favor  of  the  alter- 
native proposition,  that  the  Municipal 
Court  judges  should  not  be  selected  on 
the  same  date  as  the  other  city  officers. 

ME.  McGOORTY : As  Mr.  Pendarvis 

has  said,  the  House  was  overwhelmingly 
in  favor  of  the  bill,  and  it  went  to  the 
Senate,  and  it  was  frankly  admitted  at 
that  time  that  actuated  by  political  con- 
siderations alone,  the  provision  as  passed 
by  the  House  was  changed  so  as  to 
cause  the  election  of  the  Municipal  Court 
officers  in  the  fall.  It  was  not  placed 
upon  any  high  ground,  Mr.  Chairman 
and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  but 
simply  on  political  grounds  alone.  How- 
ever partisan  we  may  feel  upon  ques- 
tions that  are  wholly  political,  I believe 
that  everyone  that  is  interested  in  good 
government  and  interested  in  the  per- 
petuity of  our  institutions,  favors  tak- 
ing the  judiciary  out  of  politics.  In  the 
state  of  Wisconsin,  and  in  many  other 
states,  that  has  been  done  absolutely, 
and  the  constitution  of  New  York  was 
amended  in  that  regard, — for  the  sole 
purpose  of  taking  the  judiciary  out  of 
politics.  I believe  that  if  this  question 
were  submitted  to  the  electorate  of  this 
city,  the  vote  would  be  ten  to  one,  at 
least,  in  favor  of  the  proposition. 

I do  not  believe  this  is  a question  that 
should  be  left  to  the  Municipal  bench, 
with  all  respect  to  the  present  judges. 
Questions  of  practice  and  procedure  are 


questions  that  m?iy  come  from  that 
Court  properly,  but  this  question  is  a 
question  for  us  to  decide,  and  there  can 
come  no  more  important  questions  before 
this  Charter  Convention  than  whether  or 
not  the  judiciary  shall  be  made  the  foot- 
ball of  politics,  or  placed  upon  a higher 
plane,  and  that  we  should  see,  at  least, 
that  our  judges,  the  men  that  are  called 
upon  to  interpret  the  laws,  should  pro- 
tect the  mighty  as  well  as  the  lowly,  the 
poor  as  well  as  the  rich,  and  that  those 
men  shall  be  chosen  .for  considerations 
other  than  political,  and  because  of  their 
individuality,  because  of  their  character, 
and  their  standing  in  this  community. 

Therefore,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentle- 
men of  this  Convention,  I think  this 
Convention  should  stamp  its  impress  of 
approval  upon  the  principle  that  the 
judiciary  should  be  taken  out  of  politics. 

MR.  COLE : I should  like  to  ask 

this  question:  If  the  clause  should  pass 

that  all  the  officers  should  be  elected  in 
the  spring,  would  not  a proper  inter- 
pretation be  that  it  could  be  done  in 
June?  Would  not  June  be  considered  a 
spring  month  under  those  circumstances? 

MR.  McGOORTY : No,  not  the  way 

the  section  reads.  I speak  of  the  origi- 
nal bill  providing  for  the  election  in  the 
spring.  Objection  was  made  that  be- 
cause of  the  expense  it  would  be  better 
to  hold  the  election  in  April.  The  fur- 
ther objections  were  made  that  the  is- 
sues involved  in  the  mayoralty  cam- 
paign were  extraneous  to  judicial  mat- 
ters. It  provides  that  judges  should  be 
elected  in  even  number  of  years,  so  that 
it  could  never  happen  that  the  mayor 
should  be  elected  the  same  time  as  a 
Municipal  Court  judge. 

If  this  proposition  passes  and  the 
law  becomes  in  force  the  next  election 
of  Municipal  judges  would  be  two  years 
from  now,  or  in  other  words,  in  the 
spring  of  1909,  and  1911,  and  so  on. 
So  that  the  objection  urged  by  Mr.  Pen- 
darvis is  untenable  for  that  reason. 


December  4 


137 


1906 


MR.  PENDARYIS:  What  objection? 

MR.  McGOORTY : That  we  change 

the  term  from  four  years  to  two  years. 
Therefore,  a time  would  come  when  they 
would  be  elected  at  the  same  election. 
It  was  provided  that  the  election  for 
mayor  shall  be  in  1907  and  again  in 
1911. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  Then  you  would 

have  the  election  of  Municipal  Court 
judges? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Not  at  all.  If 

we  amend  that  so  that  the  next  election 
of  judges  will  be  in  108  or  1910,  it  will 
come  in  the  years  only  when  the  aider- 
men  are  elected.  It  was  solely  on  the 
ground  of  economy  and  saving  of  ex- 
pense. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  As  Mr.  Fisher 

stated,  this  alternative  was  submitted  by 
the  Steering  Committee  at  my  sugges- 
tion, for  this  specific  reason.  The  last 
session  of  the  legislature  passed  a mu- 
nicipal court  act.  It  was  submitted  to 
the  people  of  Chicago,'  and  approved, 
and  under  its  provisions,  judges  have 
been  elected.  Now,  if  you  want  to 
change  any  part  of  the  municipal  court 
act  in  regard  to  the  election  of  judges, 
it  can  be  done  by  a simple  amendment 
to  that  act  presented  to  the  legislature 
and  passed  without  again  submitting  it 
to  the  votes  of  the  people.  Whatever  is 
put  in  this  charter  now  will  have  to  be 
passed  by  the  legislature,  and  after  it 
has  been  passed  by  the  legislature,  it 
will  be  submitted  to  the  people  and  voted 
on.  Now,  why  come  up  to  the  legisla- 
ture with  these  provisions — 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Will  you  let  me 

suggest?  The  amendment  to  the  char- 
ter, as  I understand  it,  would  be  a con- 
stitutional amendment,  and  the  terms  of 
that  are  such  that  these  laws  cannot  be 
subsequently  changed  without  the  ap- 
proval of  the  people  of  this  city.  You 
cannot  amend  an  act  by  a simple  law; 
that  law  must  be  approved  by  the  people 
of  Chicago  before  it  can  become  effec- 
tive. 


MR.  SHANAHAN : I am  of  the  same 
opinion  as  Mr.  McGoorty.  I voted  in  the 
house  for  the  original  bill  that  these 
judges  should  be  elected  at  the  June 
election,  so  that  they  would  not  come  in 
conflict  with  the  city  officers  or  the 
county  officers.  As  Mr.  Pendarvis  said 
when  the  bill  was  presented  to  the  sen- 
ate, it  was  the  overwhelming  opinion 
of  the  senate,  and  it  was  so  decided  that 
these  elections  should  be  held  in  the 
fall.  I don’t  know  why  this  convention 
should  take  up  that  proposition  again. 

MR.  REYELL:  In  order  to  express 

the  sentiments  of  this  convention  on  this 
matter,  which  is  the  main  thing,  I be- 
lieve, I move  a substitute  that  the  elec- 
tion of  municipal  court  judges  be  not 
held  at  the  same  time  as  the  election  of 
the  city  officers.  My  idea  in  offering 
this  substitute  in  this  way  is,  that  the 
committee  on  Plan  and  Procedure,  under 
this  ruling,  will  bring  back  a method 
upon  which  this  election  shall  be  held. 

MR.  DEYER:  I want  to  ask  Mr.  Mc- 
Goorty: Will  it  be  county  officers? 

MR.  RE  YELL:  City  or  county. 

MR.  DEYER:  City,  county  or  state. 

MR.  REYELL:  Or  state. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I assume  that  the 

Committee  on  Plan  will  take  the  senti- 
ment of  the  convention  on  that  matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Revell ’s  substitute  for  the 
entire  matter. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Mr.  Revell  of- 

fers as  a substitute  that  the  election 
of  municipal  court  judges  be  not  held 
at  the  same  time  as  the  election  of  city 
or  county  officers. 

MR.  DEVER:  I was  mistaken  in  of- 

fering that  suggestion,  and  I would  like 
to  withdraw  it.  I see  now,  that  the 
Circuit  Court  judges  and  the  Superior 
court  judges  are  county  officers.  Their 
election  would  not  conflict. 

MR.  SNOW:  I would  like  the  other 

to  be  read,  and  perhaps  Mr.  Revell  will 
be  willing  to  accept  the  other  substi- 
tute. 


December  4 


138 


1906 


MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I want  to  offer 

a substitute  for  Mr.  Revell ’s  motion,  to 
express  it  more  clearly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 

substitute  for  Mr.  Revell’s  substitute 
will  be  submitted. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: The  election  of  all  city  officers, 

including  municipal  judges,  shall  be 
held  in  the  spring.  Provision  shall,  how- 
ever, be  made  for  the  election  of  mu- 
nicipal judges  at  a time  when  there  is 
no  mayoralty  election. 

By  Mr.  Snow;  Provided,  however,  that 
judges  of  the  municipal  court  shall  be 
elected  at  a time  when  no  offices  other 
than  judicial  are  to  be  filled. 

MR.  SNOW:  In  order — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  get  that 

straightened  out.  You  offer  that  as  an 
amendment  or  a substitute  for  Mr.  Re- 
vell ’s  substitute.  I would  like  a sub- 
stitute for  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr. 
Revell,  with  his  consent — I believe  un- 
der parliamentary  practice  I will  have  to 
have  his  consent. 

MR,  REYELL:  I do  not  like  either 

of  the  substitutes  for  my  substitute, 
for  the  reason  that  I prefer  to  leave 
this  matter  to  the  very  thoughtful  and 
careful  consideration  of  the  Committee 
on  Plan  and  Procedure.  I agree  with 
Mr.  McGoorty  to  a large  extent,  and  I 
also  agree  somewhat  with  Mr.  Snow, 
but  both  of  those  substitutes  compel  us 
to  decide  upon  something  today  which 
we  may  not  agree  to  later  on.  I want 
the  committee  on  plan  and  procedure  to 
consider  it,  and  whenever  they  bring  in 
whatever  they  wish  to,  we  can  then  de- 
cide whether  or  not  it  is  right;  and  un- 
der my  substitute,  it  leaves  the  matter 
open  in  that  way. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  any  sub- 

stitute on  that  question  of  time  is  left 
to  the  committee  to  bring  in  to  the  con- 
vention. 

MR.  REVELL:  That  is  the  point  I 

do  not  wish  to  permit.  It  may  be  found 


that  there  is  some  election — may  be 
some  other  plan  under  which  there  may 
be  an  election  held  which  may  not  be 
objectionable.  We  want  to  know  that; 
we  do  not  know  it  today. 

MR.  SNOW : That  is  actually  where 

the  issue  arises.  I offered  that  because 
I believe  in  selecting  the  judiciary  that 
it  should  be  done  at  a time  when  the 
public  mind  is  given  up  exclusively  to 
the  consideration  of  judicial  officers  for 
that  judiciary.  I do  not  believe  it  should 
be  held  either  at  the  spring  election, 
because  of  the  fact  that  there  are  gen- 
eral issues  in  the  aldermanic  election 
which  would  more  or  less  confuse  the 
voter,  and  more  or  less  disturb  atten- 
tion from  the  main  object  to  secure  the 
best  judicial  officers.  The  same  thing  is 
true  in  the  fall  election,  or  in  any  elec- 
tion of  any  officers  other  than  judicial 
officers.  I should  be  very  glad  to  get 
my  substitute  before  the  body,  if  I can 
do  so  in  a parliamentary  manner. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  I move  that 
all  substitutes  offered  be  laid  on  the 
table. 

MR.  FISHER  : What  is  the  original 

proposition? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  original 

proposition  is  the  adoption  of  an  al- 
ternative to  “A.  ” 

MR.  FISHER : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  the  elec- 

tion of  city  officers,  except  those  for 
municipal  courts,  shall  be  held  in  the 
spring. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  speak  to  that  question. 
It  seems  to  me  that  Mr.  Snow’s  motion 
correctly  presents  the  issue  that  is  be- 
fore the  house.  I do  not  understand 
that  anybody  here  advocates  mixing  up 
judiciary  elections  with  state,  county 
and  national  elections,  or  for  other  of- 
ficers other  than  judicial  officers.  If 
they  do,  we  have  not  heard  them  speak 
I yet;  and  I do  not  suppose  that  anybody 
really  seriously  entertains  that  theory. 
Certainly  it  is  not  the  thory  of  the 


December  4 


139 


1906 


people  of  this  city.  It  seems  to  me  we 
aie  called  upon  to  choose  upon  a very 
simple  issue:  Shall  we  elect  municipal 

court  judges  as  though  they  were  city 
officers  as  a part  of  the  municipal  elec- 
tion, or  shall  we  elect  them  as  judicial 
officers,  as  part  of  a judicial  election? 
For  my  part  I can  see  only  one  advan- 
tage in  the  municipal  election,  and  that 
is  the  advantage  brought  about  by  the 
adoption  of  the  last  resolution,  namely, 
that  if  they  are  nominated  as  municipal 
officers,  they  will  go  upon  the  ticket  in 
alphabetical  order  under  the  name  of  the 
judicial  officers,  and  we  will  get  rid  of 
the  thing  Mr.  Shepard  has  spoken  of, 
namely,  having  a lot  of  judicial  officers 
carried  through  by  the  head  of  the 
ticket.  That  illustrates  the  advantage 
of  the  resolution  we  have  just  adopted; 
which  now  we  have  passed  upon.  If 
there  are  nine  judges  to  be  elected,  and 
three  or  four  or  five  parties  nominate 
nine  each,  they  will  all  be  on  in  alpha- 
betical order,  and  the  voter  will  have  to 
go  and  pick  them  out.  Now,  if  we  can 
by  any  possibility  combine  the  election 
of  these  judges  at  the  judicial  election 
where  we  shall  have  that  form  of  a 
ballot,  I will  be  in  favor  of  it.  I 
don’t  know  that  I am  not  in  favor  of  it 
now.  I don’t  know  very  well — I think 
it  is  impossible — I do  not  believe  we  can 
at  this  time  recommend  changes  to  the 
legislature  in  the  form  of  a ballot  which 
would  recommend  changes  in  the  mu- 
nicipal court  judges,  and  also  the  circuit 
court  judges  election.  It  it  outside  of 
our  province  in  charter  legislation,  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  question  is 
clearly  before  us  on  Mr.  Snow ’s  substi- 
tute; that  that  is  really  the  alternative 
that  we  have. 

MR.  BEEBE:  I desire  to  say  one 

word  in  regard  to  one  part  of  Mr. 
Fisher’s  statement.  It  is  because  we 
have  recently  adopted  that  at  this  con- 
vention that  I am  opposed  to  electing 
the  judicial  officers  at  the  spring  elec- 


tion. In  the  ballot  last  fall  we  had,  I 
believe,  five  parties,  and  if  we  were  to 
elect  or  nominate  nine  from  each  party, 
we  would  have  at  least  forty-five  can- 
didates for  judge,  of  whom  nine  would 
be  elected.  A number  of  men  go  to  the 
poles  with  no  idea  of  selecting  more 
than  one  or  two,  and  the  result  would  be 
that  we  would  probably  elect  a man 
whose  name  begins  with  “ A ” or  ‘ 1 B,  ” 
with  the  exception  of  the  fact  that  an 
individual  here  and  there  would  vote  for 
a man  down  the  line  that  he  was  par- 
ticularly in  favor  of.  I think  the  fact 
that  we  have  adopted  the  method  of 
procedure,  that  we  have  settled  the  mat- 
ter, makes  it  imperative  that  we 
separate  the  municipal  election  from  the 
judicial  election. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Beebe  has  con- 

verted me  in  favor  of  Mr.  Snow’s  rec- 
ommendation. 

MR.  SNOW : I would  like  to  ask,  Mr. 

Chairman,  whether  or  not  it  would  be 
possible  under  the  parliamentary  prac- 
tice which  is  in  vogue  here  for  me  to 
ask  to  have  my  substitute  substituted 
for  the  substitute  before  the  house? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  a mo- 

tion before  the  house  of  Mr.  Eckhart’s 
that  we  should  lay  all  the  substitutes  on 
the  table. 

MR.  SNOW:  I offer  mine  as  a sub- 

stitute for  the  whole  matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  would  ne- 

cessitate the  withdrawal  of  Mr.  Eck- 
hart ’s  motion  that  your  substitute  lie 
on  the  table  with  the  others. 

MR.  SNOW:  It  amounts  to  the  same 

thing  in  the  end.  It  gives  us  a particu- 
lar vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Snow’s  substitute? 

THE  SECRETARY : ‘ ‘ Provided, 

however,  that  judges  of  the  municipal 
court  shall  be  elected  at  a time  when 
no  offices  other  than  judicial  are  to  be 
filled.” 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I desire  to  say— 


December  4 


140 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

has  spoken  once  on  the  question.  Aider- 
man  Zimmer  has  the  floor. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  It  seems  to  me  that 

if  we  took  a vote  on  Mr.  Eckhart ’s  mo- 
tion, we  should  be  making  some  pro- 
gress. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  ZIMMER : It  seems  to  me  that 

if  we  took  a vote  on  the  last  motion 
to  table  all  substitutes,  we  should  make 
some  progress  here,  and  get  to  a close 
of  this  business.  I suggest  that  we 

proceed  with  the  roll  call  on  that  mo- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal, 

for  what  purpose  did  you  rise? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  not 

spoken  to  this  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I thought  you 

had. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No,  sir,  I have 

not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  apol- 

ogizes; you  may  speak. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I simply  wish  to 
say  a word  in  favor  of  the  substitute. 
That  substitute  provides  that  the  elec- 
tion of  municipal  court  judges  shall  be 
at  the  same  time  that  we  have  other 
municipal  elections,  but  not  at  the  time 
we  have  elections  for  mayor.  It  seems 
to  me  that  we  should  do  well  to  pass  a 
resolution  of  that  sort.  It  works  prac- 
tically. We  won’t  be  put  to  any  addi- 
tional expense.  The  only  other  munici- 
pal officers  to  be  elected  at  that  par- 
ticular time,  will  be  aldermen.  Now, 
that  is  not  so  inconsistent  with  the  mo- 
tion. A particular  ward  can  simply  vote 
for  an  alderman  and  vote  for  municipal 
judges.  I think  it  would  be  much  more 
unfortunate  to  vote  for  a large  num- 
ber of  municipal  court  judges  and  cir- 
cuit judges  and  superior  court  judges. 
If  a constitutional  change  can  be  made 
at  one  particular  time,  it  should  be  done. 
When  this  municipal  court  act,  Mr. 
Chairman,  was  before  the  legislature, 


there  was  much  opposition  to  it  from 
many  quarters,  but  there  was  one  thing 
about  which  all  contending  factions  were 
agreed,  and  that  was  that  the  election 
of  municipal  court  judges  should  not 
occur  at  the  time  of  any  general  elec- 
tion. And  inasmuch  as  all  the  contend- 
ing factions  that  were  before  the  legis- 
lature were  agreed  upon  that  proposi- 
tion, that  was  the  one  proposition  which 
the  legislature  turned  down  absolutely. 

MR.  HOYNE:  It  seems  to  me  to  be 

an  afternoon  of  substitutes.  I move  to 
substitute  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  substitute — 
that  that  be  substituted  for  Mr.  Snow’s 
substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  the  interest 

of  clarity,  the  Chair  will  have  to  rule 
that  the  next  vote  will  be  upon  Mr. 
Eckhart’s  motion  that  all  the  substitutes 
lay  on  the  table. 

MR,  ECKHART:  I withdraw  mj 

motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart 

withdraws  his  motion.  Mr.  Hoyne 
moves  to  substitute  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  sub- 
stitute for  Mr.  Snow’s  substitute. 

MR,  SNOW : A point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  moment. 

Mr.  Snow ’s  substitute  being  the  last 
substitute,  and  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  substi- 
tute having  been  offered  first,  the  chair 
is  unable  to  see  how  the  first  substitute 
can  be  substituted  for  the  last  substi- 
tute; and  the  ruling  of  the  chair  will 
be  that  the  first  vote  will  be  taken  on 
Alderman  Snow ’s  motion. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I understand  Mr. 

Revell  to  say  that  if  Mr.  Eckhart  would 
withdraw  his  motion  to  table  the  sub- 
stitute, he  would  accept  Mr.  Snow ’s 
substitute.  That  would  make  Mr.  Snow’s 
substitute  the  first.  Is  that  correct? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

not  review  his  ruling.  First,  the  Sec- 
retary will  call  the  roll  on  the  motion 
to  substitute  Alderman  Snow’s  substi- 
tute for  Mr.  Revell ’s  substitute. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beil- 


December  4 


141 


1906 


fuss,  Bennett,  Brown,  Burke,  Church, 
Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Fisher,  Gansbergen, 
Guerin,  Haas,  J ones,  Kittleman,  Lath- 
rop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Paullin, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Bainey,  Baymer,  Revell, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Swift, 
Taylor,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young 
—42. 

Nays — Dever,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Hoyne, 
Owens,  Bobins,  Bosenthal,  Yopicka, 
Zimmer — 8. 

MB.  DEYER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I want 

to  understand  this  question:  Shall  we 

have  an  opportunity  to  express  our  opin- 
ion on  both  of  these  matters?  In  other 
words,  I would  prefer  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
motion.  If  I cannot  have  that  I will 
vote  for  this. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  Alderman 

Snow ’s  motion  is  carried,  Mr.  Bosen- 
thal’s  substitute  will  no  longer  be  be- 
fore the  house. 

MB.  DEYEB:  If  this  motion  is  car- 

ried in  the  affirmative. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  proper  mo- 

tion will  be  to  adopt  or  reject  Mr. 
Snow’s  substitute,  and  Mr.  Bosenthal ’s 
motion  will  not  be  before  the  house. 

MB.  DEVEB.  Then  I vote  no. 

MB.  FISHER:  May  I ask  what  is 

the  question:  is  it  a vote  on  Mr.  Snow’s 
resolution? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  FISHER:  I vote  aye. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  be  recorded  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  to 

substitute  Alderman  Snow ’s  substitute 
for  Mr.  Revell ’s  stands,  ayes  42,  nays 
8,  and  it  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 

now  reverts  upon  the  original  proposi- 
tion, to  which  Alderman  Snow ’s  is  an 
addition.  The  Secretary  will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “Alternative  to 
A:  on  the  left  hand  column  of  page  52. 
The  election  of  all  city  officers  Except 


those  for  the  municipal  court  shall  be 
held  in  the  spring;  provided,  however, 
that  judges  of  the  municipal  court  shall 
be  elected  at  a time  when  no  offices  other 
than  judicial  are  to  be  filled. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I move  the  adoption 

of  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  and 

seconded  that  this  section,  as  amended, 
be  adopted.  Do  you  desire  a roll  call? 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

MB.  ROBINS:  For  a point  of  in- 

formation. I understand  that  the  con- 
vention at  the  present  time  stands  com- 
mited  to  elections  for  municipal  officers 
not  being  under  a party  label.  Now,  I 
would  like  to  know  whether  a municipal 
court  judge  is  a municipal  officer  or  not, 
within  that  provision. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I should  judge 

that  he  was  a municipal  officer. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I should  judge  he 

was. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Then  he  still  will  be 

connected  with  party  politics  in  the 
election.  There  still  will  be  the  party 
form  of  ballot.  In  the  matter  of  mu- 
nicipal judges,  each  one  of  the  judges 
would  be  under  the  party  label — would 
be  under  the  office  existing  under  a par- 
ty label,  and  there  will  be  one  ballot 
for  the  city  judges,  and  one  for  the 
circfiit  and  superior  court  judges.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  confusion  that  will 
exist  is  an  unfortunate  confusion.  I 
wonder,  at  this  moment,  whether  all  the 
members  of  the  Convention  have  clearly 
seen  the  advantage  of  the  recommenda- 
tion in  the  Rosenthal  resolution,  and 
Mr.  McGoorty,  himself,  that  this  elec- 
tion should  occur  properly  as  a munici- 
pal office.  That  confuses  the  political 
issues.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Con- 
vention is  going  into  confusion,  and  if 
I am  right,  I would  like  to  move  at  this 
time  the  reconsideration  of  the  vote  by 
which  the  substitute  was  adopted,  that 


December  4 


142 


1906 


we  might  discuss  the  matter  further  and 
get  the  matter  in  a really  correct  form. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  to  reconsider. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I make  the  motion. 

MR.  BEEBE:  I believe  it  would  be 

much  better  if  we  were  to  reconsider  the 
vote  by  which  we  adopted  No.  2,  and 
we  would  place  in  front  the  words,  “For 
each  office,  ” “ Other  than  Judicial,  ’ ’ af- 
ter we  get  through. 

MR.  JONES:  Earlier  in  the  session 

I made  a motion  to  defer  the  considera- 
pased  on  paragraph  4,  because  I an- 
ticipated the  very  difficulty  with  which 
we  are  now  faced.  It  seems  to  me,  af- 
ter we  have  considered  paragraph  4, 
we  should  go  back  and  reconsider  par- 
agraph 2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  occurs  to  the 

Chair,  if  he  may  be  permitted  to  make 
a suggestion,  that  Alderman  Snow’s  ad- 
dition should  be  to  4-A. 

MR.  SNOW : That  is  what  it  is. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  was  to  4-A. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Then  I see  no 

reason  why  there  should  be  any  diffi- 
culty. 

MR.  FISHER:  There  is  not. 

MR.  POST : There  is  one  question, 

Mr.  Chairman, — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  be- 

fore the  house  is  generally  to  adopt  4-A 
as  amended  by  Alderman  Snow. 

MR.  POST : There  is  one  question  to 

which  I would  call  attention;  I don’t 
know  that  it  is  important.  Is  this  com- 
mittee that  is  to  prepare  the  final  form 
to  consider  that  June  is  in  the  spring? 
Is  June  in  the  spring  for  all  the  pur- 
poses of  this  charter?  If  so,  there  is  no 
objection  after  the  formal  objection  has 
been  removed.  If  June  is  not  in  the 
spring,  then  you  are  providing  for  two 
elections  in  the  spring. 

MR.  BENNETT:  In  order  to  clear 

that  question,  I move  that  it  is  the  sense 
of  this  convention  that  June  be  consid- 
ered a spring  month. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chairman 

will  rule  that  that  is  the  sense  of  this 
convention,  without  the  consent  of  any 
other  nation.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll  on  the  motion. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  we  ought  to  get  this 
matter  cleared  up  on  one  or  two  points 
before  we  vote  on  it.  I think  Mr.  Rob- 
ins ’ point  was  well  taken.  You  have 
decided  that  all  municipal  officers  shall 
be  nominated  in  a certain  way,  and  you 
have  ruled  that  these  municipal  judges 
are  municipal  officers.  There  is  only 
one  way  out  of  it,  it  seems  to  me,  and 
if  we  understand  it  and  take  that  way 
out  of  it  we  ought  to  go  back  and  re- 
consider that  motion,  and  unless  we  do 
we  cannot  vote  for  this.  Otherwise  we 
have  plunged  ourselves  into  confusion. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Robins  made 

the  very  point  I made  at  the  very  out- 
set of  this  discussion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Why  not  dispose 

of  this  matter  and  take  the  other  up 
afterwards? 

MR.  YOUNG:  I was  about  to  make 

that  suggestion. 

MR.  SNOW:  Before  the  roll  is 

called  upon  the  motion  I want  to  know 
what  this  is  attached  to  and  whether 
it  should  be  in  the  first  alternative 
to  4-A. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Did  you  specify 

that? 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  that  amend- 

ment to  the  alternative? 

MR  RE  YELL:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  thereby  ex- 

cepts municipal  judges  twice? 

MR.  SNOW:  I do  not  want  to  take 

that  view. 

MR.  REYELL:  I hope  we  will  refer 

this  matter  to  the  committee  on  rules. 

MR.  SNOW:  That  has  got  to  be 

settled  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  Alderman 

Snow  explain  again  to  what  he  wants 
his  proviso  attached. 


December  4 


143 


1906 


ME.  SNOW:  Let  it  be  read  onto 

4-A. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  that  let 
the  secretary  call  the  roll. 

ME.  BAKER:  Do  I understand  it 

is  on  4-A  or  the  alternative  to  A? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  on  4-A 
with  the  Snow  amendment.  Let  the 
secretary  read  the  question  as  it  is 
to  be  voted  upon.  4-A  with  the  amend- 
ment by  Mr.  Snow. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  that  the 

secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beil- 
fuss,  Bennett,  Brown,  Burke,  Church, 
Cole,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gansber- 
gen,  Guerin,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoor- 
ty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  O 'Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Ray- 
mer,  Revell,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Yopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young, 
Zimmer — 46. 

Nays — Robins — 1. 

MR.  DEYER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  one  min- 

ute. What  is  it,  Mr.  Dever? 

MR.  DEYiCR:  I would  like  to  vote 

in  favor  of  the  Rosenthal  motion.  I 
vote  aye  on  this. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman, 

on  the  assumption  that  the  month  of 
June  is  a young  month  and  the  elec- 
tions of  the  judges  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration in  fixing  the  time,  I vote 
aye. 

MR.  POST:  I follow  the  same  prin- 

ciple as  Mr.  Pendarvis. 

MR.  REVELL:  Explaining  that  this 

Convention  has  wonderful  power  to 
change  the  seasons  of  the  year,  I also 
vote  aye. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 
to  adopt  there  are  46  ayes  and  one  no, 
and  it  is  adopted. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  question  of 

evening  sessions  has  been  considered 


and  discussed  by  some  of  the  members 
of  this  Convention.  Some  of  those  who 
are  very  busy  and  engaged  in  their 
business  are  not  here;  and  I move  you, 
sir,  that  the  committee  on  rules  and 
procedure  take  that  matter  up  and  con- 
sider it  and  report  the  advisability  of 
evening  sessions  at  reasonable  hours, 
at  the  next  meeting  of  this  Conven- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  your 

motion  in  writing? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  No,  I have  not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion. 

A MEMBER:  No. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I move  that  the 

committee  on  rules  and  procedure  re- 
port the  advisability  of  holding  even- 
ing sessions  of  this  convention  com- 
mencing next  week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections  the  matter  will  be  referred 
to  the  committee  on  rules  and  pro- 
cedure. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  committee  on 

rules  and  procedure  will  not  have 
much  more  knowledge  on  this  subject 
that  any  individual  member.  Would 
not  it  be  well  to  take  a rising  vote 
and  get  some  expression  of  opinion  as 
to  that? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I move  you,  com- 

mencing with  next  Monday  we  hold 
evening  sessions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  had  better 

make  it  Tuesday. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes,  that  is  right. 

We  meet  Tuesday  evening  at  seven 
o 'clock  and  hold  a session  Tuesday 
evening  and  Wednesday  evening  next 
week,  say  from  seven  until  nine-thirty 
o 'clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Make  it  ten 

o 'clock. 

MR.  REVELL:  May  I ask  the  gen- 

tleman a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly. 

MR.  REVELL:  I suggest  that  this 

motion  be  withdrawn  until  the  motion 


December  4 


144 


1906 


to  adjourn  is  made  this  evening,  or 
this  afternoon. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Very  well. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  just  one 
more  suggestion  relative  to  this  matter 
before  the  motion  to  adjourn  is  con- 
sidered. 

MR.  REVELL:  Well,  it  has  to  come 
up  some  time  and  I think  it  ought  to 
come  up  now. 

MR.  WERNO:  We  ought  to  go  back 

to  section  2 and  amend  that  first  sug- 
gestion by  Mr.  Beebe,  and  I make  a 
motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  and 
seconded  that  the  vote  by  which  sec- 
tion 2 was  adopted — read  section  2. 

The  secretary  read  section  2 as  it 
appears  in  the  proceedings  at  page  52. 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  know 

whether  there  is  a second  to  that  mo- 
tion or  not,  but  I think  it  would  be 
the  same,  as  you  say  the  municipal 
judges  are  excluded  from  No.  2. 

MR.  WERNO:  That  is  the  purpose. 

MR.  FISHER:  Then  we  could  get 

at  it  in  a motion.  I move  that  the 
municipal  judges  be  excluded  from 
section  2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  that  the  mu- 
nicipal judges  be  excepted  from  the 
operation  of  section  2.  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  aying  aye. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I desire  to  be  re- 

corded on  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I beg  pardon? 

I did  not  know  anybody  wished  to 
speak. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I want  to  say,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  I argued  this  after- 
noon in  favor  of  No.  2 so  that  we 
Qould  try  to  eliminate  politics  largely, 
or  party  politics  from  the  election  of 
various  offices;  and  there  is  one  office 
that  party  politics  should  be  excluded 
from  and  this  is  one  of  them:  the 

election  of  judges.  And  in  excluding 
judges  from  the  provisions  of  No.  2 
you  are  simply  taking  a step  backward, 


in  my  estimation.  That  is  the  par- 
ticular office  that  should  come  under 
section  2,  providing  that  there  shall 
be  no  party  designation,  no  party  or- 
ganization designated  as  to  the  judges. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Professor  Mer- 

riam  has  the  floor. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I call  attention  to 

the  fact  that  the  judges  are  elected 
every  six  years.  That  is,  the  Circuit 
Judges  are  elected  every  six  years. 
So  that  will  make  it  that  there  will 
be  two  times  when  there  will  be  only 
municipal  judges  elected  and  once 
when  there  will  be  both  municipal  and 
circuit  judges  elected,  and  at  that  time 
you  have  the  circuit  judges  and  mu- 
nicipal judges  elected  on  the  same 
ballot.  I do  not  want  to  take  up  the 
time  of  the  Convention,  but  I wish 
to  call  attention  to  that  fact. 

MR.  DEYER:  I would  like  to  ask 

the  clerk  to  read  4-A  as  amended  by 
Alderman  Snow’s  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  read 

that,  please? 

The  secretary  read  as  hereinbefore 
stated. 

MR.  DEYER:  I would  like  to  put 

an  amendment  to  that  as  it  now 
stands. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I do  not  know 

how  an  amendment  can  be  offered  to 
it  now  since  the  motion  is  made  to 
reconsider  it. 

MR.  DEVER:  We  have  just  taken 

a vote  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  up 
section  2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  a vote 

to  reconsider;  and  the  vote  on  section 
2 was  reconsidered. 

MR.  DEVER:  No,  I did  not  so  un- 

derstand it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  that  is 

right. 

MR.  DEYER:  I anticipate  that  the 

ruling  of  the  Chair  in  this  instance 
will  be  the  same  as  in  the  other. 


December  4 


145 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  dispose 

of  the  matter  before  the  house  then. 

MR.  DEVER:  I understand  that  was 
disposed  of  and  carried  by  a viva  voce 
vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  in- 

advertently put  the  vote.  Do  you 
want  a roll  call? 

VOICES:  Yes,  yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  clerk  will 

please  call  the  roll. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Please  state 

the  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  section  4 as  amended  by  Aider- 
man  Snow. 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  question  as  I 

understand  it  is  upon  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Fisher  to  amend  Section  2 by  ex- 
cluding the  municipal  court  judges. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  ques- 
tion before  the  house  now. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I rise  to  a 

point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  it? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  This  section 

2 has  been  carried.  Now  if  it  has 
been  carried,  we  can't  proceed  on  it, 
and  if  we  take  this  up  in  this  way  we 
might  as  well  go  back  and  take  up 
every  single  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

found  that  a subsequent  matter  inter- 
feres with  it  in  the  judgment  of  the 
members  of  the  Convention;  it  inter- 
feres with  section  2,  and  we  want  to 
clear  up  section  2,  and  it  was  deemed 
necessary  to  reconsider  it  and  amend 
it.  The  Chair  understands  that  the 
next  thing  is  upon  Mr.  Fisher's  amend- 
ment to  section  2. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  as  the  chair- 
man stated,  the  reason  for  considering 
that  was  confusion.  I do  not  know 
whether  there  is  any  confusion  or  not. 
I think  there  may  very  well  be;  I 
think  we  are  getting  into  a state  of 
confusion  that  is  hard  to  untangle. 
And  there  is  a question  there  as  to 
the  aldermen  being  elected  for  four 


years,  two  years  alternately.  It  seems 
to  me  that  we  might  very  well  let  this 
matter  rest  as  it  is  until  we  find  out 
and  then,  if  necessary,  amend  section 
2.  Let  the  draft  of  the  charter  be 
drawn,  and  if  we  then  reach  the  con- 
clusion that  it  is  necessary  under  the 
conditions  to  amend,  we  can  then  do 
it.  I think  perhaps  *in  the  interests 
of  clearness  that  this  motion  should 
be  withdrawn  and  we  let  this  matter 
stand  until  the  committee  on  rules 
drafts  the  charter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  what  will 

we  do  with  the  matter? 

MR.  COLE:  It  seems  to  me  every- 

thing is  at  sea;  and  so  I move  that 
all  substitutes  to  resolutions  in  regard 
to  section  2 or  4 be  laid  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  question.  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 

will  read  No.  5. 

The  secretary  read  No.  5 as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  proceedings  at  page  52. 

MR.  DEVER:  I move  its  adoption. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I am  not  opposed 

to  the  idea  of  having  committee  ex- 
penses shown  up  as  far  as  possible; 
but  will  any  gentlemen  here  imagine 
in  the  midst  of  a campaign  in  which 
his  friends  are  spending  money  making 
an  affidavit  of  the  amount  of  money 
they  have  spent.  He  can  make  an 
affidavit  as  to  himself,  but  I do  not 
see  how  he  is  going  to  make  an  affi- 
davit as  to  them. 

MR.  POST:  What  became  of  the 

substitute  and  the  amendment  that 
were  to  be  reconsidered? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  motion  of 

Mr.  Cole  they  were  laid  on  the  table, 
the  motion  was  put  and  carried. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I desire  to  speak 

on  No.  5.  The  purpose  of  requiring 
the  candidates  and  political  commit- 
tee to  make  sworn  statements  in  regard 
to  their  receipts  and  expenditures  is 


December  4 


146 


1906 


in  line  with  the  uniform  practice 
throughout  the  United  States;  and  in 
line,  so  far  as  the  federal  elections 
are  now  being  considered  by  Congress 
by  a bill  that  is  likely  to  be  passed 
at  this  session. 

There  are  now  fourteen  states  in 
the  union  which  have  laws  similar  to 
this  on  their  statute  books.  There  are 
laws  applying  to  the  entire  state  or 
laws  applying  to  particular  cities. 
Chicago  is  in  fact  the  only  large  city 
today  that  does  not  have  applicable  to 
its  municipal  and  other  elections  a 
statute  similar  to  this.  They  have 
them  in  Boston,  St.  Louis,  New  York, 
and  in  all  the  Pennsylvania  cities  of 
any  importance;  San  Francisco,  Den- 
ver, and  so  on  down  the  list.  And  it 
is  true,  as  Alderman  Bennett  has  said, 
that  the  candidate  can  only  state  what 
he  himself  has  spent;  nevertheless  you 
can  require  any  one  to  state  how  much 
money  he  has  received  and  spent,  and 
you  can  require  him  by  law  and  pun- 
ish him  for  failure  to  comply  with  the 
requirements  to  submit  by  the  political 
committee  or  the  treasurer  or  the 
agent  or  whatever  name  you  are  mind- 
ed to  call  him  acting  for  the  candidate 
just  what  has  been  running  through 
his  hands. 

This  has  been  found  to  be  satisfac- 
tory in  the  cities  where  it  has  been 
tried  in  the  United  States.  We  have 
a statement  from  the  socialist  candi- 
date in  New  York,  along  with  the  state- 
ments of  the  other  various  candidates, 
where  he  said  he  had  spent  one  2-cent 
stamp  in  acknowledging  the  receipt  of 
the  notification  of  his  nomination. 

Of  course  those  outside  of  the  city 
do  not  care  so  much  about  the  adop- 
tion of  this  kind  of  law.  But  it  is  not 
forced  upon  them,  and  we  do  not  de- 
sire to  force  it  upon  them;  but  I think 
there  is  a strong  popular  sentiment 
in  this  city  of  having  a sworn  state- 
ment made  by  candidates  or  political 
committees  as  to  their  expenditures. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  section  5.  Let 
there  be  a roll  call. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown,  Burke, 
Church,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Fisher,  Gansbergen, 
Guerin,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  O 'Donnell,  Paulin, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Raymer, 
Revell,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Taylor,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  Young,  Zimmer — 38. 

Nays — Badenoch. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  pub- 

licity proposition  the  ayes  have  38, 
they  nays  have  1,  and  the  motion  to 
adopt  is  carried. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move  that 

we  hold  evening  sessions  on  the  days 
that  we  hold  day  sessions,  except  Mon- 
day evenings,  when  the  council  cham- 
ber will  be  otherwise  engaged. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion,  that  hereafter 
the  sessions  of  this  convention  be  held 
in  the  evening. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  That  we 

having  an  evening  session  on  the  day 
that  we  hold  a day  session.  In  sup- 
port of  that  motion  I desire  to  say  this. 
That,  judging  from  the  progress  we 
have  made,  it  will  take  probably  four 
weeks  to  conclude  our  deliberations. 
A great  many  of  the  members  of  this 
convention  cannot  devote  all  their  time 
to  this  work.  It  interferes  with  their 
business  and  with  their  affairs.  I think 
we  can  begin  at  7 o'clock  and  hold 
till  9:30,  and  in  that  way  make  a 
great  deal  of  progress,  and  men  who 
are  interested  can  be  here. 

MR.  POST:  I move  to  amend  that 

motion,  that  all  the  sessions  be  even- 
ing sessions.  I do  not  think  we  can 
keep  in  continuous  session,  and  by  a 
continuous  session  we  would  not  make 
any  rapid  progress.  And  I wish  to 
make  a protest  as  to  holding  day  and 
I evening  sessions.  This  Convention  was 


December  4 


147 


1906 


organized  a year  ago.  Throughout  the 
entire  winter  nothing  was  done;  in  the 
spring  nothing  was  done;  in  the  sum- 
mer nothing  was  done;  in  the  fall  noth- 
ing was  done.  We  had  committees, 
but  the  committees  dawdled  along.  If 
the  committees  had  gone  to  work  and 
done  their  work  this  convention  could 
have  met  and  disposed  of  all  these 
matters.  But  instead  of  doing  that 
the  gentlemen  who  are  responsible  for 
this  delay  of  month  after  month  and 
season  after  season  until  you  reach  the 
time  when  you  have  to  rush  through, 
now  want  to  hold  practically  continu- 
ous sessions.  I do  not  think  this  Con- 
vention ought  to  be  turned  into  a con- 
vention of  gentlemen  of  leisure,  who 
can  spend  all  their  time  doing  nothing 
but  attending  upon  its  sessions.  Some 
of  us  have  other  work  to  do.  Some 
of  us,  who  are  just  as  much  inter- 
ested as  others,  have  other  things  we 
have  to  do,  and  want  to  do  this  as 
Veil  as  they  do,  but  we  cannot  give  all 
of  our  time.  And  I protest  against 
holding  these  sessions  day  and  night 
to  make  up  for  the  neglect  of  the  gen- 
tlemen who  are  pushing  the  work  now 
when  all  the  preceding  twelve  months 
were  spent  in  doing  nothing. 

Mr.  Chairman,  my  amendment  is  that 
we  should  hold  night  sessions  here- 
after so  that  some  men  who  have  been 
prevented  from  coming  here  to  the 
afternoon  sessions  may  do  so,  and  we 
could  go  on  every  night  except  Mon- 
day night  and  the  alternative  Wednes- 
day night. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I have  talked  to  two 

or  three  representatives  or  delegates 
that  have  not  attended  a single  session 
of  this  convention  up  to  the  present 
time.  They  are  all  men  who  work  for 
a living,  and  when  I say  work,  I mean 
work  personally.  They  cannot  be 
here.  I want  to  say  that  one  of  these 
is  president  of  the  Federation  of  Labor, 
and  he  would  attend  these  sessions  if 
they  were  held  in  the  evening,  but  he 


cannot  attend  them  in  the  daytime  and 
attend  to  his  duties,  which  he  con- 
siders are  necessary  to  be  done. 

Now,  this  charter  has  to  be  passed 
by  a vote  of  the  people  of  this  city, 
and  it  seems  to  me  we  act  unwisely, 
even  though  we  are  not  desiring  to  do 
anything  contrary  to  their  desire,  but 
we  do  unwisely  if  we  do  not  at  least 
consider  this  matter  of  those  delegates 
who  cannot  attend,  because  they  are 
people  working  daily  for  their  bread, 
and  I think  that  it  will  be  well  for  us 
at  this  time  to  consider  this  matter. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  whether  we  would 
not  make  as  rapid  progress  by  adopt- 
ing Mr.  Post  ’s  motion,  provided  the 
hours  are  long  enough, — that  is  to  say, 
if  we  hold  sessions  every  day  in  the 
week  except  Monday,  Sunday  and  the 
alternative  Wednesday,  which  is  the 
Board  of  Education  meeting,  right 
along.  In  that  way  we  would  have  five 
meetings  one  week  and  four  meetings 
in  the  alternate  week.  And  we  could 
go  right  along.  And  why  should  we 
not  convene  at  8 o’clock  and  hold  until 
half -past  10  at  least? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Why  not  make 

it  seven  thirty. 

MR.  FISHER:  Seven  thirty,  and 

hold  until  half-past  ten,  which  would 
give  us  three  hours.  We  can  hold 
later  than  that  if  we  wish,  and  we 
can  begin  earlier  and  hold  longer  ses- 
sions. Perhaps  we  can  make  more 
rapid  progress  than  trying  to  combine 
afternoon  and  evening  sessions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Beebe. 

MR.  BEEBE:  I think  we  would  find 

some  of  the  same  difficulties  arising  if 
we  tried  to  hold  every  night  that  we 
will  have  if  we  hold  every  afternoon. 
It  seems  to  me  that  if  we  fix  certain 
days  in  the  week  that  we  can  make 
arrangements  to  get  here  at  those  par- 
ticular times.  I know  that  there  are 
some  who  are  obliged  to  be  out  of 
1 the  city  at  times,  and  if  we  try  to 


December  4 


148 


1906 


meet  every  night  they  have  to  miss 
the  meetings. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I was  trying  to  make 
a similar  suggestion  as  was  made  by 
Mr.  Beebe,  that  there  are  men  who 
cannot  be  here  every  afternoon,  and 
there  are  others  who  cannot  be  here 
every  evening.  It  is  practically  im- 
possible for  all  of  the  members  of 
the  Convention  to  be  present  all  of 
the  time.  For  my  part  it  is  very  in- 
convenient for  me  to  come  here  day 
after  day  and  then  come  back  in  the 
evening.  I suggest  we  take  three 
evenings  and  three  afternoons,  and  I 
would  suggest  that  we  take  the  even- 
ing of  the  afternon  so  that  the  matter 
would  be  fresh  in  our  minds,  and  then 
those  that  could  not  attend  in  the 
afternoon  could  attend  in  the  evening. 
If  we  take  three  afternoons  in  the 
week  and  three  evenings  in  the  week 
that  would  give  us  six  meetings  in 
the  week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN' : Mr.  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  I had 

it  in  mind  to  make  a motion  very 
similar  to  that,  only  that  we  would 
make  it  two  afternoons  in  the  week 
and  three  evenings,  but  not  of  the  same 
day.  There  are  many  of  us  who  find 
it  difficult  to  get  here  afternoons  day 
after  day,  and  it  would  be  equally  as 
difficult  to  get  here  every  night.  It 
seems  that  if  we  could  compromise  by 
setting  two  afternoons  in  the  week 
and  three  evenings  it  would  be  better, 
and  in  that  we  would  get  five  sessions 
a week. 

MR.  SHEDD:  Along  that  same  line 

I would  suggest  that  we  have  four 
sessions  a week,  two  in  the  afternoon 
and  two  in  the  evening,  and  then  it 
will  be  all  right.  I do  not  like  late 
sessions.  If  you  hold  the  sessions  until 
9 o ’clock  that  would  be  late  enough 
at  night,  because  where  you  live  an 
hour  from  the  city  it  makes  it  late 
enough  when  you  get  home,  and  con- 
sequently I hope  that  we  will  limit  the 


meetings  until  half-past  nine  in  the 
evening;  from  seven  to  half -past  nine. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  be  a 

question  that  the  Convention  can  settle 
when  it  is  in  session. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  I do  not  think  the 

convention  wants  to  set  any  date  like 
that  at  this  time.  But  I think  we 
ought  to  bring  it  down  to  a concrete 
proposition,  and  I move  that  we  ad- 
journ until  Thursday  afternoon  and 
then  hold  meetings  Thursday  night, 
Friday  night  and  Saturday  night. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Not  Saturday 

night? 

MR.  REVELL:  Well,  I will  elimi- 

nate Saturday.  Make  it  Thursday  night 
and  Friday  night. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

again  call  the  attention  of  the  con- 
vention to  the  very  short  time  between 
now  and  the  opening  of  the  legislature. 
According  to  what  has  been  said  in 
regard  to  having  two  or  three  sessions 
in  the  evening  and  two  or  three  ses- 
sions in  the  afternoon  of  each  week, 
if  you  have  them  you  would  not  have 
over  fifteen  sessions  between  now  and 
the  opening  of  the  legislature.  You 
cannot  figure  meeting  during  the  holi- 
day week;  it  would  be  almost  impos- 
sible to  get  a quorum  present. 

Fifteen  sessions  of  this  convention 
of  three  hours  at  the  longest  will  make 
forty-five  hours;  and  I do  not  think 
there  is  any  man  here  now  who  thinks 
that  this  charter  can  be  completed  in 
forty-five  hours. 

Now,  it  may  be  a hardship  on  some 
members  to  come  here  both  afternoon 
and  evening,  as  Gen.  Young  stated.  It 
is  almost  an  impossibility  to  get  all 
the  members  here  at  every  session.  But 
we  can  have  a big  percentage  of  the 
members  here  at  every  session,  and 
those  who  could  not  be  here  at  the 
! afternoon  session  will  be  here  at  the 
) evening  session. 

I take  it  that  every  man  who  is  a 
I member  of  this  convention  needs 


December  4 


149 


1906 


■every  hour  in  the  day  in  his  business, 
and  in  accepting  this  position  as 
a delegate  to  this  convention  you  all 
understood  that  you  would  have  to 
give  up  some  of  your  valuable  time 
in  order  to  be  at  the  Convention,  and  I 
hope  that  whatever  is  done  now,  that 
you  will  give  up  as  many  hours  to  as 
many  sessions  as  possible  between  now 
and  the  9th  of  January. 

ME.  RAYMER:  Can  we  get  this 

council  chamber  every  day  this  week? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Every  afternoon 

except  a week  from  Wednesday. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Can  we  get  it  to- 

morrow? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I think,  after  what 

has  been  said,  it  would  be  well  for  the 
members  of  this  Convention  to  study 
over  this  matter  themselves  between 
now  and  the  next  meeting  of  the  Con- 
vention and  not  come  here  with  the 
idea  that  things  are  all  going  to  a 
committee,  because  that  would  be  im- 
possible. 

There  is  no  set  rule  we  can  fix  to  go 
by  in  running  the  Convention,  but  it 
must  be  through  giving  up  your  time 
to  the  Convention;  and  I therefore 
move  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  a substi- 
tute, that  we  adjourn  to  meet  tomor- 
row afternoon  at  two  o’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion,  the  substitute? 

MR.  FISHER:  I substitute  Thurs- 

day for  that.  We  could  have  the  pro- 
ceedings of  this  meeting  printed  and 
sent  to  the  members  who  are  not  pres- 
ent, and  they  will  come  here  on  Thurs- 
day with  some  definite  idea  and  some 
plan  of  what  had  been  done  and  what 
was  to  be  done. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  un- 
der the  impression,  if  he  may  be  per- 
mitted to  take  part  in  this  debate,  as 
Mr.  Shanahan  is,  that  we  have 
been  here  for  two  or  three  hours 
and  it  scarcely  suffices  to  cover  one 
subject.  Today  has  demonstrated  it, 


and  unless  there  are  continuous  ses- 
sions or  sessions  every  day  we  will  be 
very  far  from  completing  the  charter 
on  the  9th  of  January.  This  Conven- 
tion ought  to  be  prepared  to  inconven- 
ience itself  in  every  way  and  any  way 
much  more  than  to  inconvenience  the 
City  of  Chicago  when  the  General  As- 
sembly meets,  and  I would  suggest 
that  this  meeting  adjourn  and  deter- 
mine on  some  arrangement  for  using 
the  council  chamber. 

MR.  FISHER:  Would  it  not  be  the 

best  plan  that  we  go  over  until  Thurs- 
day afternoon  and  then  determine  as 
to  the  regular  meeting  thereafter. 

The  suggestion  has  been  made  that 
we  meet  on  Monday,  Wednesday  and 
Friday  afternoons.  That  makes  alter- 
nate afternoons,  and  if  it  is  agreeable 
we  could  meet  on  Wednesday  and  Fri- 
day evenings  also,  and  that  would  make 
five  sessions  a week  which  would  be  in 
accord  with  the  motion  of  Mr.  Eckhart. 

We  have  a great  many  things  to  go 
over,  and  if  the  proceedings  are  print- 
ed and  sent  to  the  members  they  can 
know  about  this  by  Thursday  after- 
noon. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  or- 

der to  bring  the  matter  before  the  Con- 
vention, in  definite  form,  I desire  to 
offer  this  resolution.  Is  there  a reso- 
lution before  the  Convention,  Mr.  Chair- 
man? Well,  then  I would  like  to  offer 
this  as  a substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  two 

of  them,  but  that  is  rather  below  the 
usual  number.  The  secretary  will  read 
Mr.  Snow’s  resolution. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Snow: 

Resolved:  That  this  Convention  shall 
. hold  sessions  hereafter  as  follows: 
From  2 p.  m.  to  5:30  p.  m.  Monday, 
Wednesday  and  Saturday,  and  from 
7:30  p.  m.  to  10  p.m.  on  Tuesday, 
Thursday  and  Friday. 

MR.  SNOW:  My  intention  there, 

Mr.  Chairman,  is  to  provide  three  day 
and  three  night  sessions,  and  I have 


December  4 


150 


1906 


made  it  Saturday  instead  of  Friday, 
in  order  to  accommodate  the  finance 
committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  a unani- 
mous consent  to  that? 

MR.  REYELL:  I would  like  to  ask 
Mr.  Snow  a question.  Under  your 
resolution  it  provides  that  we  shall 
meet  tomorrow  and  Saturday  of  this 
week.  Do  you  mean  that  we  shall 
meet  this  week,  or  do  you  mean  that 
we  will  commence  this  on  next  Mon- 
day? 

MR.  SNOW:  Yes,  next  week.  There 
is  a motion  already  adopted,  as  I under- 
stand it,  to  adjourn  this  meeting  until 
Thursday  at  2 o’clock. 

MR.  REYELL:  Has  that  been 

passed? 

MR.  SNOW:  Yes,  I think  it  was,— 

Thursday  at  2 o’clock. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  The  Chairman  in- 
forms me  that  

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is 

under  the  impression  that  Mr.  Eckhart 
made  a motion  to  adjourn  until  Thurs- 
day at  2 o’clock. 

MR.  SNOW:  That  was  my  under- 

standing when  I offered  that. 


MR.  POST:  I wish  to  ask  if  that 

motion  ought  not  to  lie  over  until 
Thursday  when  there  will  be  a fuller 
meeting  of  the  Convention  and  a larger 
scope  of  view  than  we  have  now.  I 
merely  ask  whether  that  is  the  purpose 
for  which  it  is  offered. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

when  the  motion  to  adjourn  until  Thurs- 
day prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is 

under  the  impression  that  it  was  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Eckhart  and  carried. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  We  have  had  all 

this  discussion  to-day,  and  we  have 
wasted  a lot  of  time  here  on  it.  If  we 
lay  it  over  until  Thursday,  we  will  do 
the  same  thing  that  day,  and  we  are 
wasting  time.  I will  second  the  motion 
and  ask  for  the  question. 

The  motion  prevailed  unanimously. 

MR.  WERNO:  Does  that  mean  that 

we  will  not  meet  this  week  on  Friday? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  meet  on 
Thursday.  It  is  so  ordered.  The  meet- 
ing stands  adjourned  until  Thursday  at 
2 o’clock. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Thursday,  December  6th,  1906, 
at  2 o’clock  p.  m. 


December  4 


151 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


This  memoranda  indicates  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings). 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished, and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a'  city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2: 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 


the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  The  Mayor  is  still  pending: 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 

Alternative  to  4:  The  terms  of  office 

of  the  mayor  shall  be  the  same  as  that 
of  the  members  of  the  city  council. 

IY.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropriate 
provision  for  independent  nominations 
by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees  for 
each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the  bal- 
lot under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates. 

The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suifrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


December  4 


152 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY  MR.  RE  YELL: 

Alternative  to  YI.  The  City  Council. 
VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

1.  The  charter  shall  provide  for  re- 
districting the  city  into  sixty  wards. 

2.  Each  ward  shall  nominate  candi- 
dates for  aldermen,  who  shall  be  voted 
on  by  the  entire  city. 

3.  The  terms  of  aldermen  shall  be 
four  years. 

4.  One  fourth  of  the  aldermen  to  re- 
tire each  year. 

5.  No  alderman  shall  be  elected  to 
succeed  himself. 

6.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  $5,000  per  annum, 
and  he  shall  have  a secretary. 

7.  Aldermen  shall  give  their  entire 
time  to  serving  the  city  as  alderfiien 
during  the  term  for  which  they  are 
elected. 

8.  Aldermen  shall  have  offices  in  their 
respective  wards  at  which  they  shall  be 
found  during  hours  to  be  determined  by 
ordinance,  or  otherwise. 

BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

As  an  amendment  to  Chapter  IY.  en- 
titled ELECTIONS.  By  adding  the  fol- 
lowing proposition  numbered  6: 


6.  The  only  elective  city  officers  (not 
including  aldermen  and  municipal 
judges)  shall  be  the  Mayor  and  City 
Treasurer.  The  City  Treasurer  shall  be 
ex-officio  city  collector. 

BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

XXII. 

5.  SECTION Nothing  in  this  act 

shall  be  construed  to  modify,  impair  or 
affect  or  to  confer  upon  the  city  council 
power  to  pass  any  ordinance  modifying, 
impairing  or  conflicting  with  the  pro- 
visions of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled 
“An  act  to  provide  for  the  annexation 
of  cities,  incorporated  towns  and  vil- 
lages or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incor- 
porated towns  and  villages  ’ ’ approved 
April  25th,  1889,  or  to  any  provision  of 
any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to  the  sale  of 
intoxicating  liquors  or  creating  or  de- 
fining criminal  offenses  or  relating  to 
the  prosecution  and  punishment  thereof, 
nor  shall  any  amendment  or  addition  be 
made  to  the  charter  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, except  by  the  General  Assembly, 
by  which  this  section,  or  any  part  thereof 
shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  be  abro- 
gated, repealed,  or  annulled. 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

For  Week  Beginning  Monday,  December  10 

SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53. 
SECTION  XVII. — Education,  at  page  56. 
PARAGRAPH  3— Suffrage,  at  page  52. 


PR  OCEEDINGS  OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  6,  1906 


(Eljirago  (Eljartrr  (Emturntimt 

Convened,  December  12, 1909 
Headquarter* 

1 T 1 WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  487T 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

y.zrn. y Barrett  Chamnealin,  A**t.  Sect 


' •'  • ii.- ».'•••'  ■'  • ’ ■ -K  •■■■'  PwHIB 


December  6 


155 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Thursday,  December  6,  1906 

2 O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

& 

j Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

& 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Conven- 
tion be  in  order,  please?  The  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll? 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eekhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Erickson,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Guerin, 
Haas,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Goorty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Poht,  Powers,  Rai- 
ney, Raymer,  Revell,  Robins,  Rosen- 
thal, Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shep- 
ard, Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Thompson, 
Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 53. 

Absent — Badenoch,  Brosseau,  Carey, 
Olettenberg,  Cruice,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eid- 
mann,  Fitzpatrick,  Graham,  Harrison, 
Hunter,  Lundberg,  McCormick,  Oehne, 
Paullin,  Patterson,  Rinaker,  Smulski, 
Swift,  Walker,  Wilson — 21. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

Are  there  any  corrections  or  amend- 
ments to  the  minutes? 

MR.  POST:  I should  like  to  make 

an  amendment  to  the  minutes  of  De- 
cember 3d.  I did  not  have  time  to  read 
the  minutes  before.  On  page  96  I find 
I am  reported  as  wanting  to  know  what 
the  real  name  of  Ostrogorsky  is.  Some- 
body did  ask  that  question,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, but  I do  not  want  to  go  down 
to  posterity  charged  with  ignorance  on 
that  subject.  My  recollection  is  that 
the  question  came  from  the  aldermanic 
side  of  the  house,  and  if  the  stenog- 
rapher will  change  “Mr.  Post”  to  “The 
Voice  of  an  Alderman,”  or  something 
of  that  kind,  it  would  be  more  true. 

THE  SECRETARY:  What  is  the 

number? 

MR.  POST:  Page  96,  December  3, 

near  the  bottom,  the  first  column. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  make 

the  correction. 

THE  SECRETARY:  I have  it  all 

right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

other  corrections  or  amendments?  If 


December  6 


156 


1906 


not,  the  record  will  be  the  official  rec- 
ord of  the  meeting  of  last  Tuesday. 
The  Secretary  will  now  read  Section  5, 
civil  service. 

The  Secretary  read  Section  5 as  it 
appears  in  the  proceedings  at  page  52. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  be- 
fore the  Convention  is  No.  1.  The  al- 
ternative to  No.  1,  b,  the  civil  service 
law,  shall  not  apply  to  the  municipal 
court.  The  matter  is  before  the  Con- 
vention for  its  action.  The  Chair  would 
suggest  than  an  affirmative  vote  on  this 
proposition  would  produce  a good  re- 
sult. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understand 

that  the  alternative  to  No.  1 is  before 
us,  isn’t  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I didn’t  under- 

stand it. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understand, 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  alternative  to 
No.  la  is  before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understood 

you  to  say  “b.  ” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Did  I say  “b”? 
I did  not  intend  to  say  so.  No.  1,  the 
two  alternatives,  may  be  taken  up  for 
discussion  at  the  same  time.  They  are 
pretty  much  connected  with  one  an- 
other. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I move  the  adoption  of  No.  1,  propo- 
sition No.  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proposition  No. 

1.  I think  the  proper  method  in  which 
it  should  come  before  this  convention 
is  a discussion  of  alternatives  to  No. 
1,  a and  b. 

MR.  SNOW:  The  motion  is  to 

adopt  the  first  proposition,  which  would 
kill  the  alternative. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  would  dis- 

pose of  the  alternatives. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  It  seems  to  me 

that  both  of  the  alternatives  proceed 
upon  the  assumption  that  we  have 
adopted  the  proposition  for  civil  serv- 


THE CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  It  seems  to  me 

that  the  two  alternatives,  one  a and  b, 
proceed  on  the  assumption  that  we  have 
already  adopted  the  principle  of  civil 
service,  and  that  they  are  really  more 
in  the  nature  of  amendments  to  the 
main  proposition  than  they  are  alterna- 
tives. You  cannot  very  well  act  on  br 
or  the  alternative  to  la,  without  first 
having  discussed  and  passed  upon  the 
main  proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion,  as 

I understand  it  to  be,  is  that  No.  1 
shall  be  adopted.  If  that  is  adopted,  it 
will  appear  to  the  Chair  that  it  will 
dispose  of  the  two  alternatives,  be- 
cause the  two  alternatives  constitute 
exceptions  to  No.  1. 

MR.  SNOW:  The  second  alternative 

to  b,  if  adopted,  simply  is  an  alterna- 
tive, and  it  will  not  complete  the  pur- 
pose of  the  original  proposition.  I 
move  you,  therefore,  that  the  alterna- 
tive printed  as  b be  added  to,  as  an 
amendment,  to  proposition  1,  so  that  it 
should  be  continuous.  The  first  propo- 
sition and  alternative  b as  amended 
thereby. 

MR.  BURKE:  I wish  to  move  that 

the  motion  lay  on  the  table.  Before 
that  I desire  to  say  a few  words.  I 
feel,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  gentlemen 
of  the  Convention  should  decide  that 
the  civil  service  laws  apply  to  our 
municipal  courts,  the  same  as  any  other 
branch  of  our  municipal  government. 
I see  no  really  good  reason,  and  I do  not 
know  of  any  real  good  argument  for 
excepting  officers  of  the  municipal 
courts.  I do  not  wish  to  criticise,  nor 
even  to  seriously  call  the  attention  of 
anyone  to  the  recent  appointments  in 
our  municipal  courts.  It  is  possible 
that  the  gentlemen  at  the  head  of  those 
two  branches  of  the  municipal  court 
did  the  best  in  their  judgment  as  to 
what  they  thought  was  right,  but  I feel 
that  these  courts,  especially  if  they  are 
new  ones,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 


ice. 


December  6 


157 


1906 


we  are  trying  to  get  as  close  to  the 
people  as  possible — I feel  that  there  is 
no  better  way  of  purifying  the  courts 
and  keeping  them  up  to  that  standard 
of  efficiency  which  people  expect  from 
every  officer.  And  when  I say  every 
officer,  I mean  every  officer  under  the 
head  of  the  chief  clerk  and  the  chief 
bailiff.  For  that  reason  I wish  to  lay 
the  amendment  on  the  table. 

ME.  SNOW:  I presume  the  gentle- 

man does  not  desire  to  cut  off  the  de- 
bate? 

ME.  BUEKE : Not  at  all. 

ME.  SNOW:  I presume  he  does  not 

wish  to  cut  off  debate,  although  the 
matter  is  laid  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  We  won’t  have 

any  debate  cut  off. 

ME.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  I have 

offered  that  amendment  for  this  rea- 
son: The  municipal  court  law  is  a new 

law  which  has  just  gone  into  effect, 
and  the  wording  of  which  we  are  not 
yet  in  a position  to  thoroughly  under- 
stand. It  strikes  me  that  it  would  be 
unwise  at  this  time  to  begin  legislation 
which  would  tinker  with  the  new  munic- 
ipal court  act.  There  are  to  me  very 
good  reasons  why  the  civil  service  law, 
which  should  apply  to  the  ordinary 
functions  of  government,  might  not  spe- 
cially and  properly  be  applied  to  the 
judicial  positions.  Take  the  case  of 
the  chief  bailiff,  for  example,  and  his 
deputy  bailiffs.  The  chief  bailiff  is  re- 
sponsible, as  the  sheriff  would  be,  un- 
der his  bond,  for  the  action  of  those 
deputies;  and  it  is  not  a reasonable 
proposition  to  force  upon  him,  by  means 
of  the  civil  service  law,  or  any  other 
means,  a man  for  whom  he  is  not  pre- 
pared to  accept  responsibility.  People 
look  to  him  for  the  proper  conduct  of 
that  office;  they  hold  him  responsible, 
not  only  during  the  term  of  the  office, 
but  for  a considerable  time  financially 
after  their  terms  have  expired.  For 
that  reason,  it  seems  to  me,  he  should 
be  given  a free  hand  in  the  selection 


of  men  in  whom  he  has  confidence, — in 
their  judgment  and  in  their  honesty. 
Further  than  that,  the  law,  as  it  is 
drawn,  practically  makes  the  judges  of 
the  municipal  court  a civil  service  com- 
mission. The  power  of  reviewing  the 
appointments  and  the  power  to  refuse 
to  confirm  any  direct  appointments  rests 
upon  them,  as  I understand  it,  so  that 
the  service  is  entirely  safe  in  leaving 
the  question  of  appointments,  therefore, 
to  the  discretion  of  the  judges  who 
have  been  selected,  and  who  are  more 
vitally  interested  in  the  honest,  cor- 
rect and  efficient  management  of  the 
office  than  is  any  other  citizen  in  Chi- 
cago. For  those  reasons,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I offer  that  amendment;  and  for  those 
reasons  I trust  it  will  be  accepted. 

ME.  WEENO:  I am  very  much  sur- 

prised, Mr.  Chairman,  at  the  argument 
made  by  the  gentleman  who  has  just 
preceded  me.  That  same  argument 
would  apply  to  every  department  of  the 
city  government.  The  head  of  every 
department  is  responsible  for  the  work 
of  the  department,  and  if  it  is  true  that 
he  should  be  given  a free  hand  because 
of  the  responsibility  that  is  placed  up- 
on him,  or  if  it  is  true  that  the  chief 
bailiff  should  be  given  a free  hand  be- 
cause of  the  responsibilities  that  are 
placed  upon  him,  then,  I say,  the  head 
of  every  department  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment should  be  given  a free  hand. 
If  you  are  in  favor  of  civil  service,  it 
seems  to  me  you  should  favor  it  in 
every  department  of  the  city  govern- 
ment, and  especially  should  that  be 
true  of  the  system  of  courts.  We  know 
that  when  this  act  creating  these  mu- 
nicipal courts  was  first  presented  to 
the  general  assembly  it  contained  a pro- 
vision for  civil  service,  but  during  its 
discussion  in  the  committee  that  pro- 
vision was  cut  out.  It  was  then,  un- 
derstand, commonly  conceded  to  let 
that  go  until  a little  later  on,  and  prob- 
ably that  wrong  would  be  amended. 
Some  insist  that  it  should  be  amended. 


December  6 


158 


1906 


There  seems  to  me  to  be  an  impression 
among  some  men,  or  at  least  a belief, 
that  that  law  will  be  amended  at  the 
next  session  of  the  legislature,  provid- 
ing for  civil  service.  If  that  is  true, 
why  should  we  put  something  into  this 
charter  saying  that  the  civil  service 
law  should  not  apply  to  the  municipal 
courts?  Is  it  done  for  the  purpose  of 
forestalling  action  in  the  legislature, 
or  what  is  the  purpose  of  it?  I believe 
that  if  there  is  any  department  in  our 
system  of  government  where  civil  serv- 
ice laws  should  prevail,  it  is  in  the  de- 
partment of  justice,  in  the  courts.  It 
seems  to  me  that  this  convention  is 
making  a great  mistake  to  ad  an  amend- 
ment of  that  kind  to  this  charter. 

MR.  COLE:  I want  to  call  the  Con- 

vention’s attention  to  one  thing,  that 
perhaps  might  modify  its  decision  a lit- 
tle bit,  and  that  is  the  fact  that  this 
matter  of  civil  service  is  now  being 
worked  out  as  to  state,  county  and  city, 
under  a commission  appointed  by  Presi- 
dent Brudnage  of  the  County  Board. 
Representatives  of  the  State  Civil 
Service  Commission,  the  County  Civil 
Service  Commission  and  the  City  Civil 
Service  Commission,  together  with 
some  members  of  the  County  Comis- 
sioners,  and  some  of  the  representative 
organizations,  are  sitting  as  a commis- 
sion to  work  this  matter  out.  I think 
that  they  will  have  something  to  say 
in  the  next  legislature.  My  atention 
is  called  by  my  next-door  neighbor  that 
there  is  going  to  be  trouble  in  put- 
ting the  sheriff  under  civil  service,  but 
it  seems  to  me  that  we  should  adopt 
this  first  clause,  and  leave  it  to  be 
worked  out  in  the  wash;  that  is  all  we 
shall  accomplish,  and  all  we  will  ac- 
compish  at  the  present  time.  There- 
fore I am  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of 
the  first  clause  without  any  addition. 

MR.  CRILLY:  The  alternative  to 

a-1  refers  to  the  department  of  public 
works.  I want  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  committee  to  the  fact  that  the 


Committee  on  Parks  has  some  kind  of 
amendment  which  is  not  published  in 
the  proceedings,  as  follows:  “The 

Park  Board  is  hereby  authorized  to  es- 
tablish civil  service  in  the  park  sys- 
tem by  choosing  from  its  commissioners 
three  to  act  as  a civil  service  commis- 
sion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  next 
section,  Mr.  Crilly, — that  is  the  next 
section  to  be  taken  up. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  strikes  me, 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  we 
shouldn’t  avoid  this  matter  at  the  pres- 
ent time  at  all.  The  fact  that  such  a 
commission  is  appointed  will  not  inter- 
fere, and  it  should  not  interfere  with 
our  doing  our  duty  here  in  this  conven- 
tion. If  the  merit  system  is  applicable 
anywhere,  it  certainly  is  applicable  in 
the  municipal  courts,  and  to  persons 
who  are  engaged  in  the  sheriff’s  office. 
The  great  trouble  that  has  arisen  in 
the  sheriff’s  office  has  been  due  not  to 
experienced  men  in  that  office,  but  it 
had  been  due  to  the  failures  and  neglect 
and  inexperience  of  raw  men  that  have 
come  into  that  office.  It  was  stated 
the  other  day,  when  this  matter  was 
before  this  convention,  that  there  were 
two  propositions  on  which  all  the  par- 
ties who  came  before  the  legislature 
at  the  time  the  municipal  court  act 
was  there,  were  agreed;  and  one  of 
those  propositions  was  that  the  judges 
should  not  be  elected  at  the  time  of 
any  general  election.  The  other  propo- 
sition was  that  appointments  to  the 
clerk’s  office,  and  the  sheriff’s  office, — 
the  bailiff’s  office, — should  be  made  un- 
der the  merit  system.  We  have  had 
scandals  here  in  regard  to  the  clerk’s 
office  which  we  know  would  not  have 
been  likely  to  have  occurred,  if  this 
office  had  been  placed  under  the  merit 
system.  Now  we  have  an  opportunity 
of  putting  the  office  of  the  clerk  of 
the  municipal  court  and  of  putting  the 
bailiff’s  office  under  the  merit  system, 
and  of  getting  men  in  there  who  are  ex- 


December  6 


159 


perienced  and  who  know  what  they  are 
about.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  should 
not  hesitate  to  lay  this  amendment  on 
the  table. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  I rise  for  the 

purpose  of  requesting  some  information. 
“B,  of  Section  5,  the  Civil  Service 
Laws,  shall  not  apply  to  the  municipal 
courts, ” and  “one  of  five, ” all  de- 
partments of  the  city  government,  shall 
be  under  a proper  civil  service  law.  ” 
The  information  I desire  is:  Is  the 

municipal  court  a branch  of  the  city 
government?  I would  like  to  ask  some- 
body on  the  law  committee  to  pass  up- 
on that. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Chair  is  un- 

der the  impression  that  it  is  municipal 
activity,  but  he  is  not  prepared  to  give 
a legal  opinion  as  to  whether  it  would 
be  construed  as  a department  of  the 
city  government. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  If  I may  be  al- 

lowed to  speak  in  answer  to  this  ques- 
tion, I should  say  it  is  not  a city  de- 
partment, by  any  means.  It  is  a mat- 
ter of  municipal  concern — that  is,  a 
municipal  court  can  be  created  in  a 
municipality,  but  it  is  not  a depart- 
ment of  the  city  government. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Here  is  a question 

for  the  Convention,  as  to  the  construc- 
tion of  the  law.  Does  this  convention 
mean  by  “Section  1”  to  include  munic- 
ipal courts?  If  it  does,  then  we  should 
deal  with  the  subject  having  that  in 
mind. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  occurs  to  the 
Chair  that  all  this  might  be  saved  if 
a vote  were  taken  directly  upon  alterna- 
tive b,  which  would  obviate  the  neces- 
sity of  raising  the  question. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I want  to  speak 

to  that.  T want  to  say,  at  the  outset, 
that  I am  in  favor  of  the  civil  service 
law,  as  far  as  it  can  be  extended.  T 
introduced  the  original  civil  service  bill 
in  the  legislature  and  did  everything  I 
could  to  bring  it  along.  There  is  a 
great  question  as  to  how  far  you  can 


1906 

extend  the  civil  service  law  in  regard 
to  the  municipal  courts.  Why  I asked 
the  question  as  to  whether  the  munic- 
ipal courts  were  a part  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment,— if  they  are  a part  of  the  city 
government,  then  the  clerk  of  the  munic- 
ipal courts,  his  office,  is  now  under 
civil  service.  It  is  a grave  question 
whether  you  can  at  any  time  put  the 
sheriff’s  office  or  the  bailiff’s  office  un- 
der civil  service.  I am  informed  that 
under  the  federal  civil  service  law  the 
question  has  arisen  at  different  times 
in  regard  to  the  United  States  mar- 
shal’s office.  His  office  has  always  been 
exempt,  and  is  now  practically  the  only 
office  that  is  exempt  under  the  federal 
law,  for  the  reason  that  the  deputies 
in  the  United  States  marshal ’s  office 
are  deputies  to  the  marshal,  and  their 
bonds  run  to  the  marshal,  and  the  mar- 
shal is  responsible  for  their  actions  and 
can  be  sued  upon  his  bond.  I take  it 
that  the  same  thing  applies  to  the 
sheriff  of  Cook  county,  who  gives  a very 
large  bond  to  the  county.  His  deputies 
are  appointed  by  him,  and  are  responsi- 
ble to  him,  and  he  can  be  sued  upon 
his  bond  for  their  failure  to  perform 
certain  duties.  The  same  thing  would 
apply  to  Chief  Bailff  Hunter.  He  is 
put  under  a large  bond,  and  I am  in- 
formed that  each  and  every  one  of  his 
deputies  just  appointed  have  been  put 
under  $100,000  bonds,  and  they  are  re- 
sponsible to  him,  and  he  may  be  sued 
on  his  bond  for  failure  by  them  to  per- 
form certain  acts.  I think  it  is  a mis- 
take to  go  too  fast  in  this  matter. 
While  we  may  be  in  favor  of  civil  serv- 
ice, and  want  to  protect  every  depart- 
ment that  is  possible,  I think  that  when 
it  comes  to  such  a close  question  as 
that  we  can  well  pass  it  over  for  the 
time  being.  I am  in  favor  of  extending 
the  civil  service  to  every  office  it  can 
be  extended  to,  and  I believe  that  we 
ought  to  pass  No.  1,  that  all  depart- 
ments of  the  city  government  shall  bn 
I under  a proper  civil  service  law. 


December  6 


160 


1906 


MR.  JONES:  I have  construed  No.  1 
to  mean  that  all  of  the  city  activities 
shall  be  subject  to  civil  service  law; 
that  it  shall  not  be  restricted  merely 
to  the  department.  Upon  that  theory, 
I am  in  favor  of  No.  1.  I believe  that 
the  civil  service  should  be  applied 
throughout  the  city  administration; 
and  I believe  that  the  civil  service  laws 
should  be  extended  in  the  federal,  and 
the  state,  and  the  county  government 
just  as  fast  as  they  can  be  properly. 
The  point  that  has  been  made  in  re- 
gard to  the  park  I believe  to  be  ob- 
jectionable. I understood  Mr.  Crilly’s 
suggestion  to  be  that  the  park  board 
will  constitute  a branch  of  the  civil 
service  commission.  Now,  I can  see  no 
reason  why  we  should  duplicate  civil 
service  commissions  in  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago. If  the  parks  are  to  come  under 
the  city  government  in  the  consolida- 
tion— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  permit 

me?  It  is  thought  by  the  Chair  that 
we  should  dispose  first  of  the  question 
of  the  municipal  courts,  and  as  a second 
proposition  take  up  the  proposition  of 
civil  service  for  the  parks,  which  is  a 
separate  alternative,  and  printed  in  the 
proceedings  as  a counter  suggestion  by 
the  Park  Board. 

MR.  JONES:  I understand  that  the 

three  questions  are  being  debated  to- 
gether. That  is  how  I was  considering 
it.  I wish  to  say  in  regard  to  the 
parks’  civil  service  commission  that  I 
can  see  no  reason  why  there  should  be 
a separate  commission  for  the  parks. 
If  they  are  now  in  a sense  under  a 
civil  service  commission,  they  should  be 
placed  under  one  civil  service  commis- 
sion. With  respect  to  the  municipal 
courts,  I do  not  understand  that  the  ar- 
gument which  has  been  made  with  re- 
gard to  the  bailiff’s  office  can  apply  to 
the  clerk’s  office,  and  I see,  therefore, 
no  reason  why  the  employes  of  the  clerk 
of  the  municipal  court  could  not  be  at 
once  placed  under  the  civil  service  law. 


With  regard  to  the  bailiffs,  or  the  dep- 
uty bailiff,  I would  suggest  that  b be 
amended  to  exclude  the  deputy  bailiffs, 
but  not  to  exclude  all  officers  of  the 
municipal  court.  I should  like  to  make 
this  point,  that  under  the  municipal 
court  law  as  it  now  stands  the  majori- 
ty of  the  judges  have  the  power  of  re- 
moval; the  chief  justice  must  approve 
the  bonds  of  the  deputy  bailiffs  before 
they  can  be  sworn  in,  so  that  with  re- 
gard to  the  deputy  bailiffs,  I do  not 
believe  that  at  this  time  there  is  any 
great  demand  that  we  should  place 
them  under  civil  service.  I believe  that 
it  would  be  wise  for  us  to  place  the 
clerk’s  office  under  civil  service,  but 
to  leave  for  the  time  being  the  deputy 
bailiffs  under  the  control  of  the  chief 
justice  and  the  majority  of  the  judges 
of  the  court,  as  is  now  provided  by  the 
present  law;  and  if,  in  the  working  out 
of  that  system,  it  is  found  in  the  course 
of  the  next  year  or  so  that  it  is  de- 
sirable to  amend  the  law  and  to  ex- 
tend the  civil  service  to  the  deputy 
bailiffs  as  well,  that,  can  be  done  in 
the  proper  time.  I would,  therefore, 
move,  as  a substitute  for  alternative  b, 
the  following:  “The  civil  service  law 

shall  not  apply  to  the  deputy  bailiffs 
of  the  municipal  court.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  an 

amendment  to  Alderman  Snow’s  amend- 
ment. 

MR.  McMILLAN:  What  becomes, 

then,  of  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Burke 
to  lay  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  there  is  an 
affirmative  motion  before  the  house,  and 
it  appears  to  me  that  the  object  of  the 
convention  is  to  give  opportunity  for 
the  expression  of  opinion,  and  the  only 
real  convention  meaning  of  “lay  on 
the  table”  is  to  cut  off  debate,  which, 

I understand,  is  opposed  to  the  senti- 
ment of  this  convention.  The  question 
before  the  house  is  the  amendment  of 
Senator  Jones  to  the  amendment  of  Al- 
derman Snow,  that  section Will  the 

Secretary  read  the  record  as  it  stands? 


December  6 


161 


1906 


The  Secretary  read  the  record. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  in 

order  to  make  it  read  plainly  I think 
the  conjunction  1 1 but  ’ ’ should  be  in- 
serted between  the  word  “law”  and  the 
word  1 1 the.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  what  pur- 

pose does  Alderman  Werno  arise? 

MR.  WERNO:  I would  like  to  say 

a word  in  reply  to  the  gentleman’s  re- 
marks. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I believe  you 

-have  spoken  once  on  the  subject  and 
under  the  rules  of  the  convention  un- 
less you  have  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  body — 

(The  Chairman  was  here  interrupted 
by  cries  of  “Go  ahead!  ”) 

Alderman  Werno  has  just  stated  that 
he  would  like  to  reply  to  Mr.  Shanahan. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : I would  like  to 

hear  from  the  gentleman  on  the  subject. 

MR.  WERNO:  I desire  to  call  the 

gentleman ’s  attention  to  the  fact  that 
we  in  the  city  council  has  that  very 
same  point  in  relation  to  our  bridge 
tenders,  in  connection  with  the  effort 
to  put  the  bridge  tenders  under  civil 
service.  The  same  point  was  raised  with 
regard  to  that.  It  is  claimed  that  the 
bridge  tender  is  put  under  bond  and 
that  he  is  responsible  and  the  men  he 
employs  under  him  are  responsible  to 
him,  and  he  in  turn  is  responsible  to 
the  city,  and  for  that  reason  it  was 
claimed  that  the  bridge  tender  and  the 
men  under  him  should  not  be  put  under 
civil  service.  Certain  people  thought 
the  law  should  not  be  extended  that  far, 
but  the  Judiciary  Committee  of  the  city 
council  and  even  the  Finance  Committee 
last  year  recommended  to  the  city  coun- 
cil that  all  bridge  tenders  be  put  under 
civil  service  notwithstanding.  That  is 
the  point  you  make. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

do  not  think  that  point  holds  good,  be- 
cause a deputy  bridge  tender  is  in  no 
way  called  upon  to  go  out  and  serve 


writs  and  serve  executions  where  the 
bridge  tender  would  become  liable  for 
any  amount  of  money;  whereas,  with  a 
deputy  marshal  he  may  be  sent  out,  at- 
tach a vessel  that  is  worth  $10,000  and 
his  failure  to  do  it  within  a certain  time 
may  cost  the  marshal  that  amount  of 
money. 

MR.  WERNO:  It  is  the  same  thing 

with  the  bridge  tender.  The  bridge 
tender  may  be  derelict  in  his  duty  and 
an  accident  will  occur,  and  the  bridge 
tender  to  give  bond  to  the  city  is 
liable  for  the  damage  to  the  vessel  owner, 
in  case  of  an  accident  to  a vessel. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I notice  along  a 

little  further  under  this  head  that  under 
Clause  3 the  bailiff  and  chief  clerk  of 
the  municipal  court  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  judges  of  the  municipal  courts. 
Now,  as  to  this  last  amendment  exempt- 
ing the  bailiff  himself  from  the  operation 
of  the  civil  service  in  case  we  should 
adobt  this  clause  here,  why  I i think 
he  should  be  under  civil  service  just  as 
well  as  any  of  the  deputies.  This  whole 
thing  hinges  on  the  fact  that  the  chief 
bailiff  gives  a bond,  a personal  bond. 
That  bond  is  supposed  to  reimburse  any 
person  who  suffers  from  any  illegal  levies 
levied  by  the  deputy  bailiff  in  carrying 
out  the  mandate  of  the  court  in  an  un- 
lawful or  harsh  manner,  or  in  any  man- 
ner not  intended  by  the  law.  There  is 
certainly  a great  deal  of  room  for 
thought  in  that,  if  this  chief  bailiff  is 
responsible  for  the  acts  of  his  deputies. 

I take  it  that  it  is  within  the  power  of 
the  municipal  court  to  exact  from  each 
of  the  deputy  bailiffs  the  same  bond 
and  the  same  qualification  that  a chief 
bailiff  should  have,  and  that  would  do 
away  with  the  responsibility  to  the  chief 
bailiff  that  this  question  which  has  been 
raised  assumes.  I think  that  with  the 
court  officers  there  is  room  for  the  civil 
service  act  to  be  applied.  I think  it 
should  be  applied  to  these  officers  par- 
| ticularly,  and  consequently  I believe  that 
the  civil  service  law  should  apply  to 


December  6 


162 


1906 


every  office  which  is  a city  office,  and  I 
believe  that  the  municipal  judges  and 
the  clerks  and  bailiffs  of  the  courts  are 
all  city  officers,  and  especially  the  bailiffs 
and  clerks.  There  is  no  question  about 
that,  and  I think  the  civil  service  law 
should  apply  to  them  as  it  does  to  any 
other  city  officer. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Ben- 

nett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  There  is  evidently 

some  confusion  created  by  the  state- 
ments of  Alderman  Werno  in  reference 
to  the  bridge  tenders.  In  the  ease  of  the 
bridge  tenders  the  action  would  lie 
against  the  City  of  Chicago  for  an  in- 
jury done;  whereas  in  the  case  of  a 
bailiff  or  sheriff,  if  he  has  in  his  poses- 
sion  a writ  properly  authorizing  him  to 
perform  his  duty,  there  could  be  no  re- 
dress against  the  city  or  the  court  for 
an  improper  execution  of  that  writ.  The 
liability  on  the  part  of  the  bailiff  arises 
out  of  the  wrongful  act  or  mistaken 
act  of  a deputy,  and  the  redress  of  the 
person  injured  is  against  the  bailiff  and 
not  against  the  city  or  against  the  court. 
Unless  the  bailiff  has  some  means  of  con- 
trolling the  men  in  his  office  he  has  no 
way  of  saving  himself  from  personal 
damages  by  reason  of  the  wrongful  ex- 
ecution of  writs. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Linehan. 

MR.  LINEHAN : It  seems  to  me,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  the  most  important  point 
in  this  matter  is  as  to  who  pays  the 
freight,  who  pays  the  salary  of  these  peo- 
ple. Does  the  City  of  Chicago  pay  it 
or  does  it  not?  Now,  if  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago pays  the  salaries  of  the  judges  and 
bailiffs  and  everything  else  connected 
with  it,  and  the  rest  of  the  city  is  under 
civil  service,  why  should  any  single  party 
be  reserved  and  put  outside  of  civil  ser- 
vice? I think  we  are  begging  the  ques- 
tion here,  and  after  we  have  devoted 
ourselves  to  politics  and  wiped  out  the 


party  circles  we  are  now  proposing  on  the 
part  of  some  people  to  preserve  them 
from  civil  service  and  keep  their  own 
little  machines  for  politics.  The  city 
pays  the  salaries  of  everybody  connected 
with  these  places  and  after  we  have 
decided  that  we  shall  no  longer  have 
the  party  columns  and  party  circles  why 
should  we  reserve  this  for  any  particular 
party  and  not  have  them  come  under  the 
civil  service  law  ? I want  to  tell  you 
this  much,  that  if  these  court  officers 
had  been  elected  at  the  last  election  by 
the  Democratic  party  every  newspaper  in 
the  city  unanimously  would  be  out  with 
double-headed  editorials  at  the  present 
time  demanding  that  they  be  put  under 
civil  service. 

MR.  POWERS:  Is  it  not  a fact  that 

the  deputy  bailiffs,  before  they  receive 
their  commissions,  are  compelled  to  give 
an  indemnifying  bond  to  the  bailiff  in 
a large  amount  of  money  for  the  faithful 
performance  of  their  duty,  and  for  any 
damages  that  may  arise  by  virtue  of 
the  performance  of  their  duty?  I would 
like  to  ask  any  gentleman  here  if  that 
is  not  a fact,  that  they  have  got  to  give 
a bond  of  $50,000  to  $100,000  for  the 
faithful  performance  of  their  duty?  Not 
the  chief  bailiff,  but  every  one  of  them 
has  to  give  an  indemnifying  bond. 

MR.  ROBINS:  The  question  in- 

volves, Mr.  Chairman — 

MR.  POWERS:  I would  like  to  have 

some  gentleman  answer  that  question 
who  is  advised  on  that  point,  if  that  is 
not  a fact  that  they  have  to  give  an  in- 
demnifying bond  to  the  chief  bailiff. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Yes. 

MR.  POWERS:  Yes,  undoubtedly 

they  have  to,  in  order  to  protect  the  chief 
bailiff  against  any  loss. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you 

through,  Senator? 

MR.  POWERS:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins. 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  seems  to  me  that 

the  question  involved  in  the  matter  be- 
fore this  convention  is  just  simply  this, 


December  6 


163 


1906 


whether  some  part  of  the  city  govern- 
ment shall  be  reserved  for  the  spoils 
system,  or  whether  all  of  it  shall  be  di- 
vorced from  the  spoils  system.  Now, 
upon  that  question  the  gentlemen  may 
have  different  opinions,  but  there  is  one 
view  of  it,  it  seems  to  me,  nearly  all 
fairminded  men  will  unite  in,  and  that  is 
that  the  worst  place  to  reserve  the  spoils 
system  is  in  the  administration  of  the 
people’s  courts.  In  so  far  as  the  super- 
vision of  the  judges  is  concerned,  there 
is  not  a man  that  is  not  familiar  with 
the  complete  failure  of  that  supervision 
upon  the  clerks  of  the  circuit  and  other 
courts  within  the  past  year,  and  within 
the  common  knowledge  of  every  man  in 
this  room.  It  subjects  the  judges  to  po- 
litical influence,  and  prevents  the  judges 
from  exercising  their  views  freely,  as 
men  should.  It  is  no  protection,  it  is 
a sham  protection  so  far  as  any  claim 
of  its  being  protection  to  the  public  is 
concerned,  and  it  is  a burden  upon  the 
judges.  The  judges  should  not  be  re- 
quired to  bear  that  burden  and  the  civil 
service  commission  should  bear  that 
burden,  it  seems  to  me. 

It  seems  to  me,  further,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  the  matter  of  the  bailiffs  of 
the  people’s  courts  is  possibly  the  most 
powerful  form  of  the  spoils  system  that 
can  be  established  or  maintained  in  the 
City  of  Chicago.  There  is  no  man  in 
this  room  that  is  not  familiar  with  the 
power  of  the  police  court  in  municipal 
politics.  There  is  no  man  in  this  room 
who  is  not  familiar  with  the  operation  of 
the  constable  upon  the  poor,  and  when  I 
speak  as  I am  speaking  I am  mindful 
not  so  much  of  politics,  or  political  or- 
ganizations on  the  one  hand  or  the  other, 
as  I am  mindful  of  the  actual  oppres- 
sive operation  of  the  spoils  system  in 
the  people’s  courts.  It  is  not  so  much 
the  party  advantage  that  concerns  me 
as  the  fact  that  these  men  being  backed 
by  powerful  political  support  can  oppress 
the  poor,  and  oppress  the  poor  at  a 


point  where  they  have  the  smallest  op- 
portunity of  relief.  There  is  not  a 
man  in  this  room  familiar  with  the 
transactions  in  the  Maxwell  street  and 
Desplaines  street  police  courts  and  in 
the  various  police  courts  of  this  city  that 
is  not  familiar  with  the  operation  of  the 
justice  courts  and  the  police  courts  in 
their  oppression  upon  that  portion  of  the 
community  that  has  least  articulate  voice 
in  public  things  and  public  matters,  and 
public  motives. 

Now,  I can  conceive  of  no  act  of  this 
Convention  that  would  be  more  con- 
temptible and  unworthy  than  not  to 
leave  the  matter  of  the  police  courts 
and  municipal  courts  free  so  that  they 
could  be  put  under  civil  service  as  the 
need  for  civil  service  seems  to  justify  it. 
I believe  it  justifies  it  now. 

Insofar  as  that  argument  of  the  mar- 
shals of  the  United  States  court  is  con- 
cerned, no  man  in  this  room  familiar 
with  those  courts  but  knows  that  those 
marshals  were  not  exempted  from  civil 
service  because  of  their  bonds  or  obliga- 
tions, but  because  they  were  the  most 
powerful  cogs  in  the  federal  machine 
throughout  this  entire  country,  and  it  is 
the  same  sort  of  thing  from  our  point 
of  view  that  is  being  argued  here  this 
afternoon. 

It  seems  to  me  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
whatever  difficulty  there  may  be  in  the 
law  or  in  the  arrangement  of  the  bonds, 
that  those  difficulties  have  arisen  pur- 
posely because  they  wished  to  protect 
this  group  from  civil  service,  or  because 
they  arose  out  of  a system  before  civil 
service  became  a dominant  idea  in  mu- 
nicipal and  general  government  in  this 
country.  Any  of  those  provisions  can  be 
changed  by  an  act  of  the  legislature  or 
by  an  act  of  congress,  and  I take  it 
that  no  man  familiar  with  public  af- 
fairs in  this  room  questions  but  that  they 
will  be  changed  and  that  the  entire  pub- 
lic service  practically  will  come  in  time 
under  the  control  of  an  intelligent  civil 


December  6 


164 


1906 


service  that  will  keep  the  officers  edu- 
cated and  informed  as  to  their  duties, 
and  carrying  on  those  duties  from  year 
to  year  over  a long  period  of  time,  and 
giving,  if  you  please,  the  best  service  to 
the  public  in  all  departments  of  the  pub- 
lic service. 

MR.  M’GOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  the  objection  made  by  Mr.  Shana- 
han posscesses  much  apparent  force,  but 
I believe  it  can  be  obviated  by  requir- 
ing the  bonds  of  the  chief  and  deputy 
bailiffs  to  run  to  the  city  of  Chicago. 
The  civil  service  or  the  merit  law  or 
whatever  you  may  term  it  is  to  pro- 
mote efficiency  in  the  public  service;  re- 
quiring an  original  entrance  examination 
that  will  cause  men  of  experience  to  be 
chosen  to  serve  public  writs  and  to  dis- 
charge the  administrative  functions  of 
the  court.  Now,  if  these  bonds  run  to 
the  city  of  Chicago  any  private  person 
injured  my  sue  in  the  name  of  the  city 
of  Chicago  on  that  bond,  and  he  will  have 
all  the  securities  that  he  can  have  under 
the  private  bonds,  the  personal  bonds, 
that  are  now  running  from  the  deputy 
bailiffs  to  the  chief  bailiff.  But,  being 
simply  a business  condition,  and  there 
being  no  objection  to  the  application  or 
to  the  extension  of  the  merit  system  to 
the  baliffs  themselves,  it  seems  to  me, 
Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  a matter  or  a dif- 
ficulty which  could  easily  be  obviated, 
and  it  is  too  simple  a matter  and  too 
easily  obviated  to  have  it  waived  against 
the  greater  and  weightier  arguments  in 
favor  or  the  greatest  possible  efficiency 
in  the  administration  of  the  judiciary 
departments  of  the  government. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I move  that  this  whole  question  here 
about  the  civil  service  applying  to  the 
bailiffs  particularly,  be  referred  to  the 
Law  Committee  for  an  opinion,  and  on 
that  motion  I desire  to  say  this: 

The  courts  are  carried  on  as  a gov- 
ernmental function,  and  any  hardship 
that  may  be  suffered  by  the  people  be- 


cause of  the  carrying  on  that  govern- 
mental function  has  no  redress.  There 
is  no  redress  for  them.  Nor  can  the  city 
become  liable  in  its  governmental  capa- 
city, and  to  make  a bond  to  the  city  pre- 
supposes that  the  city  is  liable,  which 
it  cannot  be  in  exercising  a governmental 
function  as  distinguished  from  the  pri- 
vate works  of  the  city.  And,  as  a con- 
sequence I suppose  that  that  is  the  pur- 
pose that  they  have  made  the  individual 
committed  by  virtue  of  his  office,  because 
his  principal  would  not  be  liable  because 
they  are  exercising  a governmental  func- 
tion. That  is,  I think,  the  reason  for 
it  all,  and  that  is  such  a mighty  reason 
that  it  is  worth  while  referring  this  par- 
ticular subject  to  the  Law  Committee 
for  an  opinion.  If  we  can  apply  the  civil 
service  lawfully  to  these  positions,  why, 
we  should  do  so.  If  we  cannot,  we  ought 
to  know  it  at  the  earliest  possible  mo- 
ment, and  I make  that  motion,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, and  I hope  I may  get  a second 
so  that  we  may  have  an  opinion  from  the 
Law  Committee. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  Mr.  O ’Donnell  if  his  motion  will  just 
apply  to  civil  service  as  to  the  bailiffs 
and  not  apply  as  to  the  municipal  courts? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Yes,  I limit  it 

to  that  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  what  is  Mr. 
O ’Donnell ’s  motion  ? 

(Mr.  O’Donnell’s  motion  was  read  by 
the  Secretary.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  Mr.  O’Don- 
nell, you  referred  to  bailiffs.  You 
simply  mean  bailiffs,  you  do  not  desire 
to  include  clerks,  but  you  simply  mean 
the  bailiffs? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I think  it  is 

plain  that  the  clerks  can  be  included, 
the  only  thing  is  as  to  the  bailiffs.  I 
would  move  that  the  matter  in  reference 
to  municipal  courts  be  referred  to  the 
Law  Committee  as  to  bailiffs  and  clerks, 
too. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  That  is  Sec- 

tion b? 


December  6 


165 


1906 


MR.  O ’DONNELL : Section  b,  yes.  | 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I want  to  say 

that  I believe  it  would  be  quite  useless 
to  refer  this  particular  matter  to  the 
Law  Committee,  and  for  this  reason  the 
Law  Committee  can  state  that  it  is  a 
governmental  function  or  not  a gov- 
ernmental function,  that  it  is  a matter 
of  local  concern  or  state  concern,  but 
whether  it  is  the  one  or  the  other  does 
not  cut  any  figure  so  far  as  merit  is 
concerned.  If  the  merit  system  is  ap- 
plicable, it  is  applicable  to  these  very 
officers  whether  they  are  a matter  of 
state  or  purely  a matter  of  local  con- 
cern. 

Now,  another  thought:  This  whole 

matter  was  presented  to  the  supreme 
court  at  the  time  that  the  municipal  court 
act  was  before  the  court,  but  the  supreme 
court  found  that  it  was  not  necessary  to 
decide  that  very  question  although  many 
of  us  thought  it  would  have  to  decide 
that  question.  They  dodged  the  ques- 
tion, and  so  the  Law  Committee,  until 
the  supreme  court  has  passed  upon  this 
thing  cannot  give  any  definite  expression 
to  it  nor  regarding  it. 

Now,  such  eminent  authorities  as  Judge 
Tuley  and  Judge  Campbell  and  others 
have  said  that  this  was  a matter  of  state 
and  general  concern  and  not  a matter 
of  local  concern,  at  all,  and  that  is  one 
reason  we  argue  that  the  municipal  court 
applying  as  it  did  only  to  the  city  of 
Chicago  and  creating  a separate  court 
here  was  not  constitutional.  The  Law 
Committee  would  find  itself  simply 
wandering  in  the  dark  in  determining 
this  question,  and  inasmuch  as  it  is  not 
necessary  for  the  purpose  of  our  con- 
vention here  1 move  to  lay  this  last 
motion  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  I understand 

Mr.  O’Donnell’s  motion,  his  motion 
is  to  refer  the  question  of  placing  the 
municipal  courts  under  civil  service  to 
the  Law  Committee  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  the  extent  that  the  city  has 


power  so  to  do.  I make  this  explanation 
so  the  record  may  be  clear.  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal moves  that  that  motion  lie  on  the 
table,  and  upon  that  motion  the  Secre- 
tary will  call  the  roll,  upon  the  motion 
to  lay  upon  the  table. 

Yeas  — Baker,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brown,  Burke,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G. 
W. ; Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Gansbergen,  Lath- 
rop,  Linehan,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  Owens,  Powers,  Rosenthal,  Seth- 
ness,  Shedd,  Thompson,  Vopicka,  Werno, 
Young,  Zimmer — 25. 

Nays — Beebe,  Church,  Dever,  Eckhart, 
B.  A. ; Erickson,  Guerin,  Haas,  Hill, 
Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  MacMillan, 
O ’Donnell,  Post,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins, 
Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Tay- 
lor, White,  Wilkins— 24. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal ’s  motion  to  lay  Mr.  O ’Donnell ’s  mo- 
tion upon  the  table,  the  yeas  are  25  and 
the  nays  are  24.  The  motion  to  lay  on 
the  table  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  now 
is  upon  Senator  Jones’  amendment. 

MR.  BURKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  point 

of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : State  your  point 

of  order. 

MR.  BURKE:  Alderman  Snow’s  mo- 

tion in  reference  to  the  introduction  of 
civil  service  in  the  municipal  courts 
was  the  first  motion,  and  upon  that  there 
was  a motion  to  lay  upon  the  table.  The 
Chairman  then  gave  the  members  of  the 
Convention  an  opportunity  to  debate.  I 
feel  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I am  en- 
titled to  a roll  call  on  the  motion  to  lay 
upon  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentleman  is 
correct.  The  motion  to  lay  Alderman 
Snow’s  motion  on  the  table  was  made  be- 
fore Senator  Jones’  amendment  and 
should  be  the  next  motion  put,  and  if 
there  is  no  objection  the  vote  will  now 
be  taken  upon  Mr.  Burke’s  motion  to 
lay  Mr.  Snow’s  motion  upon  the  table. 


December  6 


166 


1906 


MR.  SNOW:  I rise  for  a point  of  in- 

formation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  I rise,  Mr.  Chairman, 

for  the  purpose  of  indicating  a willing- 
ness on  the  part  of  the  mover  of  the  mo- 
tion to  accept  the  substitute  or  amend- 
ment offered  by  Senator  Jones.  Can 
that  be  done  with  the  motion  being  made 
for  tabling? 

MR.  BURKE:  It  is. too  late  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  long  as  the 

motion  to  table  is  before  the  house  it 
will  have  to  be  put  and  after  that  is  dis- 
posed of  the  matter  can  come  up.  Sen- 
ator Jones’  amendment  will  then  come 
up. 

MR.  SNOW:  I would  like  to  ask  the 

mover  of  that  motion  to  withdraw  that 
for  a moment  in  order  that  there  may 
be  only  one  matter  before  the  house. 

MR.  BURKE:  I wish  to  say  that  I 

do  not  at  this  time  desire  to  withdraw 
the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  do  not  de- 

sire to? 

MR.  BURKE:  No,  I do  not  desire  to 

withdraw  it  at  the  present  time. 

MR.  SNOW : Then,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  withdraw  the  motion  I origin- 
ally made  and  I ask  the  permission  of 
the  Convention  to  allow  me  to  do  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Snow 

withdraws  the  motion  and  the  motion  to 
table  naturally  goes  with  it,  so  the  origi- 
nal matter  of  Senator  Jones’  motion  is 
before  the  house. 

MR.  JONES:  I wish  now  to  offer 

the  motion  which  I presented  and  dis- 
cussed a few  minutes  ago. 

MR.  POWERS:  I believe  the  mover 

of  a motion  must  have  the  consent  of 
the  second  in  order  to  withdraw  his 
motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  only  thing 

before  the  house  properly  was  Alderman 
Snow ’s  motion. 

MR.  POWERS:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Burke  moved 
to  lay  that  on  the  table. 


MR.  POWERS:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Snow 

withdrew  his  motion. 

MR.  POWERS:  Well,  can’t  he  do 

that  without  the  consent  of  this  Conven- 
tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  certainly 

ought  to  satisfy  the  man  who  votes 
to  lay  on  the  table. 

MR.  POWERS:  Well,  I want  to 

raise  that  point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  ob- 

jection to  a man  making  a motion — 

MR.  LINEHAN : Point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Linehan. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  After  a matter  has 

been  before  the  house  and  debated,  it 
does  not  lie  within  the  province  of  the 
Chair  or  anybody  else  to  take  any  such 
position  when  we  are  ready  to  vote  on 
it.  The  laying  of  this  matter  on  the 
table  would  settle  this  matter  right  now 
and  you  propose  to  take  it  back  so  it 
cannot  be  voted  on. 

THE  CHARIMAN : There  is  no  need 

of  any  heat  in  this  matter,  Mr.  Line- 
han. The  Chair  is  trying  to  get  this 
matter  so  that  everybody  will  have  his 
say  and  bring  the  question  before  the 
house  for  an  affirmative  vote. 

MR.  LINEHAN : Allow  me  to  in- 

form the  Chair  that  my  emphasis  of  my 
words  is  no  indication  of  heat.  You  do 
not  have  to  pass  on  the  question  of  heat 
at  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  right  of 

Alderman  Snow  to  withdraw  his  motion 
has  been  challenged. 

MR.  SNOW:  Then,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

ask  that  the  matter  be  put  to  a vote  of 
the  Convention  in  regard  to  withdrawing 
that  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire 

a roll  call  upon  that? 

MR.  SNOW:  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  of  permitting  Alderman  Snow  to 
withdraw  his  motion  will  signify  it  by 
saying  aye;  opposed  no.  The  ayes  have 
it  and  the  request  is  granted  . 


December  6 


167 


1906 


Upon  request  the  ayes  and  nays  were 
ordered. 

Ayes — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brown,  Church,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart,  B.  A. ; Eckhart, 
J.  W. ; Erickson,  Gransbergen,  Guerin, 
Haas,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O ’Donnell,  Owens, 
Post,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  White,  Wilkins,  Young 
—43. 

Nays — Powers,  Shepard,  Zimmer — 3. 

(During  Roll  Call.) 

MR.  BURKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  so  that 

there  may  be  no  hard  feelings  in  this 
good  body,  and  with  the  consent  of 
Alderman  Snow  I will  withdraw  my  mo- 
tion to  lay  Alderman  Snow’s  motion  on 
the  table: 

THE  SECRETARY:  How  do  you 

vote? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  roll  call  will 

proceed. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

whole  vote  amounts  to  nothing.  There 
is  no  question  about  the  rule  that  when 
a matter  is  presented  to  a body  and  it 
is  debated  it  cannot  be  withdrawn  with- 
out the  unanimous  consent  of  this  body, 
and  it  is  evident  that  unanimous  consent 
is  not  given  to  withdraw. 

MR.  BENNETT:  A point  of  infor- 

mation, Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  As  I understand  it 

the  roll  call  is  now  upon  Mr.  Burke ’s 
motion  to  table. 

(Cries  of  “No.”) 

MR.  BENNETT:  Just  a moment, 

now ; just  a moment.  Alderman  Snow 
rose  to  make  another  motion  and  it  was 
not  seconded  and  was  not  put. 

VOICES:  We  are  voting  on  that  now. 

MR.  BENNETT:  We  are  voting  on 

the  motion  to  table  now. 

VOICES:  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN: 


tinue  the  roll  call.  There  are  but  three 
voices  against  the  unanimous  consent, 
and  under  Robert’s  Rules  of  Order, 
which  are  somewhat  uncertain,  Section 
17  provides  that  when  a question  is  be- 
fore the  assembly  and  the  mover  wishes 
to  withdraw  or  modify  or  substitute  a 
different  one  in  its  place,  if  no  one  ob- 
jects the  presiding  officer  grants  per- 
mission; if  any  objection  is  made  it  will 
be  necessary  to  obtain  leave  to  withdraw. 
It  does  not  say  what  this  leave  shall  be, 
whether  the  majority  shall  give  leave 
or  whether  it  is  by  partial  consent.  How- 
ever, the  matter  is  before  the  house.  The 
Chair  does  not  desire  to  withhold  from 
anybody  the  right  to  cast  an  affirmative 
vote  on  this  proposition. 

MR.  JONES:  Do  I understand  Aider- 

man  Snow  has  been  given  permission  to 
withdraw  this? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  in 

doubt.  There  were  three  voices  against 
a unanimous  consent,  and  Robert ’s  Rules 
of  Order  is  silent  on  what  constitutes 
leave.  The  Chair  will  rule,  however,  that 
necessary  leave  has  been  given  to  with- 
draw the  motion,  and  there  is  no  motion 
before  the  house  at  present. 

MR.  JONES:  I move,  then,  as  a sub- 

stitute for  alternative  b my  substitute. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Jones’ 

the  civil  service  law  shall  not  apply  to  the 
deputy  bailiffs  of  the  municipal  court. 

MR.  M’GOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  to  lay  Senator  Jones’  motion  on  the 
table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  has  the 

floor. 

MR.  POST : I want  to  speak  about 

this  motion  to  lay  on  the  table.  The 
Chairman,  it  seems  to  me,  has  in  a spirit 
1 of  entire  fairness,  so  that  debate  should 
not  be  cut  off,  allowed  full  debate  upon 
a motion  to  lay  on  the  table.  This  prac- 
tice that  we  have  adopted  here  of  bring- 
ing every  motion  to  a vote,  upon  a mo- 
, tion  to  lay  upon  the  table,  that  is  to 
! say,  calling  up  to  vote  upon  a subsidiary 


We  will  con- 


December  6 


168 


1906 


# 

motion  instead  of  the  principal  question 
is  a bad  practice  and  while,  of  course, 
I can  make  no  motion  to  stop  it,  and  I 
do  not  know  as  the  Chairman  would  en- 
tertain such  a motion,  I do  wish  that 
the  members  of  this  Convention  would 
consider  that  we  are  here  for  the  purp'ose 
of  passing  directly  upon  questions,  and 
unless  they  move  to  lay  upon  the  table 
for  a regularly  parlimentary  purpose, 
I believe  that  we  should  allow  these 
questions  to  go  to  a vote  upon  the  prin- 
cipal question  and  not  upon  subsidiary 
questions,  and  not  pass  in  this  way  upon 
a whole  lot  of  matters,  which  at  any  time 
some  one  may  move  to  take  off  the  table. 
I hope  a different  practice  will  be  ob- 
served hereafter.  Mr.  Chairman,  let  uff 
have  a fair,  open  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I hope  that  Mr 

McGoorty  is  convinced. 

(Cries  of  roll  call.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I believe  that 

Mr.  McGoorty ’s  motion  was  to  lay  Sen- 
ator Jones’  motion  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  McGoorty:  I will  withdraw  the 

motion,  if  there  is  any  advantage  in  vot- 
ing that  down. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  hopes 

there  will  be  substantially  unanimous 
consent,  and  the  Secretary  will  read  the 
resolution  as  now  before  the  house  and 
will  proceed  to  call  the  roll. 

(The  Secretary  read  the  amendment 
of  Mr.  Jones.) 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Church,  Crilly,  Erickson,  Haas,  Hill, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  MacMillan,  O’Donnell, 
Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Shanahan,  Shepard, 
Snow — 18. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Burke,  Cole,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart,  B.  A. ; Eckhart, 
J.  W. ; Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hoyne,  Lath- 
rop,  Linehan,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  Owens,  Post,  Powers,  Revell,  Rob- 
ins, Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shedd,  Sunny, 
Taylor,  Thompson,  Yopicka,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 32. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gntlemen,  you 


have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr.  Burke  upon 
the  adoption  of  Alternative  B as  amend- 
ed by  him. 

(Cries  of  “Roll  Call.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beilfuss,  Burke,  Cole,  Qrflly, 
Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart,  B.  A.; 
Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Gansbergen,  Guerin, 
Hoyne,  Jones,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Mc- 
Goorty, McKinley,  Merriam,  Owens, 
Post,  Powers,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins, 
Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Thomp- 
son, Yopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 38. 

Nays — Baker,  Bennett,  Brown,  Church, 
Hill,  Kittleman,  MacMillan,  O ’Donnell 
—8. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR,  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Jones. 

MR.  JONES:  May  I explain  my  vote? 
I believe  that  the  substitute  should  have 
been  passed  because  of  the  legal  ques- 
tions involved.  As  I am  in  favor  of  civil 
service  generally  I shall  vote  aye,  how- 
ever. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  Mr. 

Burke ’s  motion  to  strike  out  the  word 
“not”  in  Alternative  B the  vote  is: 
Yeas,  38 ; nays,  8 ; and  the  motion  is 
carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  vote 

is  upon  Alternative  to  1 a. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart. 

Will  Mr.  Eckhart  permit  the  Secretary 
to  read  the  Alternative? 

(The  Secretary  read  the  Alternative 
to  1 A as  it  appears  in  the  proceedings 
at  page  52.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I move  the  adoption  of  Alternative 
to  1 A,  and  on  that  motion  I wish 
to  say  this:  That  I am  a strong  advocate 


December  6 


169 


1906 


of  civil  service  and  I believe  in  civil  serv- 
ice. But  I believe  the  public  interests  will 
be  better  subserved  if  this  were  embodied 
in  the  charter.  If  the  consolidation  is 
effected  that  is  propesed,  the  three 
park  systems  of  Chicago  would  be  con- 
solidated and  become  part  of  the  city 
government.  In  such  an  event,  in  my 
judgment,  the  employes  of  the  three 
park  systems  who  have  served  efficiently 
and  faithfully,  and  whose  experience  en- 
ables them  to  render  valuable  service 
ought  to  be  continued  in  that  system.  If 
they  were  subjected  to  the  rules  and 
regulations  of  civil  service,  with  per- 
haps an  age  limit,  they  might  be  ex- 
cluded from  the  service  of  the  parks. 
This  would  deprive  the  public  of  their 
services  and  would  be  unfair  and  unjust 
to  the  employes. 

After  the  park  systems  have  been 
fully  organized  it  can  be  provided  either 
through  the  city  council  or  otherwise  that 
the  civil  service  shall  apply.  In  such  an 
event  the  public  will  have  the  benefit 
of  these  faithful  servanth,  these  experi- 
enced men,  and  only  justice  would  be 
done  to  the  employes  now  in  the  employ 
of  the  park  systems,  and  I am,  therefore, 
in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  this  Alterna- 
tive. 

MB.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 
sire to  offer  an  amendment  to  this  Al- 
ternative. I will  read  the  amendment 
and  then  explain  my  reasons  for  it: 

By  striking  out  the  words  “until  the 
city  council  shall  by  ordinance  so  pro- 
vide,M and  substituting  the  words,  “ex- 
cept as  provided  in  the  section  relating 
to  parks. f 1 

My  object  in  offering  this  motion  is 
simply  this:  That  in  the  section  relating 

to  parks  this  matter  will  come  up  under 
a recommendation  made  by  the  committee 
and  I suggest  that  the  Convention  con- 
sider the  question  of  applying  the  civil 
service  rules  to  the  parks  in  connection 
with  the  other  matter  relating  to  the 
parks  which  will  then  be  before  this  Con- 


vention for  consideration.  Thisprovides 
that  it  shall  not  apply  until  the  city 
council  shall  provide  by  ordinance.  Now 
when  it  comes  to  the  consideration  of 
all  the  questions  in  connection  with  the 
parks  the  Convention  may  decide  to 
adopt  some  other  form  of  resolution  in 
regard  to  the  civil  service.  I am  not  op- 
posed to  civil  service  in  the  least,  but 
it  is  merely  a suggestion  that  you  defer 
the  consideration  of  it  until  you  have  all 
the  questions  in  relation  to  the  parks 
before  you  for  consideration. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  someyhat  surprised  at  the  stand  taken 
by  Mr.  Eckhart  in  regard  to  this  Alterna- 
tive to  No.  1,  especially  so  after  hearing 
the  speeches  this  afternoon  in  this  Con- 
vention giving  reasons  why  the  municipal 
courts  and  other  departments  should 
be  put  under  the  civil  service 
law.  If  there  is  any  department  in 
the  city  of  Chicago  that  ought  to  be 
put  under  the  civil  service  and  controlled 
by  civil  service  it  is  the  great  park  sys- 
tems of  the  city  of  Chicago.  We,  in  the 
south  division  of  the  city  of  Chicago, 
think  we  have  the  grandest  park  system 
in  the  world,  and  for  years  in  that  sys- 
tem they  have  had  the  civil  service  rule. 
They  have  employes  there  in  that  South 
Park  system  who  have  been  employed 
for  upward  of  thirty  years,  ranging  from 
thirty  years  down  to  two  years,  and  we 
know  of  no  reason  why  they  should  be 
excluded  from  the  civil  service  law.  We 
all  know  that  if  the  department  of  parks 
comes  under  the  civil  service  law  that 
the  employes  now  there  will  be  the  same 
as  the  employes  who  were  in  the  city  hall 
in  1895  when  the  city  civil  service  act 
went  into  force.  They  will  be  hold-over 
employes.  They  will  not  have  the  right 
of  trial ; they  will  not  be  protected  by 
the  civil  service,  but  they  can  be  retained 
there  by  the  park  management  when  the 
management  knows  that  they  are  good 


December  6 


170 


1906 


and  faithful  servants.  But  if  we  put 
the  park  systems  under  civil  service  the 
same  as  all  other  deparments  of  the  city 
we  have  got  the  entrance,  and  that  is  the 
principal  thing.  Every  man,  hereafter, 
who  will  desire  employment  in  the  parks 
will  have  to  take  a civil  service  exami- 
nation to  enter  the  service. 

T wish  we  could  put  every  man  now 
employed  in  the  park  systems  under  the 
civil  service  law  and  have  them  protected 
by  the  civil  service  law.  We  cannot  do 
that.  It  will  be  a grave  mistake,  how- 
ever, to  exclude  the  parks.  What  will 
happen  if  you  do  so?  The  moment  that 
the  civil  service  law  goes  into  effect  when 
the  common  council  passes  an  ordinance 
providing  that  the  parks  will  come  under 
civil  service,  they  will  immediately  turn 
out  every  man  and  put  in  whom  they  de- 
sire in  their  places  before  the  law  goes 
into  effect.  I hope,  gentlemen,  that  this 
Convention  will  say  now  and  here  that 
the  park  systems  of  Chicago  will  come 
under  the  civil  service  law  the  same  as 
every  other  branch  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

MR.  COLE : Mr.  Chairman,  we  are 

now  going  on  record  here  for  an  ideal 
and  we  are  mixing  up  too  much  in  the 
details.  I believe  in  standing  for  the 
ideal  and  the  most  complete  and  thor- 
ough going  civil  service  that  is  possible, 
to  be  applied  to  every  human  being  that 
works  for  the  city  of  Chicago.  I be- 
lieve they  all  ought  to  be  put  under 
civil  service  without  any  ifs  and  the 
only  way  to  do  is  to  vote  down  every- 
thing that  tends  to  the  contrary. 

MR.  WILKINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

offer  a substitute,  that  the  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
Public  Parks.  I offer  that  as  a sub-  | 
stitute  for  the  motion. 

MR.  SNOW : I second  that  substi-  j 

tute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Wilkins  of-  j 

fers  a substitute  for  the  original  and 
the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Lath- 


rop,  and  the  Secretary  will  read  the 
substitute. 

(The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Wilkins’ 
substitute  as  hereinbefore  stated.) 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I offer  a substitute  for  all  the  substi- 
tutes that  have  so  far  been  offered. 

MR.  POST : Point  of  order,  Mr. 

Chairman,  there  are  two  amendments  be- 
fore the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Chair 

get  his  bearings  for  a moment.  There 
was  an  original  motion  and  Mr.  Lath- 
rop  amended  it  and  Mr.  Wilkins 
amended  the  amendment. 

MR.  WILKINS:  This  is  offered  as  a 

substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  finds 

no  place  in  Roberts’  Rules  of  Order 
that  recognizes  the  word  substitute,  and 
the  yellow  book  says  that  there  cannot 
be  an  amendment  to  an  amendment  to 
an  amendment. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Perhaps  I can 

simplify  this  matter  by  saying  that  I 
am  in  favor  of  applying  civil  service 
to  the  parks,  and  if  that  can  be  brought 
before  the  house  by  withdrawing  my 
amendment  I would  be  glad  to  do  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  substitute? 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: The  application  of  the  civil  ser- 

vice law  to  the  department  of  public 
parks  shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself 
to  discharge  the  present  employes. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

rule  that  that  is  not  a substitute  nor 
an  amendment. 

MR.  RAYMER:  That  is  not  ger- 

mane to  the  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  applica- 

tion simply  to  details.  Does  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal desire  to  discuss  the  matter? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No.  I rise  to 

a point  of  order:  I understood  Mr. 

Lathrop  was  willing  to  accept  that  for 
his  motion. 


December  6 


171 


1906 


ME.  LATHEOP:  I will  accept  that  | 

amendment  to  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  all  right, 

when  we  reach  it.  Your  motion  was  to 
adopt  the  resolution  as  printed.  Mr. 
Lathrop  amended  it  and  Mr.  Wilkins  [ 
presented  a substitute  for  the  entire 
matter,  and  until  the  consideration  of 
the  question  arises  on  the  original  mat- 
ter which  you  move  the  adoption  of  you 
cannot  accept  Mr.  Rosenthal  ’ s amend- 
ment. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : I under- 

stand, Mr.  Chairman,  that  Mr.  Lathrop 
has  withdrawn  his  motion. 

MR.  RAYMER : Mr.  Chairman,  point 

of  order.  Mr.  Lathrop,  as  I understand 
it,  did  not  withdraw  the  amendment,  but 
he  made  the  statement  that  if  a substi- 
tute could  be  offered  covering  the  mat- 
ter and  agreeing  with  his  idea  he  would 
be  glad  to  withdraw  his  substitute. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman, 

may  the  Secretary  read  Mr.  Wilkins’ 
amendment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Wilkins’ 
amendment,  as  hereinbefore  stated. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I accept  that 

amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  occurs  to  the 

Chair  that  a vote  upon  Mr.  Wilkins’ 
amendment  would  clear  matters  very 
much.  The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll 
upon  Mr.  Wilkins’  substitute. 

(The  Secretary  began  calling  the  roll 
when  interrupted.) 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  POWERS:  I move  you  that  the 
roll  call  be  dispensed  with. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  in  favor  of 

the  motion  will  signify  by  saying 
* 1 A ve.  ’ ’ 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  in  favor  of 

Mr.  Wilkin’s  substitute  signify  by  say- 
ing “ Aye.  ’ ’ 

The  motion  prevailed. 


MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I ask  for  a vote 
on  my  substitute. 

THE  SECRETARY  read:  “The  ap- 

plication of  the  civil  service  law  to  the 
Department  of  Public  Parks  shall  not 
operate  in  and  of  itself  to  discharge  the 
pdesent  employes.” 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  its  adop- 
tion. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Just  one 

word.  There  is  no  man  in  this  Con- 
vention that  will  go  any  farther  than 
I will  in  favor  of  civil  service.  I have 
not  only  advocated  it  in  the  past,  but 
have  practiced  it,  and  we  have  civil 
service  to-day  in  the  West  Park  sys- 
tem. 

My  only  purpose  in  offering  the  orig- 
inal motion  that  that  provision  be 
adopted  providing  that  the  efficient  and 
faithful  servants  of  the  park  system 
may  be  retained  was  that  the  city 
council,  or  whoever  may  have  charge  of 
the  parks,  might  adopt  rules  and  regula- 
tions by  which  they  might  be  excluded, 
and  that  they  might  be  excluded  on  ac- 
count of  the  age  limit. 

Two  years  ago,  when  the  committee 
that  had  in  charge  the  preparation  of 
the  bill  which  resulted  in  the  legislature 
creating  the  municipal  court  and  con- 
solidation of  the  park  system,  that  sub- 
ject was  discussed,  and  such  men  as 
John  P.  Wilson,  Mayor  Harrison,  John 
E.  Miller  and  others  on  that  commit- 
tee considered  that  it  was  essential  and 
necessary  to  make  some  provision,  so 
that  these  men  may  be  retained  in  the 
service. 

7 will  vote  for  any  civil  service  pro- 
vision anywhere  and  at  any  time,  but  I 
think  we  should  make  some  provision 
that  those  men  who  have  been  in  the 
park  system  for  fifteen  or  twenty-five 
.years  and  have  given  faithful  and 
efficient  service  may  be  retained  and 
I not  thrown  out  and  others  substituted, 
so  that  the  public  will  love  their  vain- 
able  services.  They  have  had  experi- 
ence and  are  familiar  with  every  detail 


December  6 


172 


1906 


of  the  parks.  That  was  the  only  rea- 
son for  moving  the  adoption  of  the 
provision,  and  I am  heartily  in  favor  of 
the  substitute  offered  by  the  gentleman 
on  my  right,  and  I hope  it  will  prevail. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

on  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Rosenthal  ’&  res- 
olution. As  many  as  favor  the  adoption 
signify  by  saying  “Aye.”  Opposed, 
“No.” 

The  motion  prevailed. 

MR.  BURKE:  I voted  in  the  affirm- 
ative, and  I would  like  to  have  my  vote 
so  shown. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  matter 

before  the  house  is  No.  1,  and  when 
that  is  disposed  of  we  will  take  up  the 
other. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I rise  to  move  the 

adoption  of  No.  1 as  amended. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  that  No.  1 as 
amended  be  adopted. 

A MEMBER:  It  has  not  been 

amended. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Assuming  that  No. 

1 was  amended  so  as  to  include  civil 
service  in  the  municipal  court;  second, 
the  park  system;  third,  that  provision 
be  made  to  protect  the  old  employes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  fa- 

vor No.  1 as  amended  say  “Aye.” 

The  motion  prevailed. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Before  we  pro- 

ceed with  civil  service,  it  seems  to  me 
that  we  ought  to  have  disposed  entire- 
ly of  the  matter  of  elections.  No.  6, 
that  was  proposed  by  me  the  other 
night,  is  still  before  the  house,  and 
that  was  the  recommendation  of  our 
Committee  on  Election. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  relates  to 

the  term  of  office  of  mayor. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, it  relates  to  elective  city  officers. 
It  is  on  page  152,  after  Mr.  Revell’s 
alternative  to  No.  6. 

The  Secretary  then  read,  at  page  152 
of  the  proceedings,  Mr.  Rosenthal's 
resolution. 


MR.  SHEPARD:  I don’t  see  the 

propriety  of  going  back  to  Chapter  4 
until  we  have  finished  up  Chapter  5. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  correct. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I desire  to  move 

you,  sir,  continuing  with  Chapter  5,  that 
No.  3 be  placed  on  file. 

MR.  SNOW:  No.  2 hasn’t  been  taken 
care  of  yet. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  gentleman  is 
correct.  The  Secretary  will  read  No.  2. 

The  Secretary  then  read  No.  2 as  it 
appears  in  the  proceedings  at  page  52. 

MR.  GUERIN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I have 
an  amendment  to  offer  to  No.  2. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Guerin: 
Members  of  the  classified  service  of 
any  department  may  be  suspended  by 
the  head  of  any  department  for  any 
cause  specified  in  writing  which  will 
promote  the  efficiency  of  the  service. 
They  shall  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
answer  the  charges  in  writing  and  shall 
be  entitled  to  a formal  hearing.  The 
civil  service  commission  shall  have 
power  to  investigate  the  cause  of  any 
suspension  and  reinstate  the  person  so 
suspended.  No  suspenion  shall  be  made 
for  political  or  religious  reasons,  or 
other  cause  prejudicial  to  the  efficiency 
of  the  public  service. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  Dr.  Guerin’s  substitute  for 
No.  2 to  Section  5. 

MR.  GUERIN : I just  want  to  make 

one  remark  in  regard  to  that.  It  seems 
to  me  that  No.  2,  as  it  is  here,  is  con- 
trary to  the  spirit  of  civil  service.  For 
example,  the  mayor  has  the  power  to 
appoint  the  civil  service  commission. 
He  also  has  the  power  to  appoint  the 
heads  of  departments.  Now,  then,  when 
a new  administration  comes  into  power 
it  permits  the  mayor  to  go  back  into- 
the  old  spoils  system,  so  called, — in 
other  words,  through  the  heads  of  the 
departments,  he  can  have  any  one  re- 
moved whom  he  pleases  for  any  bad 
cause,  and  that  person  who  is  so  re- 
moved is  deprived  of  a hearing,  and, 
therefore,  I offer  that  as  a substitute. 


December  6 


173 


1906 


MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  order  that 

the  matter  may  be  clearly  before  this 
house,  I will  ask  that  the  recommenda- 
tions of  our  committee  on  the  question 
of  civil  service  be  heard  at  this  time, 
and  then  I wish  to  say  a word  on  this 
subject. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  report  as  printed,  and 
then  read  Dr.  Guerin’s  substitute,  so 
that  the  matter  may  be  fully  under- 
stood. 

THE  SECRETARY: 

We  propose  the  following  amendments 
to  “AN  ACT  to  Regulate  Civil  Serv- 
ice of  Cities,”  approved  March  20, 
1895: 

FIRST — That  Section  I of  said  Act 
be  amended  by  changing  the  term  of 
the  commissioners  from  three  to  six 
years. 

SECOND — 8hat  Section  IX  of  said 
Act  be  amended  so  as  to  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

Section  IX.  Promotions.  The  com- 
mission shall,  by  its  rules,  provide  for 
promotions  in  such  classified  service  on 
the  basis  of  ascertained  merit  and  seni- 
ority in  service  and  examination,  and 
shall  provide  that  vacancies  shall  be 
filled  by  promotion  in  all  cases  where, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  commission  after 
consultation  with  the  head  of  the  de- 
partment in  which  the  vacancy  exists, 
it  will  be  for  the  best  interests  of  the 
service  so  to  fill  such  vacancy.  If,  in 
the  judgment  of  the  commission,  it  is 
not  in  the  best  interests  of  the  service 
to  fill  such  vacancy  by  promotional  ex- 
amination, then  such  vacancy  shall  be 
filled  by  an  original  entrance  examina- 
tion; provided,  however,  that  the  com- 
mission shall  in  its  rules  fix  upon  a 
credit  based  upon  ascertained  merit  and 
seniority  in  service,  to  be  given  to  all 
employers  in  the  classified  service  in 
line  of  promotion  who  submit  them- 
selves to  such  examination.  All  promo- 
tional examinations  shall  be  competi- 
tive among  such  members  of  the  next 


lower  rank  or  grade  as  desire  to  submit 
themselves  to  such  examination,  and  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  commission  to 
submit  to  the  appointing  power  the 
names  of  not  more  than  three  applicants 
for  each  promotion  having  the  highest 
rating.  The  method  of  examination  and 
the  rules  governing  the  same,  and  the 
method  of  certifying  a promotion  shall 
be  the  same  as  provided  for  applicants 
for  original  appointment. 

THIRD— That  Section  XII  of  said 
Act  be  amended  so  as  to  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

Section  XII.  Removals  and  Reduc- 
tion. Removals  from  the  classified 
service  or  reduction  in  grade  or  com- 
pensation, or  both,  may  be  made  in  any 
department  of  the  service  by  the  head 
of  such  department  for  any  cause  which 
will  promote  the  efficiency  of  the  serv- 
ice, but  only  on  written  specifications 
by  the  officer  making  the  removal  or 
reduction,  and  the  person  sought  to  be 
removed  or  reduced  shall  have  notice 
and  shall  be  served  with  a copy  of  the 
specifications  and  be  allowed  reasonable 
time  for  answering  the  same  in  writing, 
and  a copy  of  the  notice,  specifications, 
answer,  and  of  the  order  of  removal  or 
reduction,  shall  be  filed  with  the  civil 
service  commission.  Said  commission, 
or  some  officer  or  board  appointed  by 
said  commission  for  the  purpose,  shall 
investigate  any  removal  or  reduction 
which  said  commission  has  reason  to 
believe  has  not  been  made  in  accord- 
ance with  the  provisions  of  this  sec- 
tion, and  said  commission  may  in  any 
case  investigate  any  removal  or  reduc- 
tion or  cause  the  same  to  be  investi- 
gated by  some  officer  or  board  appoint- 
ed by  said  commission  to  conduct  such 
investigation,  and  then,  in  accordance 
| with  the  fundings  of  said  commission 
or  the  officer  or  board  so  appointed  to 
I conduct  said  investigation,  approve  or 
disapprove  the  same.  The  finding  and 
decision  of  such  commission  or  investi- 
I gating  officer  or  board,  when  approved 


December  6 


174 


1906 


by  said  commission,  shall  in  every  case 
by  final,  and  shall  be  certified  to  the 
appointing  officer  and  shall  be  forth- 
with enforced  by  such  officer.  A copy 
of  said  papers  in  each  case  shall  be 
made  a part  of  the  record  of  the  di- 
vision of  the  service  in  which  the  re- 
moval or  reduction  is  made.  Nothing 
in  this  act  shall  limit  the  power  of  an 
officer  to  suspend  a subordinate  for  a 
reasonable  period,  not  exceeding  thirty 
days.  In  the  course  of  an  investiga- 
tion of  charges,  each  member  of  the 
commission  and  of  any  board  so  ap- 
pointed by  it,  and  any  officer  so  ap- 
pointed, shall  have  the  power  to  admin- 
ister oaths  and  shall  have  the  power 
to  secure  by  its  subpoena  both  the  at- 
tendance and  testimony  of  witnesses, 
and  the  productin  of  books  and  papers 
relevant  to  such  investigation.  Noth- 
ing in  this  section  shall  be  construed 
to  require  such  charges  or  investigation 
in  cases  of  laborers  or  persons  having 
the  custody  of  public  money  for  the 
safe  keeping  of  which  another  person 
has  given  bonds. 

It  is  sugested  that  a new  section  be 
inserted  after  Section  XX,  to  read  as 
follows: 

No  applicant  for  examination  for  any 
office  or  place  of  employment  in  said 
classified  service  shall  wilfully  or  cor- 
ruptly, by  himself  or  in  co-operation 
with  one  or  more  other  persons,  deceive 
the  said  commission  with  reference  to 
his  identity,  or  wilfully  or  corruptly 
make  false  representations  in  his  ap- 
plication for  such  examination,  or  com- 
mit any  fraud  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
proving his  prospects  or  chances  in 
such  examination. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  is 

before  the  house  on  Dr.  Guerin’s  mo- 
tion to  substitute  his  resolution  for  the 
resolution  reported  by  the  committee. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  This  matter  was 

considered  quite  at  length  before  our 
Committee  on  Municipal  Elections,  and 
1 believe  in  reference  to  these  particu- 


lar provisions  that  have  just  been  read. 
The  vote  of  our  committee  was  unani- 
mous in  favor  of  those  provisions. 
Those  provisions  were  substantially 
adopted  by  the  committee,  referred  to 
by  Mr.  Cole  a short  time  ago,  and  ap- 
pointed by  President  Brundage.  I wish 
to  say,  however,  that  since  our  report 
became  known,  and  especially  since  the 
Committee  on  Rules  has  suggested  this 
particular  proposition,  there  has  been 
much  opposition  to  this  proposition 
from  various  quarters  which  are  en- 
titled to  a hearing. 

I have  before  me  at  the  present  time 
a lengthy  document  submitted  to  me  by 
various  bureau  heads  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment objecting  very  strenuously  to 
this  proposition  and  setting  forth  the 
reasons.  I believe  these  men  ought  to 
be  given  another  hearing  before  our 
Committee  on  Election  and  Appoint- 
ments and  Tenure  of  Office.  They  claim 
they  did  not  know  that  this  particular 
subject  was  up,  and  just  for  that  rea- 
son, Mr.  Chairman,  I move  to  refer 
proposition  No.  2 to  the  Committee  on 
Elections,  Appointments  and  Tenure  of 
Office,  to  report  at  a subsequent  meet- 
ing of  this  Convention. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  there  should 

be  some  limit  of  time  when  that  com- 
mittee should  report.  It  ought  not  to 
be  later  than  some  date,  say  after  next 
week,  when  it  should  be  fixed. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Within  ten 

days. 

MR.  FISHER:  Within  ten  days. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I accept  that 

amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

amendment? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  The  motion  as 

made  does  not  carry  with  it  Dr.  Guer- 
in ’s  amendment. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  the  whole 

matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  take 

the  entire  subject.  Gentlemen,  you 
have  heard  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  motion  that 


December  6 


175 


1906 


this  matter,  together  with  Dr.  Guerin’s 
substitute,  be  resubmitted  to  the  Com- 
mitte  on  Elections,  Appointments  and 
Tenure  of  Office,  with  instructions  to 
report  within  ten  days. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I have  another 

matter  I would  like  to  go  with  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  matter 

be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  O’Don- 
nell: Provided,  that  the  city  council 

shall  adopt,  by  ordinance,  rules  for  the 
government  of  each  city  department, 
and  the  conduct  of  the  work  and  busi- 
ness of  such  department,  prescribing 
the  duties  and  deportment  of  the  em- 
ployes of  such  city  department,  so  that 
the  employes  of  the  city  may  know  the 
rules  of  their  respective  departments 
and  what  their  duties  are  and  how  they 
should  conduct  themselves. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal. As  many  as  favor  it  signify  by 
saying  “Aye.” 

The  motion  prevailed. 

MR.  WILKINS:  We  voted  a while 

ago,  and  passed  it,  that  the  present 
employes  of  the  park  system  be  re- 
tained. I wish  to  offer  it  in  order  as 
a substitute  to  that  vote.  It  is  too  late, 
is  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  too  late. 

MR.  WILKINS:  Can  we  open  that 

again? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  may  be  re- 

considered, unless  you  desire  to  offer 
the  suggestion  in  the  form  of  an  inde- 
pendent resolution. 

MR.  WILKINS:  Well,  I will  make  j 

it  as  an  independent  resolution.  I will 
do  anything  to  get  to  offer  this  that  | 
I have.  I think  the  present  employes 
who  are  young  enough  are  better  pre-  j 
pa^ed  to  pass  an  examination  for  work 
to  be  done  than  anybody  that  we  could 
get  on  the  outside,  and  I offer  this  as 
a provision  making  arrangements  for 
persons  who  are  employed  now  and  that  ! 
are  past  the  age  limit,  that  the  civil 


I service  shall  not  apply  to  them,  but 
! that  it  shall  apply  to  all  men  who  are 
young  enough  to  take  the  examination, 
and  are  employed  there. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

i suggest  that  that  would  probably  come 
| before  the  Convention  as  an  independ- 
ent resolution — not  being  germane  to 
the  question  disposed  of. 

MR.  COLE:  I would  like  to  remind 

the  Convention  once  more  that  we  are 
adopting  a charter  and  not  a code. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  a dis- 

tinction that  might  be  borne  in  mind. 
The  Secretary  will  read  No.  3. 

The  Secretary  then  read  No.  3 as  it 
appears  in  the  proceedings  at  page  52. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I move  you,  sir, 

that  this  section,  paragraph  3,  be  placed 
on  file.  I do  it  for  this  reason.  In 
the  first  place,  I think  it  is  inoppor- 
tune to  revise  the  municipal  court  act 
at  this  time.  But  more  important  than 
that,  I think  it  is  dangerous  and  in- 
advisable to  now  place  upon  the  munic- 
ipal court  judges  the  political  function 
of  selecting  and  electing  these  officers. 
We  have  kept  aloof  from  that  thus  far 
in  this  Convention,  and  I sincerely  hope 
we  will  continue  to  do  so. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  It  is  moved  and 
seconded  that  No.  3,  of  Section  5,  be 
placed  on  file. 

MR.  POST:  What  does  “placing  on 

file”  mean? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  has 

construed  placing  on  file  and  laying  on 
the  table  synonymous. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I don’t  think 

Mr.  Shepard’s  suggestions  are  tenable, 
because  if  they  come  under  the  merit 
system,  the  temptation  to  appoint  par- 
ticular men  and  the  pressure  that  will 
be  used  for  the  purpose  of  appointing 
particular  men  will  be  removed. 

We  all  agree  on  one  proposition,  and 
that  is  that  the  number  of  elective 
officers  shall  be  reduced,  so  far  as  pos- 
sible, in  order  that  the  people  may 


December  6 


176 


1906 


vote  intelligently.  If  the  judges  are 
not  to  appoint  the  chief  bailiffs  and  the 
chief  clerks  of  the  municipal  court, 
where  is  that  appointment  to  be  lodged? 
You  can  certainly  rely  upon  the  judges 
for  the  purpose  of  making  correct  ap- 
pointments in  that  respect.  The  judges 
are  better  informed  as  to  what  partic- 
ular duties  are  required. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 
ther discussion  upon  this  subject? 

MR.  FISHER:  I want  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention  to  the  fact 
that  they  have  already  voted  that  the 
election  of  municipal  judges  shall  be 
held  at  the  time  when  none  other  than 
judges  are  to  be  elected.  According 
to  the  motion  of  Mr.  Shepard,  we  are 
about  to  provide  for  the  election  of  a 
bailiff  of  the  municipal  court.  It  ob- 
viously cannot  be  held  at  the  time  of 
the  election  of  the  municipal  judges 
because  it  will  be  the  election  then  of 
others  than  judicial  officers.  The  term 
of  office  will  not  be  continuous  with  the 
term  of  office  of  the  judges.  It  seems 
to  me  you  are  creating  a certain  amount 
of  confusion  in  the  whole  municipal 
court  situation  if  you  elect  a bailiff 
at  one  time  and  judges  at  another  time, 
and  for  a different  term  of  office.  The 
present  Municipal  Court  Act  provides 
that  judges  have  supervision  over  the 
appointees  of  the  Chief  Bailiff.  They 
are  supposed  to  be  engaged  in  exer- 
cising that  function  at  the  present 
time,  at  any  rate,  to  some  degree,  and 
I am  utterly  unable  to  see  why  you 
should  eliminate  the  city  clerk  or 
other  municipal  officers,  the  elimination 
of  whom  from  elections  has  been  rec- 
ommended by  a committee,  and  retain 
the  office  of  Chief  Bailiff  of  that  court. 
The  functions  of  the  Chief  Bailiff  are 
purely  to  execute  the  mandate  of  the 
court.  If  his  employes  are  under  civil 
service,  as  you  have  already  voted,  you 
are  simply  putting  yourselves  to  the 
difficulty  and  trouble  of  electing  a 
chief  bailiff  for  the  very  reason  that 


Mr.  Shepard  has  pointed  out,  namely, 
for  some  political  reason.  It  seems  to 
me  that  of  all  officers  that  could  well 
be  removed  from  the  field  of  partisan 
politics  in  municipal  elections,  certain- 
ly it  is  that  of  the  office  of  the  bailiff 
of  the  municipal  court.  That  is  the 
office  that  stands  out  most  conspicu- 
ously. We  have  elected  our  first  bailiff 
by  the  people  and  we  have  inaugurated 
the  court.  He  will  hold  office  during 
the  initial  term,  and  will  have  to  do 
with  getting  the  office  on  a running 
basis. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  politics  of  the 
bailiff  of  the  municipal  court  ought  to 
have  no  relation  to  the  election  of  that 
man  to  that  office.  I should  like  to  ask 
any  gentleman  present:  Why  should 

the  tariff  question  or  the  currency  ques- 
tion, or  any  other  question  which  di- 
vides the  national  political  parties  at 
the  present  time,  have  anything  what- 
ever to  do  with  the  election  of  a bailiff 
to  the  municipal  court. 

MR.  COLE:  May  I ask  a question? 

MR.  FISHER : Certainly. 

MR.  COLE:  Do  you  think  any 

judge’s  appointment  of  a bailiff  will 
remove  him  from  political  influence? 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  think  that  an 

appointment  of  a bailiff  by  the  judges 
will  remove  him  from  political  influ- 
ence. 

MR.  COLE:  Then  I would  like  to 

give  you  an  experience  which  I had 
within  the  last  twelve  months  which 
will  show  you  the  opposite. 

MR.  FISHER:  Just  a moment,  and 

I will  give  you  the  reasons  for  my 
opinion.  You  will  have  eliminated  en- 
tirely all  the  subordinates  from  his 
control.  There  is  no  possible  consid- 
eration which  will  govern  the  election 
of  that  man  except  the  selection  of 
somebody  who  will  fill  that  one  par- 
ticular place;  and  as  we  all  know,  and 
no  man  knows  better  than  the  man 
who  has  just  asked  the  question,  judges 
in  our  present  courts,  according  to  his 


December  6 


177 


1906 


own  tale,  have  attempted  to  evade  the 
duty  of  supervising  the  men  and  the 
work  which  is  directly  under  their  con- 
trol— namely,  their  clerks.  He,  of  all 
men,  has  complained  that  those  judges 
were  derelict  of  their  duty,  and  it  was 
up  to  them  to  see  that  those  things 
were  properly  conducted.  If  that  is 
true  of  the  clerk  of  the  court,  it  should 
be  still  more  true  as  to  the  bailiff  of 
the  court,  whose  sole  function  is  to  ex- 
ecute the  orders  of  the  court.  The 
bailiff  has  nothing  to  do  except  to 
carry  out  the  orders  of  the  court. 

MR.  DEVER:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

question.  I understand  the  point  made 
by  Mr.  Cole  is  this:  that  the  judicial 
qualities  of  these  candidates  are  such 
that  we  are  ready  to  believe  from  their 
conduct  in  the  past  that  they  will 
make  good  in  the  future,  as  they  have 
done  in  the  office  of  the  justice  of  the 
peace.  That  they  have  been  perform- 
ing those  duties  well  for  the  last  thir- 
ty years,  and  the  assumption  is  that 
they  will  perform  them  well  in  the 
future. 

MR.  FISHER:  I don’t  know  if  my 

time  runs  on  during  questions  or  not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  will  be  a 

time  allowance  of  two  minutes  for  the 
time  of  interruptions. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  tendency  of 

much  of  the  general  remarks  in  what 
has  been  said,  and  in  what  has  just 
been  put  in  the  form  of  a question,  has, 
in  each  case,  been  in  the  relation  to 
offices  where  there  are  a class  of  officers 
to  be  appointed;  and  I assume  that 
judges  and  everybody  else  are  more 
apt  to  evade  those  very  responsibilities 
when  those  responsibilities  cannot  be 
definitely  brought  home  to  him.  The 
election  of  justices  of  the  peace  is  by 
nomination  of  the  judges  and  selection 
by  the  senate  and  the  state  legislature. 
The  judges  nominate,  and  no  one  knows 
who  nominated  Tom,  Dick  and  Harry, 
and  the  whole  thing  goes  down  to  the 
legislature,  and  the  senate  selects  out  I 


I of  the  list  those  whom  it  desires  to 
have  appointed.  But  when  you  come 
to  clerks  the  judges  have  no  responsi- 
bility for  the  appointment  of  the 
clerks;  they  have  no  such  responsibility 
as  can  be  brought  home  to  them,  and  on 
that  very  ground  that  they  were  not 
responsible  for  this  election,  inasmuch 
j as  the  people  selected  the  clerk.  They 
say  it  is  up  to  the  people  to  select  the 
clerk,  who  shall  be  responsible  for  the 
office.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  a funda- 
mental principle  in  order  to  get  re- 
sponsible government,  that  you  must 
locate  responsibility  just  as  directly  as 
you  can,  and  if  there  is  just  one  chief 
bailiff  to  be  selected  by  the  judges, 
and  they  are  responsible  for  that  elec- 
tion, I would  like  to  know  how  they 
will  avoid  responsibility  for  it,  if  he 
does  not  perform  the  duties  well.  They 
will  be  solely  responsible  for  his  dere- 
liction. He  will  be  solely  under  their 
control,  and  it  seems  to  me  to  be  the 
place  to  put  that  responsibility,  so 
that  there  can  be  no  question  as  to 
where  it  is  located.  Personally,  as  I 
said  before,  it  seems  to  me  that  all  the 
offices  that  can  be  imagined — 

MR.  SHEPARD:  May  I,  with  your 

permission,  put  a question? 

MR.  FISHER:  Certainly. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I would  like  to  ask 
Mr.  Fisher  a question.  What  would 
he  do  with  the  office  under  the  term  of 
the  newly  elected  bailiff  and  clerks? 

MR.  FISHER:  I apprehend  the  term 
is  settled  by  the  legislature,  and  the 
action  of  the  convention  would  run  con- 
curerntly  with  the  legislature,  and  it 
would  be  for  the  legislature  to  change 
the  next  election. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Then  we  are  talk- 

ing six  years  in  advance.  All  this  talk 
about  the  bailiff  and  the  clerk,  keep- 
ing them  out  of  politics,  or  bringing 
them  into  politics,  is  six  years  in  ad- 
vance. 

MR.  FTSHER:  In  my  opinion  it 

would  do  a very  great  deal  to  take 


December  6 


178 


1906 


the  election  of  bailiff  and  clerk  out  of 
politics.  What  has  a bailiff,  as  I have 
said  before,  to  do  with  national  party 
politics?  He  is  not  likely  to  pick  his 
subordinates  out  of  political  reasons 
if  they  are  to  be  put  under  civil  ser- 
vice; and  if  the  bailiff  is  to  be  selected 
by  the  judges,  he  will  be  selected  for 
just  one  thing,  as  to  whether  he  will 
be  efficient,  and  a faithful  officer;  and 
for  the  very  excellent  reason  that  it  is 
not  that,— the  judges  and  the  judges 
alone  will  be  responsible.  Whereas,  if 
you  elect  the  judges,  or  the  bailiff,  if 
he  is  not  failthful  and  does  not  carry 
out  his  duty  satisfactorily,  the  judges 
will  avoid  that  responsibility,  and  you 
will  have  inefficiency  in  the  service. 
This  office,  above  all  others,  as  I said, 
certainly  should  be  put  under  the  con- 
trol of  the  clerk  to  which  he  is  re- 
sponsible. You  permit  the  mayor — it  is  | 
proposed  to  have  authority,  and  the  I 
only  proposal  in  that  regard  is  that 
the  city  council  should  select  a city 
clerk,  because  his  functions  are  simply 
to  carry  out  the  duties  of  the  city 
clerk.  You  have  already  combined  the 
office  of  city  attorney  with  that  of  cor- 
poration counsel,  by  law,  and  there  was 
no  opposition.  If  you  vote  these  two 
officers  together  you  will  have  made 
the  corporation  counsel  the  superior  of- 
ficer. Now,  you  propose  to  take  the 
chief  bailiff  and  elect  him  by  the  peo- 
ple under  some  principle  or  plan  of 
parties  and  politics.  For  my  own  part 
I see  no  sufficient  excuse  for  it. 

MR.  COLE:  For  fear  that  my  elo- 

quent and  learned  friend  may  have  put 
a haze  over  the  Convention,  I would 
like  to  give  a little  experience  that 
happened  within  the  last  twelve 
months.  Now,  I am  very  much  in  ear- 
nest over  all  this,  for  some  of  my 
heart ’s  blood  has  gone  into  it.  It  I 
took  place  within  the  last  twelve 
months  in  this  city.  There  was  a va- 
cancy in  the  office  of  the  circuit  court. 
The  clerk  had  an  engagement  at  Jo- 


liet, and  there  was  a vacancy  for  that 
reason.  The  judges  of  the  circuit  court 
were  committed  to  the  appointment,  or 
election  of  a man  in  the  place  that  had 
been  bailiff  for  a good  many  years. 
We  headed  that  off  with  a very  great 
deal  of  difficulty,  and  when  they  got 
through  that  they  excused  themselves 
with  the  excuse  that  they  didn’t  know 
anything  about  the  man.  Within  for- 
ty-eight  hours  from  the  time  the  judges 
were  headed  off  from  that  appointment, 
which  would  have  stopped  the  whole 
investigation,  every  one  of  the  judges 
sent  to  the  clerk  of  the  court  a personal 
letter,  or  signed  a letter,  asking  the 
appointment  of  this  very  man  who  had 
been  headed  off,  and  within  three  days 
after  his  appointment  he  was  the  sub- 
ject of  an  investigation.  When  he  was 
brought  to  the  point  and  had  to  con- 
fess, he  said:  “I  don’t  know  what 

the  devil  you  people  made  such  a lot 
of  fuss  about;  this  thing  has  been  go- 
ing on  now  for  thirty  years,  to  my 
knowledge.  ’ ’ It  had  been  going  on  for 
over  forty  years.  In  three  weeks  from 
the  time  this  investigation  was  taken 
up  by  private  individuals,  the  judges’ 
attention  was  called  to  the  matter,  and 
they  refused  to  make  investigation  or 
to  request  anybody  else  to  make  an  in- 
vestigation on  this  particular  point.  I 
say  the  judges  of  the  circuit  court  have 
proved  in  their  corporate  capacities — 
not  as  individuals, — they  are  honorable 
as  individuals,  all  of  them.  I say,  as 
individuals  they  have  proved  them- 
selves to  be  political  cowards,  and  I do 
not  propose  to  put  the  appointment  of 
anybody  in  the  hands  of  anybody  who 
| has  proved  himself  to  be  a political 
I coward.  Now,  I am  very  much  in  ear- 
nest about  this.  I did  not  expect  to 
say  this,  but  my  friend,  with  his  elo- 
quence, is  liable  to  bring  us  off  the 
point. 

MR.  PEND AR VIS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  been  fully  impressed  with  this 
fact,  that  in  our  previous  discussions  on 


December  6 


179 


1906 


questions  similar  to  this,  and  in  the  1 
discussion  of  this  question,  the  only 
question  is  as  to  the  kind  of  service  that 
you  expect  to  get  from  the  method  of 
your  election  or  appointment;  whether 
you  are  to  get  a better  man  by  election 
or  by  appointment;  whether  you  will 
get  better  service  through  an  election 
or  through  an  appointment.  Now,  I 
am  frank  to  say  that  I cannot  tell  by 
which  method  you  will  get  the  best 
man;  whether  by  election  or  by  ap- 
pointment. It  is  a great  guess  at  any  } 
rate,  whichever  way  we  decide  the 
question.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems 
to  me  that  we  can  discern  one  or  two 
things  which  will  influence  that  ques- 
tion. I feel,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  working  j 
out  this  municipal  court  act,  we  have  ; 
worked  out  a strictly  good  scheme.  The 
act  provides  that  these  judges  shall 
hold  meetings  to  consider  matters  that  i 
come  before  them  from  day  to  day  and 
work  in  harmony.  It  strikes  me  that  j 
the  less  matter  we  inject  into  those  [ 
meetings  to  disturb  the  routine  of  the  j 
court  work,  the  better  we  will  act  for 
the  harmony  of  the  procedure  among 
those  judges.  Now,  you  cannot  deny 
the  fact  that  we  have  put  into  the 
hands  of  the  judges  the  appointment  of 
these  officers.  Even  if  there  are  only 
two  officers,  even  if  they  have  no  power 
of  the  appointment  of  subordinates, 
there  will  be  factional  strife;  there  is 
liable  to  be  factional  strife  over  the 
appointment  of  those  two  officers. 
Some  of  the  judges  will  contend  for 
the  appointment  of  one  man,  and  some 
of  them  will  contend  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  another  man,  and  you  cannot 
tell,  and  I cannot  tell,  how  far  that 
may  disturb  the  harmony  of  the  pro- 
cedure of  the  court.  We  want  that  mu- 
nicipal court  maintained  so  that  the 
judges,  as  they  leave  from  day  to  day, 
will  have  none  of  these  questions  about 
them  that  will  disturb  the  harmony 
under  which  they  should  work  and  con- 


sider questions  of  practice  and  proced- 
ure. 

Another  thing,  if  you  place  in  the 
hands  cf  the  judges  the  power  of  ap- 
pointment, it  must  almost  necessarily 
follow  that  you  must  place  in  their 
hands  the  power  of  the  discharge  of 
those  officials.  And  there  again  you 
may  inject  into  the  proceedings  before 
these  judges  things  that  will  cause  con- 
tention and  which  should  not  be 
brought  to  disturb  the  harmony  of  their 
proceedings.  I will  not  say  that  the 
election  of  those  officers  is  the  best 
method  by  which  they  shall  be  ap- 
pointed, but  I do  believe,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  we  cannot  urge  any  argu- 
ment here  that  will  show  that  the  ap- 
pointment by  the  judges  is  the  superior 
method  to  that  which  is  now  prescribed 
by  law. 

MB.  BE  YELL:  May  I ask  a ques- 

tion? Will  there  be  any  serious  ob- 
jection in  the  appointment  of  bailiffs 
and  clerks  by  the  chief  justice  of  the 
municipal  court,  taking  all  the  judges 
out  of  it.  Can  you  see  it? 

MB,  PEND AB VIS:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I cannot  anticipate  how  much  that 
might  influence  the  chief  justice  in  the 
absolutely  impartial  discharge  of  his 
duties.  He  is  vested  with  very  great 
executive  and  functional  powers  now. 
1 should  hate  to  recommend  that.  I 
have  maintained  in  committee,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  we  should  not  tinker 
with  this  municipal  court  law  at  the 
present  time.  There  is  no  necessity  for 
a serious  amendment  of  the  municipal 
coi\rt  act.  It  stands  separate  and  apart 
f'om  the  charter.  You  are  going  to 
recommend  amendments  to  it  without 
fair  trial,  and  it  should  be  amended 
only  in  serious  respects  when  you  go 
into  the  legislature.  Then  you  may 
point  out  reasons  for  amendments  and 
change.  But  you  cannot  go  before  the 
legislature  at  this  next  session  and  say 
that  it  has  been  demonstrated  that  the 
method  of  the  selection  of  these  officers 


December  6 


180 


1906 


should  be  changed.  No  reason  has  been 
apparent  to  us  as  yet  why  there  should 
be  a change.  The  men  that  have  been 
selected  have  not  been  proved  incom- 
petent or  poor  selections.  But  if  we 
let  this  rest  until  the  law  has  been 
tried,  we  may  find  that  it  needs  amend- 
ment in  other  respects  and  we  can  go 
before  the  legislature  and  point  out 
why  it  should  be  changed. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  the  disposition  in 
dealing  with  this  matter  is  to  get 
away  as  far  as  possible,  so  far  as  the 
courts  are  concerned,  from  political 
influences.  I am  inclined  to  think  if 
the  power  was  vested  in  the  chief 
justice  to  appoint  the  bailiff  and  the 
clerk,  he  would  simply  take  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  party  who  sent  him 
— of  the  party  to  which  he  may  be  af- 
filiated. I question  if  the  power  were 
vested  in  the  chief  justice  that  we 
would  have  eliminated  politics  as  much 
as  we  think  we  are  doing.  I will  be 
glad  to  support  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Shepard. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  the 

motion  is  before  the  house  that  No.  3 
be  rejected. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  in  favor  of  the  proposition  as  ap- 
pears in  this  resolution,  but  my  rea- 
sons are  somewhat  different  from  those 
that  have  been  urged  so  far.  I think 
no  one  who  voted  at  the  last  election 
could  have  failed  to  thoroughly  under- 
stand that  something  is  wrong.  In  the 
district  in  which  I voted  there  was  a 
large  list  of  officers,  and  I believe  the 
desire  of  the  Convention  is  to  cut 
down  the  number  of  elective  offices. 
All  officers  should  be  held  directly  re- 
sponsible to  the  people,  but  there  seems 
to  me  to  be  no  adequate  reason  why 
the  clerk  of  the  municipal  court,  or  the 
chief  bailiff  of  that  court,  should  be 
responsible  directly  to  the  people.  We 
can  accomplish  exactly  the  same  result 
by  providing  for  the  appointment  of 


such  officers  by  the  chief  justice  of  the 
municipal  court,  in  which  case  you 
center  responsibility  directly  upon  one 
person;  or  by  the  judges.  Assuming, 
even  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that  it 
were  the  even  custom  as  between  the 
judges  and  the  people  as  to  whether 
the  election  should  be  by  the  people  or 
the  judges,  that  is  precisely  the  fac- 
tor that  would  cumber  up  the  people’s 
ballot,  and  the  people  would  be  less 
likely,  therefore,  to  make  careful  and 
discriminate  choice  in  their  officers. 
The  smaller  number  of  elective  officers 
y.ou  have,  provided  you  have  a suffi- 
cient number  of  proper  control,  the  bet- 
ter results  you  will  get.  What  we  aim 
at,  I take  it,  is  to  get  a better  govern- 
ment that  will  be  as  far  as  possible, 
and  as  quickly  as  possible,  responsible 
and  responsive  to  the  popular  demand. 
Where  we  add  name  after  name  to  the 
ballot,  we  perplex  and  confuse  the  vot- 
er, and  we  do  not  get  a careful  and  dis- 
criminate vote;  but,  on  the  other  hand, 
you  get  a less  intelligent  and  less  dis- 
criminate choice  than  we  would  if  we 
had  a smaller  number.  That  was  suf- 
ficiently demonstrated  at  the  last  elec- 
tion. We  are  desiring  now  to  cut  down 
to  a pretty  small  number,  the  list  of 
elective  officers,  and  yet  we  are  adding 
to  the  list  again  by  this  proposition. 
Why  should  we  add  these  two  officers, 
the  chief  bailiff  and  the  chief  clerk. 
My  proposition  is  that  the  increasing 
number  of  these  officers  is  defeating 
the  very  object  we  have  in  mind,  that 
is,  making  the  government  responsible 
to  the  people.  Therefore  I favor  the 
proposed  change. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  heard  the  arguments  pro  and  con 
in  this  matter,  and  I am  of  the  opin- 
ion that  I would  rather  risk  the  ballot 
than  the  judges.  The  judges  are  old 
gentlemen  who  are  looking  for  their 
position  in  life  and  in  the  courts.  The 
ambition  of  every  lawyer  is  to  be  a 
judge,  and  that  is  as  it  should  be.  But 


December  6 


181 


1906 


when  a man  is  in  that  office  he  should 
not  have  anything  to  do  with  practical 
politics.  In  other  words,  if  you  leave 
it  in  the  hands  of  the  judges,  it  will 
simply  be  dictated  by  a lot  of  poli- 
ticians, who  will  make  this  a political 
office.  For  that  reason  I believe  it  is 
better  to  leave  it  in  the  hands  of  the 
people  rather  than  in  the  hands  of  the 
judges. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

suggest  an  amendment  to  the  present 
motion,  which  I have  sent  up  to  the 
Secretary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: The  bailiff  and  chief  clerk  of  the 

municipal  court  shall  be  appointed  by 
the  chief  justice  of  the  municipal 
court;  but  each  officer  shall  be  sub- 
ject to  removal  by  a majority  of  the 
judges  of  the  municipal  court  for  in- 
competency, inefficiency,  malfeasance 
or  misfeasance  in  office.  The  reasons 
for  such  removal  shall  be  specified  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  rec- 
ord of  the  court. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I would  like  to  say  one  or  two  words 
about  that  motion.  The  only  tenable 
objection  it  seems  to  me  to  be  urged 
to  the  motion  as  proposed,  is  that  you 
put  all  of  your  judges  into  politics. 
Now  here  we  are  fastening  responsi- 
bility upon  one  particular  man  who 
ought  to  know  who  is  the  most  com- 
petent person  to  have  as  clerk,  and 
who  is  the  most  competent  person 
to  have  as  bailiff.  Now, inorder  that 
that  man ’s  power  may  be  controlled 
in  a certain  measure,  you  give  to 
the  majority  of  the  judges,  power 
over  incompetence  and  inefficiency 
and  malfeasance.  I have  spoken  with 
the  judges  of  the  supreme  court,  and 
I have  spoken  with  the  judges  of 
other  courts,  and  they  all  of  them  agree 
that  one  great  defect  in  our  present 
system  is  that  the  judges  do  not  have 


the  power  to  remove  the  clerk;  and  the 
spectacle  has  happened  here  in  this 
state,  that  clerks  have  disgraced  the 
court  by  their  misconduct.  Under  this 
system,  those  same  clerks  in  municipal 
courts  could  be  removed  by  a majority 
of  the  judges.  In  one  of  our  dignified 
courts  in  this  state  it  has  happened  that 
the  clerk  has  repeatedly  come  into  the 
court  intoxicated,  and  still  the  judges 
are  powerless  to  do  anything  in  the 
matter. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Rosenthal  has 

stated  my  position  in  this  matter.  It 
seems  to  me  in  the  beginning  of  this 
debate,  that  the  only  reason  urged  was 
the  bringing  under  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  judges  and  it  occurred  to  me  that 
it  was  a matter  that  should  be  avoided 
as  far  as  these  judges  are  concerned. 
Now,  you  cannot  eleminate  politics  en- 
tirely from  the  proposition.  Even  if 
you  elect  a man,  or  the  people  elect  a 
man,  some  of  the  parties  nominate  the 
candidate,  and  politics  will  be  in  it 
to  that  extent.  It  seems  to  me  if  the 
duty  of  tranfer  has  got  to  be  made 
from  the  judges  of  the  County  Central 
Committee  to  either  of  the  parties,  it 
will  be  a great  deal  better  to  transfer 
it  rfom  the  judges  to  the  County  Central 
Committee.  That  will  at  least  let  them 
out  of  it.  But  my  impression  is  that 
the  best  thing  is  to  adopt  the  resolu- 
tion just  offered  by  Mr.  Rosenthal,  and 
put  the  matter  in  the  hands  of  the  chief 
justice,  let  influence  on  him  come  from 
where  it  may.  There  will  be  a per- 
centage of  influence  both  ways,  and 
any  way  we  may  decide  it. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish 

to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
progressive  movement  in  connection 
with  the  courts  is  toward  giving  the 
judges  certain  power  in  controlling  the 
men  who  execute  the  laws,  and  to  hold 
them  responsible.  Now,  I would  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  our  munici- 
pal court  act  is  one  of  the  most  pro- 
gressive pieces  of  legislation  that  has 


December  6 


182 


1906 


been  enacted  in  this  state,  or  perhaps  in 
any  other  state,  in  the  matter  of  courts 
for  some  time;  and  you  will  notice  that 
that  act  provides  that  the  majority  of 
judges  of  the  municipal  court  may  re- 
move the  deputy  bailiffs  and  the  deputy 
clerks.  Now,  if  we  are  going  to  take 
away,  if  we  are  going  to  provide  that 
the  appointment  of  these  deputies  shall 
be  by  civil  service,  that  leaves  the 
bailiff — that  is,  the  chief  bailiff  and 
the  chief  clerk,  in  a position  where  I 
can  see  no  reason  why  our  ballots 
should  be  encumbered  by  their  names. 
I do  not  believe  there  was  one  man  out 
of  a hundred  at  the  last  election  who 
went  to  the  ballot  for  these  men  for 
any  other  reason  than  that  they  were 
either  on  the  republican  or  the  dem- 
ocratic ticket.  I do  not  believe  those 
are  positions  of  such  prominence  that 
the  average  voter  cares  for  them,  in- 
dividually, and  therefore  vote  for  them 
because  of  their  personality.  I believe 
they  should  be  removed  from  the  ballot 
in  view  of  the  march  of  progress, 
wherein  we  are  decreasing  the  number 
of  elective  offices;  and  I believe  they 
should  be  appointed  by  the  court,  be- 
cause it  is  in  the  line  of  progress  where- 
in the  judges  are  to  be  given  certain 
powers  of  supervision  over  matters 
coming  under  their  control  and  direc- 
tion; and  whereby  we  are  to  hold  the 
judges  responsible,  in  a measure,  for 
those  matters  that  come  under  their 
charge.  I am  therefore  in  favor  of 
continuing  this  progress,  and  giving  the 
chief  justice  the  power  to  appoint  these 
two  officers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Dever, 
do  you  desire  the  floor? 

MR.  DEVER:  No. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Permit  me,— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Go  ahead,  Mr. 

Shepard. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Just  a word,  Mr. 

Chairman,  and  gentlemen.  It  seems  to 
me  that  those  who  have  opposed  my 
motion  to  reject  paragraph  3,  have 


apporoached  this  question  from  a wrong^ 
point  of  view.  In  these  remarks  I am 
very  serious.  I cannot  understand  how 
any  lawyer  can  oppose  that  motion  or 
take  the  position  taken  by  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal and  by  Mr.  Fisher.  The  point  made 
by  Mr.  Merriam  is  that  we  want  to 
take  a few  more  names  off  the  ballot. 
The  point  made  by  Mr.  Rosenthal  and 
Mr.  Fisher  is  that  we  will  simplify  the 
ballot  by  taking  the  clerks  out  of  pol- 
itics. That  is  not  the  real  heart  of  this 
question,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  question 
just  before  this  Convention  now  is  ju- 
diciary. The  thing  that  we  want  to  do 
and  I maintain  here  has  to  do  with  a 
power  and  an  absolutely  independent 
judiciary.  We  can  only  have  that  by 
keeping  the  judges  as  far  as  possible 
removed  from  politics. 

MR.  FISHER:  Permit  me  to  ask  a 

question. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Certainly,  what  is 

it? 

MR.  FISHER : Will  you  be  in  favor 

of  a general  resolution  that  the  chief 
clerk  and  the  chief  bailiff  should  be 
appointed  by  anybody;  I mean  in  pref- 
erence to  being  elected? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I am  not  sure. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  really  the 

heart  of  the  question. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  No,  sir,  that  is  not 

the  heart  of  the  question.  The  object 
of  my  motion  to  reject  this  resolution 
is  to  keep  the  judiciary  out  of  politics. 
In  the  first  instance  we  must  elect 
them.  When  we  have  elected  them  we 
finish  their  political  career  as  long  as 
they  sit  upon  the  bench.  But  let  us 
not  thrust  upon  them  in  these  new 
laws  something  that  has  never  been 
put  upon  them  in  placing  in  their  hands 
distribution  of  patronage  so  that  in- 
dividuals will  lay  for  them  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  their  political  friends  and 
favorites. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  substitute,  and 


December  6 


183 


1906 


the  Secretary  will  read  the  substitute 
and  call  the  roll  upon  its  adoption. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute  as 
hereinbefore  printed. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Burke,  Crilly, 
Fisher,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty, 
Merriam,  Owens,  Revell,  Rosenthal, 
Taylor — 13. 

Nays  — Baker,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Church,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoynw, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  MacMillan,  McKin- 
ley, O ’Donnell,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Pow- 
ers, Rainey,  Raymer,  Robins,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  Young,  Zimmer — 31. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  POST : I wish  to  explain  my 

vote.  I do  not  believe  in  the  popular 
election  of  such  officers  as  court  bailiffs 
and  court  clerks;  neither  do  I believe  in 
placing  the  powers  of  appointment  to 
offices  of  that  character,  or  any  other, 
in  fact,  in  the  judiciary;  for  that  reason, 
I am  in  hopes  that  we  will  have  the 
matter  presented  as  directly  as  possi- 
ble, and  on  the  question  of  appointment 
or  election,  I vote  no,  as  between  ap- 
pointment and  election,  I vote  no. 

MR.  ROBINS:  As  I understand  this 

vote,  it  does  not  preclude  a vote  upon 
the  proposition  of  the  majority  of  judges 
appointing  the  Chief  Bailiff. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  is  no  such 

proposition  before  the  house ; there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  it  being  offered  after 
this  vote  is  disposed  of. 

MR.  JONES:  Section  3 provides  that 

the  judges  shall  appoint;  we  shall  have 
an  opportunity  to  vote  on  Section  3, 
shall  we  not? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  got 

mixed  up  on  that;  that  is  right.  That 
question  will  be  raised,  Mr.  Robins,  up- 
on Mr.  Shepard ’s  motion  to  reject. 
Upon  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  substitute,  the 
adoption  of  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  substitute, 
yeas,  13;  nays,  31;  it  is  lost. 

MR.  USHER:  It  seems  to  me  the 


fundamental  question  we  are  up  to  here 
in  this  matter  is  whether  we  are  going 
to  have  the  Chief  Bailiff  and  Chief 
Clerk  elective  or  appointive  officers.  The 
question  of  who  is  to  appoint  the  Chief 
Clerk  or  the  Chief  Bailiff  is  another 
question,  which  need  not  be  decided  now. 
But  the  question  now,  and  to  my  mind, 
the  question  of  controlling  importance, 
and  that  which  really  is  the  issue  here, 
is  whether  they  shall  be  elected  or  ap- 
pointed, and  I call  for  a division  of  the 
proposition,  and  I offer  the  following 
amendment  to  the  resolution : 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr. 

Fisher:  The  Chief  Bailiff”— 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I rise  to  a point  of 

order.  He  calls  for  a division  of  the 
question.  My  point  of  order  is  that  the 
proposition  is  before  the  house  and  is 
not  susceptible  of  two  votes,  or  of  a 
division. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  rules 

that  the  question  is  a single  one  and 
cannot  be  divided.  The  Secretary  will 
read  Mr.  Fisher’s  resolution. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  the  reason  I 

offered  this  as  an  amendment  anticipa- 
ting the  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  proposition  and  the  amend- 
ment. 

The  Secretary  read:  The  Chief  Bailiff 
and  Chief  Clerk  of  the  Municipal  Court 
shall  be  appointive  and  not  elective  offi- 
cers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  offer 

this  as  a substitute? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes. 

MR.  DEVER:  We  didn’t  get  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it  again. 

The  Secretary  re-read  Mr.  Fisher’s 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  COLE : Officers  of  what,  I 

would  like  to  ask? 


December  6 


184 


1906 


MR.  FISHER:  Officers  of  the  city  I 

of  Chicago,  if  yon  want  that  added  | 
to  the  resolution. 

MR.  MAC  MILLAN:  I hope  Mr. 

Fisher  will  tell  us  by  whom  these  per- 
sons are  to  be  appointed.  This  is  vot- 
ing in  the  dark;  no  one  understands  how 
it  is  to  be  done,  and  I submit  it  is  in  defi- 
nite, and  that  it  is  an  irrelevant  propo- 
sition. It  seems  to  me  we  are  leaving 
paragraph  No.  3 entirely  unquestioned. 
If  Mr.  Fisher  or  any  other  gentleman 
has  a proposition  to  submit  with  respect 
to  by  whom  these  men  are  to  be  ap- 
pointed, or  whether  they  shall  be  elected, 
let  us  have  that  proposition.  This  is  not 
clear,  this  is  not  distinct.  We  might 
vote  on  this  and  some  other  proposition 
be  introduced  later  which  would  be  en- 
tirely foreign  to  that  suggested  by  Mr. 
Fisher.  I hope  this  amendment  will  be 
voted  down. 

MR.  FISHER:  We  have  heretofore 

in  the  progress  of  this  Convention,  at- 
tempted to  facilitate  definite  action.  We 
are  now  on  a certain  class  of  political 
questions  apparently  attempting  to  ob- 
scure the  issue.  It  is  a very  clear  ques- 
tion. If  the  gentlemen  of  this  Con- 
vention believe  in  partisan  politics  to 
the  extent  that  they  wish  to  elect  the 
Chief  Bailiff  and  the  Chief  Clerk,  why 
not  say  so?  If  this  Convention  believes 
in  appointing  them,  why  not  say  so? 
We  have  heretofore  adopted  the  princi- 
ple of  having  a resolution  with  sub- 
heads, A.  B.  and  C.  Now,  my  reso- 
lution contemplates  that  we  shall  first 
settle  the  principal  resolution  as  to 
whether  the  Chief  Bailiff  and  Chief 
Clerk  shall  be  appointed  or  elected,  and 
then  we  can  proceed  to  discuss  the  ques- 
tion by  appropriate  resolution,  numbered 
B or  C,  or  whatever  we  choose,  under 
which  we  will  decide  which  shall  be 
done.  For  my  part  I care  but  little  who 
appoints  them,  providing  it  is  a respect- 
able body,  and  not  put  upon  the  electoral 
ballot  and  go  before  the  people,  especial- 


ly when  you  have  retained  party  prima- 
ries, and  are  going  to  do  exactly  what 
Senator  Jones  has  said,  to  elect  a Chief 
Clerk  or  a Chief  Bailiff  because  he  is 
a Republican  or  a Democrat.  You  are 
not  going  into  the  issue  of  the  effi- 
ciency or  inefficiency  of  the  Chief  Clerk 
or  the  Chief  Bailiff,  if  you  nominate 
them  and  elect  them  before  the  people, 
and  you  will  not  have  any  responsibility 
to  anybody  if  they  get  in  there.  Who 
really  cares  whether  the  Chief  Bailiff  or 
the  Chief  Clerk  is  a Republican  or  a 
Democrat  in  this  city,  who  has  really 
the  interest  of  the  Municipal  Govern- 
ment of  the  city  at  heart?  Perhaps  the 
reason  for  making  a distinction  between 
the  parties  is  that  it  makes  one  more 
office  to  put  on  the  ballot  to  be  dis- 
posed of  as  part  of  the  spoils  of  the 
political  organization.  I yield  to  no 
man  in  the  belief  of  the  chief  function 
of  the  political  party ; but  I believe 
there  are  men  in  office  willing  to  confine 
the  elections  to  the  direct  issue,  and 
make  those  issues  issues  upon  which  par- 
ties legitimately  separate,  the  issue  in 
favor  of  a political  party. 

I say  to  you  that  Democracy  today  in 
this  nation  has  suffered  more  on  account 
of  the  artificial  action  of  certain  organi- 
zations misquoted  as  Democrats,  than 
from  almost  any  other  single  thing;  and 
I say  to  you  from  one  end  of  this  coun- 
try to  the  other,  for  years  past  the 
wrongdoings  of  the  Municipal  ring  of 
the  city  of  Philadelphia  have  been  heard 
from  one  end  of  the  country  to  the 
other,  so  distinctly  rotten  and  bad;  and 
neither  the  Tammany  Hall  organization 
in  New  York  nor  the  ring  in  Philadel- 
phia has  any  legitimate  function  within 
the  national  parties;  it  is  a spoils  or- 
ganization pure  and  simple;  and  that 
such  organizations  grow  and  thrive  in 
Municipal  elections  only  when  they  per- 
mit the  elections  to  control  the  nomina- 
tions bv  the  people  of  officers  where  the 
issues  of  national  politics  have  no  legiti- 
mate concern  with  the  selection.  I think 


December  6 


185 


1906 


the  thing  that  is  going  to  do  more  to 
make  party  organizations  live,  vital  and 
healthy  than  any  other  one  thing  is  to 
make  that  organization  depend  upon  the 
adherence  to  its  tenets,  and  the  men  who 
believe  in  those  principles,  not  call 
them  artificial  adherents  to  them;  that 
when  we  raise  in  this  city  the  issue  of 
efficiency — I don ’t  care  whether  it  is  the 
efficiency  of  the  Chief  Clerk  or  the  effi- 
ciency of  the  Chief  Bailiff  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court,  or  what  it  is,  when  we 
put  men  on  the  ballot  as  nominees  of 
the  Republican  or  Democratic  parties 
and  ask  the  people  to  vote  for  those  men 
upon  issues  that  have  nothing  to  do  with 
Republicanism  or  Democracy,  we  are  do- 
ing more  to  undermine  national  political 
parties  than  any  other  one  thing.  And 
if  you  want  to  look  to  the  secret  of  the 
growth  and  development  of  independence 
in  Municipal  elections,  you  can  put  your 
finger  on  it  right  there;  that  the  one 
thing  that  has  done  more  than  any  other 
thing  has  been  the  growing  conviction 
in  the  minds  of  the  mass  of  the  people 
that  the  elections  do  not  represent  any 
real  issue.  There  is  nothing  in  it  when 
John  Jones  goes  on  the  ballot  and  is 
nominated  as  a Republican,  or  an  officer 
which  Republicanism  has  nothing  to  do 
with ; and  naturally,  inevitably,  you  find 
a large  body  of  Republican  voters  out  of 
sympathy  with  either  party,  breaking 
away  from  party  lines,  discrediting  the 
party  to  which  they  belong,  by  defeat- 
ing the  party  candidate,  the  candidate 
of  the  party. 

I am  in  favor  of  the  simple  proposi- 
tion of  reducing  the  number  of  elective 
Municipal  officers  to  its  lowest  legiti- 
mate term,  and  to  secure  that  purpose 
I am  offering  this  resolution.  We  will 
take  it  and  discuss  it  as  men  of  com- 
mon sense  and  sanity,  and  pass  upon 
the  question  of  who  is  to  appoint  them 
once  we  decide  the  question  that  we 
don ’t  want  them  elected. 

MR.  COLE:  T don’t  think  my  friend, 


Mr.  Fisher,  will  exactly  accuse  me  of  be- 
ing a hide-bound,  thick  and  thin  party 
man.  At  the  same  time  I am  opposed 
to  that  amendment.  I am  opposed  to  it, 
while  in  sympathy  with  Mr.  Fisher’s 
speech,  with  the  spirit  of  his  speech.  I 
am  opposed  to  the  amendment  because 
of  the  very  reason  that  we  want  to  get 
action.  These  men  are  elected  for  six 
years,  and  I want  to  say  to  you  that 
the  independent  spirit  in  Chicago  will 
be  a good  deal  stronger  six  years  from 
now  than  it  is  today.  I want  to  get 
action,  and  that  is  why  I want  to  di- 
vorce anybody  that  has  anything  to  do 
with  anything  by  the  name  of  ‘ 1 Judge  ’ ’ 
from  any  appointive  office,  from  any  ap- 
pointive authority  whatever.  Individual- 
ly I admire  these  Judges,  but  collective- 
ly I would  not  trust  them  to  appoint  a 
man  to  lead  my  dog  to  the  pound.  I op- 
pose the  amendment,  and  I hope  the 
amendment  wdll  be  voted  dowm,  and  also 
the  original  three  be  voted  down. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Fisher’s  reso- 
lution, upon  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Fish- 
er’s resolution. 

Yeas — Dever,  Fisher,  Lathrop,  Mc- 
Goorty,  Merriam,  Ovens,  Post,  Rainey, 
Revell,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Taylor — 12. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Crilly, 
Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Guerin, 
Hill,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Linehan, 
MacMillan,  McKinley,  O ’Donnell,  Pen- 
darvis,  Powers,  Raymer,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snowf,  Yopicka,  Werno, 
Young — 30. 

(During  the  roll  call.) 

MR.  JONES:  I would  like  for  infor- 

mation to  know'  what  the  principal  ques- 
tion is  before  the  house? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  upon  the 

adoption  of  Mr.  Fisher’s  motion. 

MR.  JONES:  If  that  is  voted  down, 

then  we  have  an  opportunity  to  vote 
upon  3? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Shep- 


December  6 


186 


1906 


ard’s  motion  to  reject  No.  3.  Now,  upon 
the  vote  to  adopt  Mr.  Fisher’s  substi- 
tute, yeas  12,  nays  30.  The  motion  to 
adopt  is  lost.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll  upon  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion  to 
reject  No.  3. 

MR.  POST:  I rise  to  a point  of 
order.  In  the  interest  of  public  pro- 
cedure, Mr.  Chairman,  I object  to  tak- 
ing a vote  in  that  form.  This  proposi- 
tion as  printed  is  a motion  made  by  a 
Committee;  that  motion  is  pending;  it 
is  subject  to  amendment,  but  you  can- 
not amend  a motion  by  stating  a nega- 
tive. It  seems  to  me  we  should  get 
down  to  orderly  proceedings.  This  Con- 
vention is  too  intelligent  to  have  mat- 
ters put  to  it  so  that  they  only  need  to 
vote  “aye”  or  “no.”  Why  not  put 
the  questions  in  the  proper  order?  I 
hope  Mr.  Shepard  will  withdraw  it  and 
that  it  will  come  up  in  the  regular  man- 
ner, for  a vote  of  yea  or  nay  upon  the 
motion. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

is  in  the  regular  order,  I submit,  and 
by  the  authority  of  Mr.  Post.  This  is 
a simple  proposition  before  the  Con- 
vention, and  the  motion  to  reject  or 
adopt  is  in  order. 

MR.  FISHER:  On  the  point  of  or- 

der I think  Mr.  Post  is  correct.  The 
first  session  of  this  Convention  decided — 
it  is  a matter  that  is  relatively  unim- 
portant, because  we  can  vote  intelli- 
gently on  either  proposition — but  we  did 
adopt  a general  rule  the  first  meeting 
of  the  Convention  that  if  a resolution 
was  read  it  was  understood  a motion  was 
then  pending  to  adopt  the  resolution 
without  anybody  rising  to  make  it. 
Now,  if  that  is  correct,  the  mere  making 
of  a motion  to  reject  a proposition  is 
never  in  order  under  the  rule. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  Chair 

has  assumed  in  the  absence  of  any  other 
motion  that  the  motion  to  adopt  was  a 
pending  motion.  But  I did  not  know 
that  there  could  not  be — up  to  this  time 


— I did  not  know  that  a motion  could 
not  be  made  to  reject. 

A VOICE:  Question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  has 

no  views  on  the  question.  If  Mr.  Shep- 
ard wants  to  change  the  form  of  the 
motion,  or  if  any  member  -.of  the  Con- 
vention in  making  up  his  record  desires 
to  make  a motion  to  reject  a specific 
thing,  in  expressing  his  views  upon  it 
in  that  manner,  that  is  another  thing. 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll  upon  the 
motion  that  the  Section  be  not  con- 
curred in. 

MR.  REVELL:  I wish  to  say  that  I 

am  not  in  favor  of  appointment  by  all 
the  judges  of  the  Municipal  Court; 
therefore,  I vote  “aye”  on  this  ques- 
tion. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Dix- 
on, G.  W. ; Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Guerin,  Hill, 
Hoyne,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  MacMillan, 
McKinley,  O ’Donnell,  Pendarvis,  Pow- 
ers, Raymer,  Revell,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Snow,  Vopicka,  Werno,  Young 
—29. 

Nays — Crilly,  Dever,  Fisher,  Jones, 
Lathrop,  McGoorty,  Merriam,  Owen, 
Post,  Rainey,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Tay- 
lor—13. 

MR.  SHEDD:  I rise  to  a question 

of  personal  privilege,  if  I am  in  order; 
I wish  to  have  the  minutes  of  the  last 
meeting  of  December  4th  corrected  on 
page  128,  in  the  two  last  words,  the 
second  line  at  the  top  of  the  page,  the 
first  column,  after  the  word  “column” 
should  be  the  words,  “eliminate  the” 
instead  of  “in  a.”  Either  I made 
myself  misunderstood  or  spoke  indefi- 
nitely or  indistinctly  because  it  was  my 
intention  to  eliminate  the  party  column 
instead  of  retaining  it;  I ask  to  strike 
out  “in  a”  and  insert  the  words  “elim- 
inating the.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  Mr.  Shedd  has  the  permission 
of  the  assembly  to  correct  the  records. 


December  6 


187 


1906 


You  can  take  that  up  with  the  Secre- 
tary. 

MR.  SHEDD:  And  in  the  third  line, 

after  the  word  1 1 paper  ’ ’ insert  ‘ 1 but 
retaining  the  party  column.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  may  give 

that  to  the  Secretary. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  sent  to 

the  desk  a resolution  embodying  a prop- 
osition which  I think  should  be  taken 
up,  and  in  this  connection  I move  its 
passage. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  the  adoption  of  this  resolution. 
Do  you  want  a roll  call? 

A VOICE : No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor signify  by  saying  ‘ ‘ aye. ’ ’ Those 
opposed,  1 ‘ no.  ’ ’ It  is  so  ordered. 

MR.  POST : Was  there  a roll  call  or- 

dered ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Was  there  what? 

MR.  POST : I wish  to  know  whether 

there  was  a roll  call  ordered,  whether  it 
has  been  ordered;  I wish  to  be  recorded 
as  voting  “no”  on  the  proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary call  the  roll. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  What  is  the 

proposition? 

MR.  DEVER : I would  like  to  ask  what 
disposition  was  made  of  our  Civil  Ser- 
vice a few  moments  ago,  if  all  the  Mu- 
nicipal officers  are  to  be  under  the  su- 
pervision of  the  Municipal  Judges? 

MR.  PENDARVIS.  No,  only  the 
Chief  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  motion. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Ro- 
senthal: The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk 

of  the  Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject 
to  removal  by  a majority  of  the  judges 
of  the  court  after  a hearing,  for  incom- 
petency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or 
misfeasance  in  office.  The  reasons  for 
such  removal  shall  be  specified  in  writ- 
ing and  shall  be  spread  at  large  upon 
the  records  of  the  court. 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  Does  this  as- 

sume the  arbitrary  removal  of  a man  by 
the  spreading  of  the  orders  upon  the 
records,  or  does  it  involve  the  right  to 
be  heard? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

will  answer  that  question. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I thought,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  was  a matter  that  should 
be  recorded  in  the  draft,  but  I assume 
that  certainly  would  be  included  in  the 
record,  and  I would  be  in  favor  of  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  roll  be 

called. 

(The  roll  call  was  not  completed.) 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I am  in  favor 

of  the  principle  involved  in  this  propo- 
sition, and  therefore  desire  to  go  on 
record  in  favor  of  it,  but  I do  not  think 
this  is  the  proper  place  to  put  it  in  the 
Charter;  it  should  go  or  come  under  the 
change  in  the  Municipal  Court  Act, 
which  is  bound  to  come  in  the  course  of 
time.  I vote  1 1 aye  ’ ’ for  the  purpose 
of  recording  myself  in  favor  of  the  prin- 
ciple, but  still  adhering  to  the  idea 
that  we  are  not  doing  right  by  propos- 
ing this  at  this  hearing. 

MR.  POST : I would  like  to  know 

whether  the  resolution  has  been  so 
amended  now  as  to  provide  for  a trial 
of  the  officer  charged.  I don ’t  believe 
in  removing  an  elective  officer  without 
a trial.  If  it  is  amended  so  as  to  afford 
a trial,  it  is  all  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I don’t  think 

an  amendment  can  be  made  pending  a 
roll  call. 

MR.  POST : I understood  it  had 

been  amended.  My  vote  depends  upon 
that,  whether  it  has  been  amended  or 
not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I don’t  know 

how  it  can  be  amended,  without  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  house. 

MR.  POST : As  I understand  it,  a 

man  under  that  proposition  could  be  re- 
moved without  a hearing.  In  that  case, 
I vote  ‘ 1 no.  ’ ’ 


December  6 


188 


1906 


MR.  MACMILLAN : Well,  I voted 

aye  on  the  understanding  of  the  state- 
ment made  by  Mr.  Rosenthal  that  this 
point  of  a man  being  tried  was  in  the 
resolution,  and  I desire  to  change  my 
vote  to  no. 

MR.  GUERIN : I desire,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, to  change  my  vote  for  the  same 
reason. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  gentlemen, 

please  have  patience.  We  will  be 
through  here  in  just  a few  moments. 

MR.  DEVER:  Was  not  that  the  un- 

derstanding, that  Mr.  Rosenthal  ’s  reso- 
lution included  that?  If  it  did  not,  I 
desire  to  change  my  vote  also. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Just  a moment. 

The  resolution  speaks  for  itself.  Will 
the  Secretary  read  the  resolution  again? 

MR.  BENNETT : After  the  resolu- 

tion was  offered  by  Mr.  Rosenthal  the 
statement  was  made  by  him  that  the 
draft  of  this  provision  would  cover  the 
point  of  a trial,  and  I voted  with  that 
understanding. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  be 

controlled  by  what  the  written  words 
are,  I presume,  and  not  by  what,  was  in 
the  gentleman ’s  mind. 

MR.  JONES:  I move  you,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  the  roll  call  be  had  again 
upon  the  motion.  With  the  present  un- 
destanding I would  certainly  vote  no. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I voted  with 

the  understanding  that  that  was  in  the 
draft. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  assembly 

has  the  right  to  know  what  it  is  voting 
on.  If  this  is  the  resolution — the  Secre- 
tary will  read  it — and  if  it  is  not  the 
resolution  the  gentleman  should  with- 
draw it  and  draw  the  resolution  he  de- 
sires to  have  voted  upon. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  By  unanimous 

consent  I would  like  to  modify  that  res- 
olution by  saying,  ‘ ‘ after  a hearing.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  ob- 

jection ? 

(No  objection  was  raised.) 


MR.  JONES:  ‘‘After  a hearing." 

Now  read  it. 

MR.  HILL:  Mr  Chairman — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  one  mo- 

ment, Mr.  Hill,  until  this  is  read  as 
amended. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s 
resolution  as  hereinbefore  printed. 

MR.  HILL:  It  seems  to  me  clear 

that  a hearing  is  not  sufficient.  It  ought 
to  be  after  a conviction. 

MR.  GUERIN : I desire  to  amend 

that  by  putting  in  the  words  “convic- 
tion after  a hearing." 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  amendment. 

MR.  FISHER:  What  is  the  ques- 

tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  amendment  signify  by  saying 
aye. 

MR.  FISHER : Just  a moment,  what 

is  the  motion,  please? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  insert  the 

words  ‘ ‘ after  conviction.  ’ ’ 

MR.  FISHER:  Is  that  the  amend- 

ment we  are  now  voting  on? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  FISHER:  I wish  to  call  to  the 

attention  of  the  members  of  this  con- 
vention that  that  is  the  present  criminal 
law,  I think.  I do  not  think  there  is 
any  question  of  the  right  to  remove  any 
officer  who  has  been  convicted  of  mal- 
feasance in  office. 

MR.  O 'DONNELL : Mr.  President, 

I move  that  we  adjourn. 

VOICES:  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  is  the  mo- 

tion? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  nuw  un- 

der the  rules  that  we  adjourn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  dis- 

pose of  this  matter  and  then  we  will 
adjourn.  Now  will  the  Secretary  call — 
Do  you  desire  a roll  call  upon  this  reso- 
lution as  amended  by  Mr.  Rosenthal?  If 
not,  all  in  favor  signify  by  saying  aye; 
opposed  no. 


December  6 


189 


1906 


(A  viva  voce  vote  leaving  the  Chair 
in  doubt,  a roll  call  was  asked  for.) 

ME.  ROSENTHAL:  Which  motion 

is  that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

upon  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  resolution  as 
amended  by  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Thank  you,  sir. 

MR.  WERNO:  What  is  the  resolu- 

tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  gentle- 

men, the  vote  is  upon  the  resolution. 
As  many  as  favor  it  signify  by  saying 
aye ; opposed  no ; the  ayes  have  it  and 
it  is  so  ordered. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

MR.  MERRIAM : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  offer  a resolution  to  be  called 
up  at  a later  date. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  please 

be  seated  a moment,  gentlemen?  The 
Convention  is  still  in  order. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By.  Mr.  Mer- 

riam:  Resolved  that  a committee  of 

seven  be  appointed  by  the  Chairman  of 
this  Convention  for  the  purpose  of  as- 
certaining as  nearly  as  possible  the  an- 
nual amount  necessary  to  maintain  in 
first  class  condition,  with  due  regard 
to  economy  and  efficiency,  the  consoli- 
dated government  of  Chicago;  and  for 
the  purpose  of  recommending  to  this 
Convention  the  amount  necessary  to  be 
raised  for  such  purpose  by  a general 
taxation  or  otherwise;  and  that  the  va- 
rious departments  of  government  con- 
cerned be  requested  to  furnish  this  com- 
mittee with  all  information  necessary 
for  the  purpose  above  stated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  this,  gentlemen? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  its 

adoption. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  that  this  be  printed  and  distribu- 
ted so  that  we  may  have  an  opportunity 
to  see  it  and  see  just  what  it  is.  It  in- 
volves an  expenditure  of  money  and 
other  matters,  and  it  is  an  important 


matter,  and  it  may  be  of  great  import- 
ance. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  that  this  be  printed  and  then  called 
up  later. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections  it  will  take  that  course. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  Guerin  or 

Mr.  Post — Dr.  Guerin  do  you  desire 
the  floor? 

MR.  GUERIN:  Yes,  I think  it  will 

be  necessary  to  reconsider  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal ’s  motion.  It  seems  to  me  that 
a great  many  members  here  understood 
that  my  amendment  wras  carried.  I un- 
derstand from  the  Secretary  it  was  not 
carried  and  I so  understood  it  myself, 
but  other  members  think  different. 
Therefore  I think  a reconsideration  of 
that  motion  is  in  order.  Therefore  I 
move  to  reconsider  the  motion  with  the 
idea  of  having  it  amended  as  I desire. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  Guerin 

moves  that  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  motion  be 
reconsidered.  May  I make  a suggestion, 
doctor?  Let  the  matter  be  printed  as 
passed,  and  then  you  can  move  a re- 
consideration at  the  next  meeting,  the 
first  thing  after  it  has  been  properly 
amended.  If  there  is  no  objection  it 
will  take  that  course. 

The  Secretary  has  a letter  in  his  hand 
which  I desire  him  to  read.  The  Chair 
would  like  to  say  to  the  delegates  of 
the  Convention  that  it  is  desirable  that 
they  should  keep  the  records  of  the  Con- 
vention. There  is  a limit  to  the  appro- 
priations and  we  cannot  have  an  entire- 
ly new  grist  of  minutes  for  each  meet- 
ing. 

The  Secretary  read  : 

Chicago,  111.,  Dec.  3,  ’06. 
The  Charter  Convention, 

Milton  J.  Foreman,  Esq., 

Chairman. 

Dear  Sir: — 

By  direction  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee of  the  United  Societies  for  Lo- 
cal Self-Government,  the  undersigned 


December  6 


190 


1906 


committee  beg  to  submit  through  you 
to  the  Charter  Convention  the  enclosed 
proposition,  amendatory  of  your  alter- 
native 1,  Section  1,  Chapter  seven, 
“Powers  of  the  City  Council  in  Gen- 
eral/ ’ with  the  request  that  the  same 
be  given  the  consideration  which  it 
merits. 

In  thus  presenting  to  your  body 
squarely  this  issue  we  wish  to  empha- 
size that  the  time  for  equivocation  or 
evasion  on  this  subject  has  passed.  By 
adopting  our  recommendation  you  but 
legalize  a custom  which  has  prevailed 
in  our  city  for  more  than  a generation. 
We  do  not  believe  it  to  be  conducive 
to  the  moral  well  being  of  the  com- 
munity to  longer  tolerate  a situation 
which  compels  candidates  for  the  office 
of  mayor  to  promise  before  election  not 
to  enforce  an  obsolete  Sunday  closing 
law,  which  their  very  oath  of  office,  if 
elected,  enjoins  them  to  enforce. 

We  believe  that  we  reflect  the  senti- 
ment of  four-fifths  of  the  voters  of  our 
city  on  this  subject  and  that  now  is 
the  time  and  your  convention  the  place 
to  insist  upon  the  adoption  of  our 
proposition.  We  demand  home  rule  on 
this  question  and  believe  the  city 
council  can  be  trusted  to  so  regulate 
both  matters  as  to  satisfy  the  true  re- 
ligious sentiments  and  wants  of  the 
large  majority  of  our  citizens. 

Your  failure  to  embody  our  prop- 
osition in  the  charter  legislation  to  be 
submitted  by  you  to  the  general  assem- 
bly may  place  upon  our  executive  com- 
mittee the  very  unpleasant  duty  of 
appealing  to  our  membership  to  vote 
against  any  and  all  laws  that  may  be 
passed  under  authority  of  the  consti- 
tutional amendment. 

Being  good  and  law  abiding  citizens, 
we  trust  that  this  contingency  may  not 
arise.  Respectfully  submitted, 

Fritz  Gloghuer, 

Nicholas  Michels, 

A.  Landa, 


Committee  on  Charter  Legislation, 

United  Societies  for  Local  Self-Gov- 
ernment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  this  communication  will  be 
printed  and  taken  up  when  the  appro- 
priate subject  is  taken  up. 

MR.  SNOW:  I move  that  this  con- 

vention now  adjourn  until  two  o’clock 
P.  M. — 

MR.  POST:  Suspend  that  one  mo- 

ment until  I ask  for  a correction  to  be 
made. 

On  page  130,  second  column,  fifth  line 
from  the  bottom  I am  made  to  speak 
of  a satisfactory  amendment;  it  should 
be  constitutional  amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Just  a moment, 
Mr.  Post. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  Mr.  Post 

give  his  corrections  to  the  Secretary  in 
writing? 

MR.  POST:  The  other,  Mr.  Presi- 

dent, requires  an  answer  from  the 
Chair.  On  page  145,  I am  made  to  ask 
what  became  of  the  substitute  and  the 
amendment  that  were  to  be  reconsid- 
ered. I suppose  that  I was  referring 
(I  certainly  intended  to)  to  “B”  un- 
der 4 a of  elections.  The  Chair  an- 
swered me  that  Mr.  Cole ’s  motion  had 
placed  that  upon  the  table.  I wish  to 
know  if  the  Chair  understood  me  as 
referring  to  that  or  to  other  substi- 
tutes? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not answer  that  now. 

MR.  POST:  Well,  are  we  to  under- 

stand, Mr.  Chairman,  that  that  clause 
B under  4 a of  elections  has  been  dis- 
posed of? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I cannot  get  you, 
Mr.  Post.  If  you  will  give  me  the 
matter  in  writing  I will  be  obliged. 
The  Chair  cannot  possibly  carry  all 
these  records  in  his  mind. 

MR.  POST:  If  the  Chairman  will 

permit  me  to  make  those  corrections,  I 
will  write  them  up. 


December  6 


191 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : If  the  gentlemen 
of  the  convention  will  give  the  correc- 
tion in  writing  to  the  Secretary,  general 
leave  will  be  given  to  correct  all  the 
records  from  one  end  to  the  other. 

MR.  SNOW:  I move  that  we  ad- 

journ until  two  o ’clock  P.  M.  Tuesday — 
MR.  CHURCH:  On  the  amendment 

offered  by  Mr.  Burke  in  Section  V., 
paragraph  B,  Civil  Service  law,  I am 
put  down  as  voting  aye  and  I ask  that 
by  unanimous  consent  my  vote  be 
changed  from  aye  to  no,  as  I did  not 


understand  that  the  word  “not”  had 
been  omitted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  the  change  will  be  made. 
Now  Mr.  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  I move  that  we  do 

now  adjourn  until  two  o’clock  P.  M. 
Monday  next. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections,  and  there  will  be  none,  I 
hope,  the  motion  is  carried. 

And  the  convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Monday,  December  10,  1906,  at 
two  o’clock  P.  M. 


Secretary. 


December  6 


192 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 


3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  The  Mayor  is  still  pending: 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 

Alternative  to  4:  The  term  of  office 

of  the  mayor  shall  be  the  same  as  that 
of  the  members  of  the  city  council. 


IY.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ate provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


Y.  CIYIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
| ernment  shall  be  under  an  appropriate 

I civil  service  law. 


December  6 


193 


1906 


Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  the  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 


tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 


Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 


December  6 


194 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY  MR.  REYELL: 

Alternative  to  YI.  The  City  Council. 
VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

1.  The  charter  shall  provide  for  re- 
districting the  city  into  sixty  wards. 

2.  Each  ward  shall  nominate  candi- 
dates for  aldermen,  who  shall  be  voted 
on  by  the  entire  city. 

3.  The  terms  of  aldermen  shall  be 
four  years. 

4.  One  fourth  of  the  aldermen  to 
retire  each  year. 

5.  No  alderman  shall  be  elected  to 
succeed  himself. 

6.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  $5,000  per  an- 
num, and  he  shall  have  a secretary. 

7.  Aldermen  shall  give  their  entire 
time  to  serving  the  city  as  aldermen 
during  the  term  for  which  they  are 
elected. 

8.  Aldermen  shall  have  offices  in  their 
respective  wards  at  which  they  shall  be 
found  during  hours  to  be  determined  by 
ordinance,  or  otherwise. 


BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL. 

As  an  amendment  to  Chapter  IV.  en- 
titled ELECTIONS.  By  adding  the 
following  proposition  numbered  6 : 

6.  The  only  elective  city  officers  (not 
including  aldermen  and  municipal 
judges)  shall  be  the  Mayor  and  City 
Treasurer.  The  City  Treasurer  shall  be 
ex-officio  city  collector. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

XXII. 

5.  SECTION Nothing  in  this  act 


shall  be  construed  to  modify,  impair  or 
affect  or  to  confer  upon  the  city  coun- 
cil power  to  pass  any  ordinance  modi- 
fying, impairing  or  conflicting  with  the 
provisions  of  Section  18  of  an  act  en- 
ttled  1 ‘ An  act  to  provide  for  the  an- 
nexation of  cities,  incorporated  towns 
and  villages  or  parts  of  same  to  cities, 
incorporated  towns  and  villages”  ap- 
proved April  25th,  1889,  or  to  any  pro- 
vision of  any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  or  creat- 
ing or  defining  criminal  offenses  or  relat- 
ing to  the  prosecution  and  punishment 
thereof,  nor  shall  any  amendment  or 
addition  be  made  to  the  charter  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  except  by  the  General 
Assembly,  by  which  this  section,  or  any 
part  thereof  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
be  abrogated,  repealed  or  annulled. 


By  Mr.  Merriam : Resolved  that  a 

committee  of  seven  be  appointed  by 
the  Chairman  of  the  Convention  for  the 
purpose  of  ascertaining  as  nearly  as  pos- 
sible the  annual  amount  necessary  to 
maintain  in  first  class  condition,  with 
due  regard  to  economy  and  efficiency, 
the  consolidated  government  of  Chicago; 
and  for  the  purpose  of  recommending  to 
this  Convention  the  amount  necessary  to 
be  raised  for  such  purpose  by  a general 
taxation  or  otherwise;  and  that  the  va- 
rious departments  of  government  con- 
cerned be  requested  to  furnish  this  com- 
mittee with  all  information  necessary  for 
the  purpose  above  stated. 


December  6 


195 


1906 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

For  Week  Beginning  Monday,  December  10. 

SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53. 

SECTION  XVII. — Education,  at  page  56. 

PARAGRAPH  3.— Suffrage,  at  page  52. 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  92, 

first  column:  Line  13,  insert  word 

‘ ‘ speak  ’ ’ instead  of  1 1 come.  ’ 1 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  101, 

second  column : Line  22,  after  the  word 
‘ ‘ then  ’ 7 add  1 1 who  shall.  ’ 7 


MR.  SHEDD:  On  page  128,  first 

column,  second  line,  strike  out  “in  a” 
and  insert  therefor : 1 1 eliminating  the.  ’ , 
Also,  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
* 1 paper,  ’ 7 insert  1 1 but  retaining  the  par- 
ty column.  ” 


MR.  POST : On  page  130,  second 

column,  fifth  line  from  bottom^  sub- 
stitute the  word  1 ‘ constitutional 7 7 for 
the  word  “satisfactory.” 


MR.  SHEPARD:  On  page  134,  first 

column,  last  paragraph,  fifth  line,  strike 
out  ‘ 1 that  is,  that  all  municipal  officers 
and  city  officers,  including  the  municipal 
court  judges  shall  be  elected  in  the 
spring”  and  insert  therefor:  “that  is, 
that  all  city  officers  shall  be  elected  in 
the  spring  at  one  and  the  same  election, 
except  the  municipal  court  judges.” 


. 


. 


. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

MONDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1906 


(Eljtrago  (Eljartrr  Qlmuirntimt 

Convened,  December  12, 1900 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 


ALEXANDER  H.  REVELL,  . . VICE-CHAIRMAN 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

'.JrNRY  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Asst.  Secy 


. 


December  10 


199 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Monday,  December  10,  1906 

2 O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  come  to  order.  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke,  Church, 
Clettenberg,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon, 
G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A., 
Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Erickson,  Guerin,  Hill 
Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMillan,  McCor- 
mick, McKinley,  Merriam,  O ’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Powers,  Ray- 
mer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shan- 
ahan, Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Swift, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wil- 
kins, Young,  Zimmer — 52. 

Absent — Clarey,  Cruice,  Eidmann, 
Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Gansbergen,  Gra- 
ham, Haas,  Harrison,  Hunter,  Mc- 
Goorty,  Oehne,  Paullin,  Patterson, 
Rainey,  Rovell,  Rinaker,  Smulski,  Sun- 
ny, Thompson,  Walker,  Wilson — 22. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  a quo- 

rum present.  Are  there  any  correc- 
tions or  amendments  to  the  minutes? 

SENATOR  JONES:  I would  like 

leave  to  correct  the  record  on  page 
182,  first  column,  line  39,  by  changing 
“ Chief  Justices”  to  “Judges.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any 

further  amendments  or  corrections? 
Will  you  read  the  correction,  please? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Mr.  Jones,  on 

page  182,  first  column,  line  39,  change 
“Chief  Justices”  to  “Judges.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further 

corrections? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Would  it  not  be 

in  order  to  make  these  amendments 
without  making  a formal  motion  each 
time? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  has  been 

the  custom,  that  the  members  present 
amendments  or  corrections  in  writing, 
and  we  have  it  read  before  the  Con- 
vention, so  that  the  Convention  may 
know  in  what  respect  the  record  is  be- 
ing changed  or  being  affected. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  At  the  request  of 

the  members  of  the  Police  Depart- 


December  10 


200 


1906 


ment,  I offer  a resolution,  which  I 
would  suggest  be  deferred  and  taken 
up  in  the  regular  order. 

THE  SECRETARY : By  Mr.  Shep- 
ard: Resolved,  that  in  any  act  pro- 

viding for  the  formation  and  disburse- 
ment of  the  police  pension  fund  the 
following  provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  benefits 
of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as  fol- 
lows: 

The  general  superintendent  of  police, 
assistant  general  superintendent  of 
police,  inspectors,  captains,  lieuten- 
ants, sergeants,  patrolmen,  patrol  driv- 
ers, superintendent  of  horses,  superin- 
tendent of  construction,  superintend- 
ent bureau  of  identification,  assistant 
superintendent  bureau  of  identification, 
secretary  of  the  police  department, 
private  secretary  to  the  general  super- 
intendent of  police,  police  custodian 
stolen  property,  chief  clerk  secretary's 
office,  clerk  in  secretary's  office,  chief 
clerk  in  detective  bureau,  chief  opera- 
tor, assistant  chief  operator,  operators, 
drillmaster,  chief  matron,  matrons, 
feed  inspector,  department  printer,  ve- 
hicle inspectors,  photographer,  assist- 
ant photographer,  stenographers,  sup- 
ply drivers,  finger  print  expert,  and 
such  other  members  as  may  hereafter 
be  provided  for  by  ordinance. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  mat- 

ter before  the  Convention  is  a matter 
that  Dr.  Guerin  desires  to  bring  up,  to 
amend  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Rosenthal, 
printed  on  page  193.  I would  like  to 
ask  Dr.  Guerin  whether  as  printed  in 
its  present  form  it  meets  his  views? 

MR.  GUERIN:  My  motion  is  with 

regard  to  whether  or  not  it  is  to  be 
after  trial  and  conviction.  I stated 
that  I thought  the  words — I have  for- 
gotten exactly  what  it  is — I haven't  it 
here.  Will  you  please  read  it,  Mr.  Sec- 
retary? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  sir. 


MR.  O'DONNELL:  What  page  is 

that? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  193,  un- 

der the  memorandum,  under  “b,"  the 
first  paragraph  after  “b,"  “The  bail- 
iff and  chief  clerk  of  the  municipal 
court  shall  be  subject  to  removal  by 
a majority  of  the  judges  of  the  court 
after  a hearing,  for  incompetency  and 
inefficiency,  {malfeasance  or  misfeas- 
ance in  office.  The  reasons  for  removal 
shall  be  specified  in  writing,  and  shall 
be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records  of 
the  court." 

MR.  GUERIN:  “At  the  hearing;" 

but  what  is  they  are  not  convicted?  I 
want  the  words  “at  the  hearing  and 
conviction" — the  words  “and  convic- 
tion" I want  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I don't  under- 

stand there  is  any  objection  to  that, 
is  there? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes. 

MR.  GUERIN:  Well,  then  I will 

withdraw  the  amendment. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understand 

the  amendment  has  been  withdrawn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Very  good.  The 
secretary  will  read  No.  4 on  the  sec^ 
tion  on  civil  service. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “All  terms  of 

office  except  those  of  the  mayor  and 
members  of  the  city  council  and  munic- 
ipal court  judges  shall  be  indefinite." 

MR.  LATHROP:  I desire  to  offer 

an  amendment  to  that  section  which 
has  just  been  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  amend- 

ment be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Lath- 

rop:  Amend  No.  4 of  Section  5 on 

civil  service  by  adding  the  words  “and 
park  commissioners"  after  the  words 
“municipal  court  judges." 

MR.  LATHROP:  If  I may  be  per- 

mitted to  say  a word  in  regard  to  that, 
in  the  report  of  the  committee  there  is 
a recommendation  that  the  commis- 
sioners be  elected  for  definite  terms, 
and  if  this  exception  is  put  in,  why 


December  10 


201 


1906 


that  leaves  it  open  for  the  Convention 
to  decide  in  regard  to  this  matter. 
Therefore,  I move  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I rise  for  some 

information.  I would  like  to  know — 
this  was  not  a motion  that  came  from 
our  committee,  but  rather  a proposition 
that  came  from  our  committee,  and  I 
would  like  to  know  what  is  meant  by 
the  term  (t  indefinite/ 1 whether  that 
means  during  good  behavior  or  during 
the  pleasure  of  the  mayor,  or  during 
the  pleasure  of  somebody  else. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I presume  it  is 

intended  to  do  away  with  any  definite 
tenure  of  office  or  any  appointee  of  the 
mayor,  or  permit  reappointment  when- 
ever the  mayor  may  see  fit  to  make  a 
change. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  This  resolution 

contemplates  tenure  in  office  in  an  ap- 
pointive office  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  appointing  power.  There  are  very 
good  reasons  and  worthy  reasons  why 
elective  officers  ought  to  be  chosen  for 
fixed  and  definite  terms.  There  ap- 
pears to  be  no  very  good  reason  why 
an  appointive  officer  should  be  given  a 
term  for  a fixed  and  definite  period. 
The  steps  that  would  be  followed  by 
a corporation  of  a busines  character 
would  be  not  to  appoint  a man  for  a 
fixed  term  for  him  to  remain  in  office, 
say  possibly  a man  like  the  head  of  a 
department,  but  their  policy  would 
be  to  appoint  him  to  hold  office  as  long 
as  his  services  in  that  capacity  were 
of  a satisfactory  character,  and  no 
longer.  For  example,  and  even  in  cer- 
tain government  and  federal  service, 
the  members  of  the  federal  cabinet,  the 
present  cabinet,  hold  office  not  for  a 
fixed  term,  but  during  the  pleasure  of 
the  chief  executive.  There  seems  to 
be  no  valid  reason  why,  for  instance, 
the  city  comptroller  should  be  appoint- 
ed for  two  years  or  three  years,  or  the 
commissioner  of  public  works  for  one 


year  or  two  years  or  three  years,  or 
any  other  fixed  term.  He  is  appointed 
to  serve  as  long  as  he  serves  well  and 
faithfully,  and  to  the  satisfaction  of 
his  superior  officer.  Whenever  he 
ceases  to  be  satisfactory,  and  whenever 
his  services  are  no  longer  required,  he 
should  be  removed,  and  no  sooner. 
But  when  you  give  a man  a fixed  term, 
and  say  at  the  expiration  of  that  time 
his  connection  ceases  automatically, 
you  open  the  way  to  very  serious  temp- 
tations; if  he  is  appointed  for  two 
years,  and  at  the  end  of  two  years  it 
is  not  necessary  to  remove  the  man — ■ 
his  services  may  have  been  very  satis- 
factory and  you  are  not  required  to 
remove  him — you  merely  fail  to  re- 
appoint him,  so  that  by  a very  easy 
process  you  eliminate  the  man  from  the 
service  of  the  city;  whereas,  if  the 
question  had  been  presented  of  whether 
or  not  a man  holding  a definite  term 
of  office  should  be  removed,  when  that 
question  came  up  the  superior  officer  or 
the  mayor  might  not  dare  to  remove 
such  a man.  So  that  this  seems  to  be 
in  line  not  only  with  the  general  prin- 
ciple upon  which  good  public  adminis- 
tration ought  to  rest,  namely,  of  ten- 
ure of  office  during  good  behavior  of 
an  appointed  officer,  but  is  also  in  line 
with  the  policy  of  administration  pro- 
posed by  large  corporations  which  are 
not  municipal  or  public  corporations. 
This  was  not  intended  to  apply  either 
to  the  board  of  education  or  the  park 
commissioners  because  it  was  not 
known  at  the  time  this  resolution  was 
written  out  whether  or  not  these  would 
be  included  in  the  consolidated  govern- 
ment of  the  city  of  Chicago. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  whether  a clerical  office  is  in- 
volved in  the  interpretation  evidently 
put  upon  this  by  Professor  Merriam,  as 
to  being  the  term  of  office?  Is  not  this 
with  special  reference  to  department 
heads?  If  it  is  to  be  with  reference 


December  10 


202 


1906 


to  other  employes  in  the  public  serv- 
ice, it  is  quite  a different  matter. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  May  I answer 

that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Certainly. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : Certainly. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  say  this 

was  intended  to  apply  only  to  such 
officers  as  were  not  included  in  the 
civil  service  regulation. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Then  you  do 

not  so  state,  Prof.  Merriam,  if  that  is 
the  fact. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Perhaps  it  might 

be  better  to  say  ‘‘all  heads  of  de- 
partments. ’ ’ 

MR.  MacMILAN : Otherwise  it 

leaves  the  question  quite  open  as  to 
the  character  of  those  holding  public 
office  to  whom  this  clause  should  be 
applied. 

Just  one  suggestion  respecting  tenure 
of  office.  As  a matter  of  fact,  whether 
it  be  a matter  of  statute  or  otherwise, 
the  term  of  a cabinet  officer  expires 
with  the  term  of  the  president  ap- 
pointing such  officer,  so  that  by  the 
termination  of  the  term  of  the  presi- 
dential office  the  cabinet  officer  natural- 
ly and  necessarily  retires.  If  he  hold 
over  beyond  that  time  he  knows  that 
he  holds  over  by  the  sufferance  or  the 
complacency  or  otherwise  of  the  new 
executive.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
phrase  ought  to  be  a definite  one,  and 
that  it  is  too  indefinite  now.  It  seems 
to  me  that  should  be  so  phrased  as  to 
at  least  cover  this  point,  that  all  offi- 
cers of  the  city,  etc.,  except  those,  etc., 
shall  be  continued  during  either  the 
efficient  service  or  good  behavior,  or 
otherwise.  But  to  say  they  shall  be 
indefinite  is  quite  indefinite,  and  it 
strikes  me  we  are  not  going  to  get  out 
of  the  nebulous  condition  unless  some 
other  phrase  be  inserted  at  the  close 
of  Section  4;  and  I would  suggest,  with- 
out going  through  the  form  of  making 
an  amendment,  that  it  be  so  phrased 


that  it  at  least  should  cover  this,  tak- 
ing in  the  amendment  as  made  by  Mr. 
Lathrop,  adding  park  commissioners 
to  the  list,  shall  be  during  good  be- 
havior. I think  that  at  least  is  more 
definite  than  this  phrase  “shall  be  in- 
definite. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  By  the  term  of 

Section  4,  which  appears  to  include 
members  of  the  board  of  education, 
that  is  a matter  that  is  to  come  up  for 
consideration  at  another  time,  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  members  of  the 
board  of  education  should  be  excluded 
from  the  consideration  of  this  resolu- 
tion. I move  you  that  it  be  amended 
by  inserting  the  words  “members  of 
the  board  of  education.  “ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  that  is 

an  addition  to  Mr.  Lathrop ’s  amend- 
ment? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I second  the  mo- 

tion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

it  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  hesitate 
before  adopting  this  particular  propo- 
sition, which  was  discussed  only 
slightly  in  our  committee;  it  was  put 
in  some  definite  form;  and  it  seemed  to 
us  rather  dangerous  to  have  a propo- 
sition of  that  sort.  If  I understand 
this  particular  proposition  rightly,  it 
means  that  the  term  of  every  head  of 
department  is  absolutely  dependent 
upon  the  will  or  pleasure  of  the  mayor; 
this  is  absolutely  dependent  upon  one 
single  man.  Now,  Prof.  Merriam  has 
given  us  the  analogy  of  a corporation; 
I insist  that  the  analogy  is  incorrect, 
because  in  the  case  of  a private  corpo- 
ration the  officers  are,  as  a rule,  ap- 
pointed by  a board  of  directors,  and 
you  have  a majority  or  a minority  of 
the  board  acting.  Now,  it  is  differ- 
ent in  a municipality.  The  intention  is 
to  have  as  many  as  possible  appointed 
by  the  mayor  and  to  have  as  few  as 
possible  elected  by  the  people.  If  you 
want  to  get  independent  action  from 


December  10 


203 


1906 


those  officers,  if  you  want  them  to  do 
their  best,  they  must  have  a certain 
security  in  their  tenure  of  office.  It 
won’t  do,  it  seems  to  me,  to  let  them 
know  that  at  any  moment  they  are  sub- 
ject to  removal  by  the  head  of  the  city. 
I think  it  would  be  very  pernicious 
in  the  case  of  the  fire  department;  I 
think  it  would  be  very  pernicious  in 
the  case  of  the  police  department,  and 
I think  it  would  be  very  pernicious 
in  the  case  of  the  city  clerk,  and  I see 
no  good  reason  for  it  in  any  case.  The 
present  method  of  allowing  the  mayor 
to  remove,  subject  to  the  disapproval 
of  the  city  council,  seems  to  me  most 
desirable  and  the  most  feasible  form, 
and  I think,  therefore,  that  this  prop- 
osition, together  with  all  the  amend- 
ments to  it,  should  be  laid  on  the  ta- 
ble, and  I make  that  motion. 

MR.  JONES:  I would  like  to  second 
that  motion,  and  for  this  additional 
reason:  Under  Section  8,  powers  of 

the  city  council  with  regard  to  officers, 
we  shall  decide  whether  or  not  the  city 
clerk  and  the  city  treasurer  shall  be 
elective  officers  as  at  present,  or  ap- 
pointive officers,  and  if  we  pass  this 
resolution  before  us  as  amended  it  vir- 
tually decides  that  question,  which 
should  wait  until  that  later  period.  I 
think,  therefore,  this  whole  subject 
should  be  deferred  until  we  have  de- 
cided what  officers  there  shall  be  under 
the  charter  who  shall  be  appointive 
and  which  shall  be  elective. 

MR.  SNOW : Am  I correct  in  my 

understanding  of  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  mo- 
tion, that  it  is  to  lay  on  the  table  the 
proposition  at  last  amended,  or  to  lay 
this  whole  thing  on  the  table? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  way 
I understand  it. 

MR.  SNOW:  The  suggestion  made 

by  Senator  Jones,  that  there  are  mat- 
ters coming  up  later  in  the  charter 
which  might  be  in  conflict  with  this 
provision  if  adopted,  is  a sound  one. 


But  personally  I feel  that  the  pro- 
vision in  the  shape  that  it  stands  now 
should  not  be  adopted  for  this  reason, 
that  it  is  practically  providing  that  in 
the  case  of  appointive  officials  they 
shall  hold  office  until  they  are  removed 
by  death  or  otherwise.  I do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  burden  of  removing  the 
official  who  has  been  appointed  by  one 
mayor  should  be  placed  upon  another. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  position  would 
be  much  better  if  we  should  provide 
that  the  term  of  the  appointive  offi- 
cers should  run  coincident  with  the  life 
of  the  appointing  power.  Just  as  an 
illustration:  If  the  Charter  Conven- 

tion shall  adopt  the  provision  or  recom- 
mendation that  the  city  clerk  shall  be 
elected  by  the  city  council,  we  certain- 
ly do  not  want  a provision  in  the  char- 
ter that  this  officer  shall  hold  his  term 
of  office  indefinitely;  he  shall  not  hold 
his  office  longer  than  the  life  of  the 
council  which  selects  him.  And  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  same  reasoning 
would  apply  to  those  officials  who  are 
appointed  by  the  mayor.  It  is  true 
that  the  power  of  removal  is  not  taken 
away  from  the  appointing  power;  but 
there  may  very  easily  arise  cases  in 
which  it  would  be  unfair  to  place  the 
onus  of  removing  a man  upon  the 
chief  executive  officer,  when,  as  a mat- 
ter of  fact,  that  chief  executive  officer 
might  want  to  and  might  be  entitled 
to  the  appointment  of  his  cabinet— to 
appoint  in  his  cabinet  men  who  are 
in  sympathy  with  the  particular  views 
which  he  holds,  and  perhaps  upon 
which  he  has  been  elected. 

It  seems  to  me  if  this  proposition 
were  adopted  it  would  compel  him  to 
remove  perhaps  an  efficient  official  be- 
fore he  could  appoint  a man  in  sympa- 
thy with  his  own*  views.  So  it  seems 
to  me  very  decidedly  that  the  term  of 
office  should  not  extend  beyond  the 
term  of  office  of  the  life  of  the  ap- 
pointing power. 


December  10 


204 


1906 


MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to 

ask  permission  to  speak  again  for  five 
minutes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  By  unanimous 

consent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No  objection. 

Go  ahead. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I think  Alderman 

Snow  brings  the  question  to  issue 
very  clearly.  What  Alderman  Snow 
stated  in  his  remarks  shall  not  be  done 
is  precisely  what  is  contemplated  to 
be  done  by  this  resolution,  namely,  to 
place  the  onus  or  burden  upon  the 
mayor  of  removing  when  he  comes  into 
office  an  efficient  administrator,  who 
has  been  in  under  his  predecessor. 

If  the  chief  of  the  fire  department 
or  the  chief  of  the  police  department 
has  been  for  two  years  or  four  years 
an  efficient  and  courageous  head  of 
his  administration,  and  has  continued 
in  a vigorous  and  business-like  man- 
ner to  conduct  his  office,  then  I think 
the  onus  ought  to  be  put  upon  the 
mayor  who  succeeds  the  old  mayor,  of 
removing  an  efficient  and  vigorous  of- 
ficer like  that.  If  the  commissioner 
of  public  works  under  the  administra- 
tion of  Mayor  A has  for  four  years 
shown  himself  to  be  a capable  officer, 
then  Mayor  B ought  to  have  the  onus 
put  upon  him  of  removing  this  officer. 
That  is  precisely  the  question  at  issue; 
that  is  precisely  the  benefit  or  ad- 
vantage that  is  claimed  for  the  in- 
definite term  of  office.  If  the  term  of 
office  is  merely  two  years  or  four  years, 
at  the  end  of  the  mayor’s  term,  for 
example,  then  he  is  not  obliged  to  re- 
move an  officer,  but  merely  allows  him 
to  slip  away  by  failure  to  reappoint 
him.  In  this  way  the  city  may  lose 
the  services  of  a very  capable  and 
efficient  officer,  whom  public  sentiment 
might  demand  be  retained  in  service, 
or  at  least  public  sentiment  might  de- 
mand be  retained;  but  if  his  term  was 
only  two  years  or  four  years,  which- 


ever the  case  might  be,  the  mayor  is 
not  responsible  for  his  removal,  and 
the  burden  is  not  put  upon  him,  which 
is  where  it  should  be  placed. 

In  reply  to  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  sugges- 
tion, I would  like  to  suggest,  so  far 
as  removal  is  concerned,  that  the  mayor 
might  not  remove  those  officers,  that 
the  council  might  object  to  the  re- 
moval of  such  officer.  In  short,  it 
might  result  in  rather  strengthening 
the  officer  in  his  position. 

The  tendency  would  be  to  make  the 
officer  efficient;  it  will  protect  an  ef- 
ficient officer  and  will  not  protect  an 
inefficient  officer.  It  corresponds  to 
the  term  of  office  of  the  members  of 
the  cabinet  or  the  term  of  a cabinet 
officer,  and  not  the  term  of  the  presi- 
dent. But  the  term  is  indefinite,  no 
fixed  term  being  made  or  provided  for. 

MR.  SWIFT:  It  strikes  me  if  that 

proposition  is  a good  one  we  might  go 
a step  further,  and  select  or  elect  a 
man  for  mayor  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
who,  if  he  gives  the  city  efficient  serv- 
ice, should  be  elected  for  an  indefi- 
nite term  also.  Why?  If  the  propo- 
sition holds  good  for  the  commissioner 
of  public  works  or  the  city  treasurer, 
or  the  city  collector,  or  the  head  of 
any  department,  why  should  not  it 
hold  good  for  the  chief  executive  of 
the  city  of  Chicago  ? Why  should  it 
be  limited  to  two  years?  Why  should 
he,  the  chief  executive,  be  limited  to 
two  years  and  sent  back  to  the  peo- 
ple? As  I understand  it,  if  the  people 
desire  a change  in  office,  no  matter  how 
efficient  a man  may  have  been  in  the 
conduct  of  the  office,  under  our  laws 
at  the  end  of  two  years  some  man, 
some  coterie  of  men,  be  they  large  or 
be  they  small,  may  say:  “He  has 

been  an  efficient  official,  he  has  been 
an  excellent  mayor,  he  has  done  those 
things  which  have  met  with  the  ap- 
proval of  the  people,  but  we  don ’t  want 
him;  we  want  a change.” 

If  that  position  is  good,  make  your 


December  10 


205 


1906 


mayor  an  office  that  is  indefinite  and 
keep  him  there  so  long  as  he  does  prove 
efficient.  On  the  other  hand,  I be- 
lieve in  a one-man  power.  I am  not  in 
sympathy,  and  my  reason  is  born  from 
long  experience — I am  not  in  sympathy 
with  those  who  desire  to  curb  the 
power  of  the  chief  executive  of  the 
city  of  Chicago.  I am  not  in  sympathy 
with  those  who  desire  to  separate  the 
legislative  so  far  from  the  executive. 
I ’ believe  the  legislative  and  the  ex- 
ecutive departments  should  work  in 
harmony,  should  be  brought  nearer  to- 
egther.  I believe  that  the  mayor 
should  be  given  great  power  and  held 
responsible  for  that  power.  The  power 
to  do  the  right  thing  involves  the 
power  to  do  the  wrong  thing.  A man 
who  has  not  the  power  to  do  the  right 
thing  has  not  the  power  to  do  the 
wrong  thing.  Put  the  responsibility 
upon  your  chief  executive;  bring  him 
in  harmonious  relations  with  your  ad- 
ministrative officers. 

Now,  I have  had  a good  deal  of  ex- 
perience; I have  been  a long-time  resi- 
dent of  the  city  of  Chicago;  have  been 
an  alderman,  commissioner  of  public 
works,  and  the  mayor,  and  I have 
failed  yet  to  find  a time  when  the 
council  and  the  mayor  could  not  get  to- 
gether on  a fair  proposition.  I don’t 
like  this  bugaboo  business,  every  once 
in  a while  someone  saying:  “Here 

comes  the  bogey  man,  the  mayor;  look 
out,  boys;  everyone  take  to  cover.” 
There  is  nothing  in  it,  there  is  noth- 
ing to  it.  We  ought  to  elect  a man 
who  has  executive  ability. 

Now,  where  are  you  going  to  find 
him?  I have  heard  them  speak  time 
and  time  again  about  the  necessity  of 
electing  and  selecting  a great  execu- 
tive man  to  the  office  of  mayor.  Who 
is  going  to  find  him,  who  is  going  to 
decide  on  his  executive  ability?  Why 
limit  it  to  great?  Why  not  say  “the 
greatest  man,”  the  man  of  the 
“greatest”  executive  ability?  Who  is 


to  find  that  man?  Are  we  to  find  him 
in  our  comercial  walks  of  life,  or  are 
we  to  find  him  among  the  presidents  of 
our  great  corporations?  Shall  it  be 
the  president  of  the  North-Western 
Railroad,  Mr.  Hughitt,  or  the  president 
of  the  Illinois  Central,  Mr.  Harrahan? 
You  cannot  get  either  of  those  men  to 
accept  the  position;  you  could  not  get 
them. 

Gentlemen,  we  have  witnessed  here, 
meeting  after  meeting,  and  have  heard 
from  the  diffrent  aldermen,  and  I say 
there  has  as  yet  been  not  one  silly 
motion,  nor  one  silly  speech  from  a 
single  alderman  in  this  Charter  Con- 
vention. There  is  not  one  of  them  but 
what  every  time  he  said  anything  it 
has  been  practical.  I venture  to  say 
that  from  the  membership  of  this  Char- 
ter Convention  you  could  find  a dozen 
men  who  could  fill  the  position  or  office 
of  mayor  of  the  great  city  of  Chicago 
with  credit. 

I believe  that  the  man,  whoever  he 
may  be,  should  have  great  powers.  He 
should  have  great  powers,  I repeat, 
for  with  that  power  comes  the  sense 
of  responsibility,  if  the  man  is  level- 
headed. He  is  the  man  to  suffer  most 
if  there  is  a failure  in  the  conduct  of 
his  administration.  He  should  be  al- 
lowed to  select  his  cabinet,  not  to  be 
trammeled  by  legislation.  What  is  to 
prevent  a mayor,  when  he  appoints  a 
commissioner  of  public  works,  or  when 
he  appoints  a comptroller,  or  when  he 
appoints  his  chief  law  adviser,  to  sim- 
ply say  to  that  gentleman:  “Hand 
me  your  resignation,  to  be  accepted  at 
my  will”?  What  becomes  of  him? 
Why  should  not  he  have  that  power? 
Point  to  me  a single  instance  when 
the  mayor  of  Chicago  has  wrongfully 
exercised  his  power?  Give  him  power 
and  hold  him  strictly  responsible  for  it. 

As  I have  said  before,  he  is  only  one 
man  in  the  council.  There  are  seventy 
members  of  the  council,  and  when  we 
speak  of  his  administration  we  do  not 


December  10 


206 


1906 


speak  of  his  executive  hands  alone. 
He  is  spoken  of  as  the  chief  representa- 
tive of  the  officials  of  Chicago.  They 
must  counsel  with  the  mayor,  and  I 
believe  that  the  mayor  and  the  coun- 
cil should  be  brought  together  in  har- 
monious relation;  the  mayor  should  not 
be  set  to  one  side  and  put  upon  a ped- 
estal, but  upon  him  should  be  put  the 
responsibility  of  carrying  out  the  pow- 
ers conferred  upon  him  to  the  best  of 
his  ability. 

Men  sometimes  make  mistakes,  and 
he  may  sometimes  make  mistakes.  Of 
course,  we  are  all  human.  But  if  he 
does  and  the  mistakes  are  pointed  out 
to  him  there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  rec- 
tifying them.  I made  mistakes  myself 
when  mayor,  but  they  were  mistakes 
of  the  head,  not  of  the  heart.  I say 
that  the  legislative  and  executive  de- 
partments should  be  brought  into  a 
harmonious  whole.  The  mayor  should 
consult  the  members  of  the  council. 
There  are  members  in  it  who  are  men 
of  affairs,  practical  men,  and  from  the 
very  fact  that  every  Monday  night, 
once  a week,  and  sometimes  oftener 
they  are  gathered  together  to  consult 
with  each  other  and  make  comparisons 
of  the  many  things  brought  before 
them,  why  they  become  naturally  cog- 
nizant of  the  wants  of  the  city.  Now 
who  should  the  mayor  go  to?  He  goes 
to  the  members  of  the  city  council, 
for  matters  that  are  before  the  city 
council;  he  sends  for  the  aldermen  and 
consults  with  them  and  learns  what 
has  been  their  experience,  and  he 
gathers  a great  deal  of  information  in 
that  way,  a great  deal  of  good  infor- 
mation, and  he  puts  that  information 
to  the  best  use  that  he  can  think  of  at 
the  time.  I know  that  during  my  in- 
cumbency of  the  mayorality  office  I 
often  consulted  the  aldermen  of  the 
city  of  Chicago.  I never  had  occasion 
to  find  fault  with  the  advice  they  gave 
to  me  when  I told  them  that  I wanted 
the  best  that  they  had,  when  I said 


“I  want  the  best  that  you  can  give, 
I want  the  best,  I want  that  which  is 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  city. 
What  do  you  think  of  that?” 

Point  to  me  a single  instance  where, 
the  members  of  the  city  council  have 
had  to  rise  in  their  might  as  against 
the  chief  executive.  If  he  is  a man 
of  administrative  and  executive  abili- 
ty he  knows  who  to  go  to,  he  knows, 
perchance,  better  than  anybody  else 
what  is  to  the  best  interests  of  the 
city,  after  consultation  with  men  in 
whom  he  has  confidence,  the  best  por- 
tion of  the  city  government. 

Therefore,  I am  not  in  sympathy 
with  this  motion,  nor  am  I in  sympa- 
thy with  . this  seeming  determination 
on  the  part  of  some  of  the  members 
of  this  Convention  to  look  upon  the 
mayor  as  a bogey  man.  That  is  not 
right.  It  is  a high  office,  an  office 
worthy  of  the  ambition  of  any  man,  no 
matter  what  his  parts  may  be,  and 
you  should  not  rob  that  office  of  the 
responsibility  that  should  attach  to  it 
and  make  it  that  which  it  is.  If  the 
mayor  of  the  city  of  Chicago  fails  to 
do  his  duty  there  is  a higher  power 
that  takes  care  of  him,  and  under  the 
laws  it  is  relegated  to  the  people  at  the 
end  of  every  two  years  to  say  whether 
he  has  been  a worthy  occupant  of 
the  office  or  not.  I am  not  in  sympa- 
thy with  this  motion  of  terms  of  office 
except  those  of  the  mayor  and  mem- 
bers of  the  city  council  and  municipal 
court  judges — that  they  should  be  in- 
definite in  time.  If  you  have  a good 
commissioner  of  public  works,  if  he  is 
par  excellence,  if  he  is  a man  of  great 
executive  ability — and  there  is  the  office 
where  you  should  have  a man  of  exec- 
utive ability,  perhaps  more  so  than  the 
man  who  occupies  the  mayoralty  chair, 
for  upon  the  commissioner  of  public 
works  devolves  the  conduct  of  this  great 
city,  and  to  his  judgment  many  things 
are  submitted,  there  comes  many  ques- 
tions. He  should  be  a man  of  great  execu- 


December  10 


207 


1906 


tive  ability.  Your  comptroller  should  be  a 
man  of  financial  affairs,  a man  who 
understands  the  finances,  a man  of  in- 
tegrity, a man  of  parts.  It  should  be 
left  to  the  chief  executive  of  the  city. 
What  does  that  mean?  It  should  be 
left  to  the  man  who  is  chosen  by  your 
superiors,  the  people. 

I have  heard  a great  deal  said  about 
the  people.  Who  are  the  people?  They 
are  the  men  who  come  to  your  aider- 
men,  and  what  do  they  say  to  your 
aldermen?  “I  want  you  to  do  so  and 
so,  ” and  there  comes  the  point  of  their 
self-interest.  And  there  is  the  aider- 
man,  there  is  a delegation  coming  to 
see  him  about  some  proposition  in  the 
council,  men  of  affairs  who  present  a 
certain  matter  to  him  in  a certain 
way,  and  he  no  more  than  dismisses  them 
than  there  comes  another  delegation 
which  represents  certain  interests  that 
are  asking  for  something  which  is  ex- 
actly opposite.  So  you  see  that  in 
every  case  self-interest  predominates 
and  until  you  can  do  away  with  that 
inherent  self-interest,  that  inherent 
selfishness,  you  cannot  have  the  proper 
government. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  time  is 

up,  Mr.  Swift. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

change  my  motion  to  lay  this  on  the  table, 
with  the  consent  of  my  second,  who  had 
already  intimated  to  me  he  will  consent, 
I move  to  defer  action  to  this  proposi- 
tion, inasmuch  as  we  cannot  intelligently 
act  on  it  until  we  find  out  who  the 
heads  of  the  department  are. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  motion  of 

Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  must  be  considered  first, 
this  question  to  lay  on  the  table.  We 
will  take  a vote  upon  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  motion  to 

defer  is  lost. 

MEMBERS:  Call  the  roll. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll.  On  the  motion  to  de- 
fer the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 


Yeas— Beilfuss,  Brosseau  Dever,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.;  Jones,  Lathrop,  McCormick, 
Merriam,  Pendarvis,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Sethness,  Taylor,  White — 14. 

Nays — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown,  Burke, 
Church,  Chattenberg,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon, 
G.  W.;  Dixon,  T.  J.j  Eckhart,  J.  W.; 
Erickson,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Kittleman, 
Linehan,  MacMillan,  McKinley,  O ’Don- 
nell, Owens,  Post,  Powers,  Raymer,  Shan- 
ahan, Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Swift,  Vo- 
picka,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer 
— 34. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wish  to  change  my 

vote  from  no  to  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins 

changes  his  vote  from  no  to  aye.  Upon 
the  motion  to  defer  action,  the  ayes 
are  14;  and  the  nays  34.  The  motion  is 
lost. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I move  that  No.  4 

be  not  concurred  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have  heard 

the  motion,  gentlemen. 

MR.  HOYNE : I desire  to  offer  a 

resolution,  but  that  practically  covers 
my  substitute  which  I was  willing  to  in- 
troduce. It  practically  means  the  same 
thing,  and  it  satisfies  me;  I second  the 
motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion  that  No.  4 of  the  Civil  Ser- 
vice section  be  not  concurred  it.  Upon 
that  the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll.  I 
presume  that  means  the  two  amendments, 
also. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I intended  to  cover 

all  amendments  that  had  been  submitted 
and  acted  upon. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau, Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Clettenberg, 
Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Dixon,  T.  J.; 
Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Erick- 
son, Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittle- 
man,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMillan, 
McKinley,  O ’Connell,  Owens,  Pendarvis, 
Powers,  Raymer,  Rosenthal,  Sethness, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Swift, 
Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young, 
Zimmer — 42. 


December  10 


208 


1906 


Nays — Dever,  Lathrop,  Merriam,  Post, 
Robins,  Taylor, — 6. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  not  concur  on  No.  4 of  Civil  Service 
section,  the  yeas  have  42  and  the  nays 
6.  The  motion  to  not  concur  is  carried. 

MR.  SWIFT : By  request,  I introduce 

a petition  which  I ask  to  be  read,  and 
which  I hand  up  to  the  table. 

MR.  M’CORMICK:  I wish  to  record 

my  vote  as  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  vote  has  been 
announced,  Mr.  McCormick,  and  no 
change  in  the  record  can  be  made  now. 
The  Secretary  will  read  the  petition. 

THE  SECRETARY,  By  Mr.  Swift. 

Chicago,  111.,  Dec.  7,  1906. 

To  the  Hon.  Geo.  B.  Swift, 

Member  of  the  Charter  Convention 
188  E.  Madison  St.,  City. 

Dear  Sir:  — 

We,  the  undersigned,  were  instructed 
by  the  Chicago  Methodist  Episcopal 
Preachers  ’ meeting  to  petition  your 
honorable  body  to  include  the  appended 
provision  in  the  proposed  Charter: 

The  Charter  shall  provide  as  follows: 

Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  construed 
to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to  confer 
upon  the  city  council  power  to  pass  any 
ordinance  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  Act  entitled,  “An 
Act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages  or 
parts  of  the  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages,  ’ ’ approved  April  25, 
1889,  or  of  any  provision  of  any  law 
in  Illinois  relating  to  the  sale  of  in- 
toxicating liquors  or  creating  or  de- 
fining criminal  offences  or  relating  to 
the  prosecution  and  punishment  thereof, 
nor  shall  any  amendment  or  addition  be 
made  to  the  Charter  of  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago, except  by  the  General  Assembly, 
by  which  this  section  or  any  part  thereof 
shall,  directly  or  indirectly,  be  abrogated, 
repealed  or  annuled. 

This  action  is  taken  because  the  mem- 
bers o fthe  Methodist  Episcopal  Church, 
whom  we  represent,  desire  the  Charter 


to  be  proposed  in  such  a form  that  they 
can  give  it  their  heartiest  support,  with 
the  assurance  that  the  moral  interests 
of  Chicago  are  safeguarded  thereby. 

Very  respectfully  yours. 
MORTON  CULVER  HARTWELL, 

Chairman. 
3314  South  Park  Ave. 

A.  LINCOLN  SHUTE, 
JOHN  THOMPSON, 

5322  Washington  Av.,  Chicago, 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  ijs 

under  the  impression  that  theis  is  the 
same  matter  that  was  presented  by  Al- 
derman Bennett  as  a previous  meeting.  Is 
that  correct? 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  is  the  same  sub- 

ject. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Then  there  is  no 

need  that  it  should  be  printed  in  the 
record,  because  the  matter  is  already  men- 
tioned in  the  record. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  My  attention 

has  just  been  called  to  the  fact  that  an 
error  appears  on  page  192,  under  the  title 
of  Elective  Officers,  the  second  proposi- 
tion in  the  second  column,  in  No.  4.  It 
omits  the  words  ‘ 1 In  alphabetical  order, 1 ’ 
and  the  designation  of  the  party  to  which 
they  belong.  That  was  the  resolution — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

advises  me  that  he  discovered  this  typo- 
graphical error,  and  it  will  be  corrected. 
The  Secretary  will  read  No.  6,  city  coun- 
cil. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  VI  as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  proceedings  at  page  52. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Revell  pre- 

sented an  alternative  proposition.  He  is 
in  New  York,  and  I believe  he  sent 
the  Secretary  a statement  of  his  views 
on  the  subject.  If  there  are  no  objec- 
tions, the  Secretary  will  read  it,  if  he 
has  it  with  him.  Have  you  Mr.  Revell ’s 
letter? 

THE  SECRETARY:  No,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Did  you  receive 

a letter  from  him? 

THE  SECRETARY:  No,  sir. 


December  10 


209 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Revell  says 

in  his  note  to  me  that  he  will  send  me  his 
views  on  the  subject,  but  I haven’t  yet 
received  them. 

MR,  RAYMER:  I move  you  the  adop- 

tion of  No.  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  that  No.  1,  pro- 
viding for  the  redistribution  of  the  city 
into  70  wards,  one  alderman  to  be  elected 
from  each  ward,  is  before  the  house  for 
discussion. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  I desire 

to  offer  as  a substitute,  the  following: 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Snow: 

Amend  first  proposition  so  that  it  shall 
read:  1.  The  charter  shall  provide  for 

redistricting  the  city  into  seventy  wards 
of  compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  one  alderman  to  be  elect- 
ed from  each  ward. 

MR.  SNOW:  Practically  the  only  dif- 
ference, Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  they  are 
trying  to  make  it  a charter  provision 
that  the  wards  shall  be  in  contiguous  ter- 
ritories, and  that  there  shall  be  taken 
into  consideration  both  the  question  of 
area  and  of  population  in  determining 
the  size  of  the  ward. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I will  accept  the 

amendment,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  any 

more  discussion  on  this  matter? 

MR.  DEVER:  I would  like  to  hear 

some  discussion  on  this  measure  by  the 
mover  of  the  motion  or  by  somebody 
else  interested  in  it.  It  is  a very  great 
change  in  the  present  law.  Personally 
I do  not  see  any  great  reason  for  it.  I 
am  not  opposed  to  it,  but  I cannot  see 
any  good  reason  for  the  change.  If  I 
was  told  there  might  me  some  good  rea- 
son for  making  this  change — I have 
been  a member  for  the  last  five  years, 
and  have  been  associated  with  other  aider- 
men  representing  the  same  ward  that 
I do,  of  course,  and  I find  that  the 
dual  system,  if  I may  so  call  it,  works 
very  satisfactorily  in  our  ward.  We 


have  not  elected  two  of  the  same  party 
in  our  ward  during  my  incumbency  of 
the  office.  It  seems  to  me  that  two  men 
might  well  represent  these  wards.  I do 
not  see  why  we  should  give  one  man  the 
whole  responsibility  of  representing  a 
particular  locality.  If  he  is  a member 
of  one  party,  narrow  in  its  views  or  con- 
duct, he  may  feel  it  would  be  in  his  in- 
terest to  represent  the  interests  of  that 
particular  party,  or  a particular  faction 
of  that  particular  party.  Whereas,  as 
things  are,  there  are  in  many  of  the 
wards  of  the  city,  as  our  ward  is,  wards 
represented  by  one  democrat  and  one 
republican,  and  it  seems  to  me  the 
wards  and  the  people  get  better  service 
from  the  alderman  than  they  would 
under  this  new  system.  Furthermore, 
it  seems  to  me  if  you  place  the  political 
control  of  a ward,  as  well  as  the  physi- 
cal duties  on  an  officer — the  legislative 
and  executive  duties  of  that  territory  in 
the  hands  of  one  man — you  will  get  po- 
litical power  in  the  ward  which  will  make 
it  difficult  to  get  rid  of  whenever  you 
desire  to  do  so.  I have  not  given  this 
matter  much  thought,  but  I think  the 
present  distribution,  as  far  as  I know 
it,  works  very  well,  and  this  is  a radical 
change  of  the  present  system.  Unless 
some  good  reason  for  making  a change 
appears,  I believe  I would  vote  against  it. 

MR.  BENNETT : One  very  good  rea- 

son occurs  to  me  why  this  change  should 
be  made,  and  that  is  this:  By  dividing 

the  city  into  70  wards,  you  bring  the 
alderman  closer  in  contact  with  the  con- 
stituency which  elects  him.  You  make  it 
more  of  a neighborhood  affair.  The  al- 
derman will  be  better  known  to  the  peo- 
ple who  elect  him  than  under  the  pres- 
ent system.  My  judgment  is  that  you 
will  insure  getting  a good  alderman  under 
this  plan.  Another  reason  is  this:  You 

reduce  the  amount  of  territory  which  the 
alderman  is  required  to  look  after.  You 
will,  in  that  way,  relieve  him  to  a large 
extent— about  half — of  the  duties  of  look- 
ing after  the  physical  needs  of  the  ward. 


December  10 


210 


1906 


Under  the  present  practice  it  is  neces- 
sary to  keep  in  touch  with  the  affairs 
of  the  whole  ward.  Under  the  new  sys- 
tem, he  would  have  just  one-half  of  that 
territory  to  look  after,  and  for  those 
two  reasons  alone  I think  we  are  war- 
ranted in  making  the  change. 

MR.  RAYMER:  In  addition  to  the  rea- 
sons that  Alderman  Bennett  has  given, 
I might  suggest  one  or  two  more.  In 
the  first  place,  a reference  to  the  tfoard 
of  local  improvements,  I think,  will  show 
that  in  the  matter  of  improvements,  it 
frequently  happens  that  two  aldermen  in 
the  ward  are  divided  on  the  question. 
This  is  brought  about  by  the  property 
owners  not  being  here  to  agree  that  the 
improvement  should  be  made.  Conse- 
quently one  faction  goes  to  one  of  the 
aldermen,  and  the  other  faction  goes  to 
the  other,  and  we  find  them  arrayed  one 
against  the  other,  representing  the  in- 
terests of  that  particular  ward.  An- 
other reason  is  that  responsibility  in 
representing  the  people  should  not  be  di- 
vided. I think  that  is  one  of  the  most 
important  reasons  that  can  be  given. 
It  is  a well  known  fact  that  all  of  the 
aldermen  are  not  equally  industrious.  It 
sometimes  happens  that  the  greatest  part 
of  the  burden  of  looking  after  the  physi- 
cal needs  of  the  wards  is  placed  upon  the 
shouldres  of  one  of  the  representatives. 
The  result  is  that  it  is  not  a physical 
possibility  for  one  man  to  give  the  terri- 
tory over  which  he  is  supposed  to  have 
supervision,  the  attention  that  it  requires. 

Take  the  question  of  improvements, 
street  paving  and  construction  of  side- 
walks, the  building  of  sewers,  and  any 
improvements  of  a public  character,  they 
should  receive  the  same  attention  from 
the  aldermen  of  the  ward.  If  the  terri- 
tory is  decreased  in  size,  it  would  be 
possible  for  one  alderman  to  assume  the 
responsibility  of  supervision.  My  judg- 
ment is — and  it  is  based  on  eight  years 
experience  as  an  alderman — that  if  the 
territory  were  to  be  lessened  in  size,  the 
people  would  get  much  better  results 


from  their  representative,  and  he  can 
keep  in  closer  touch  with  the  people  whom 
he  represents.  Responsibility  would  not 
be  divided.  Take  it  altogether,  gentle- 
men, I am  satisfied  that  the  city  of  Chi- 
cago would  get  the  best  results  ever 
had  from  its  city  council. 

MR,  M’CORMICK:  I beg  to  differ 

with  all  the  speakers  who  have  spoken. 
It  appears  to  me  that  35  wards  are 
enough,  but  I think  one  alderman  from 
each  of  the  35  wards  also  would  be 
enough.  It  is  said  that  one  alderman 
from  a ward  is  not  enough,  because  he 
would  not  be  able  to  give  individual  at- 
tention to  many  of  the  physical  needs 
o£  the  ward.  Nor  should  he  be  called 
upon  to  give  his  attention  to  the  sewer 
building  and  street  paving  of  his  ward. 
The  city  is  organized  with  an  executive 
and  legislative  branch.  The  duty  of  the 
executive  is  to  see  that  the  pub- 
lic improvements  are  properly  carried 
opt,  and  if  the  executive  department  is 
brought  up  to  the  efficiency  we  expect 
from  it,  we  should  not  be  called  upon  to 
attend  to  somebody  else’s  business.  As 
far  as  legislature  is  concerned,  35  aider- 
men  are  sufficient.  During  the  time  that 
I have  had  the  honor  to  be  a member  of 
the  committee  that  chose  the  committees 
for  the  city  council,  we  considered  that 
three  committees  were  the  most  important 
committees  in  the  city  council,  and  I 
presume  that  the  last  committee  in  the 
presume  that  the  last  committee  felt  the> 
same  way  about  it  that  we  did.  We 
felt  that  the  finance,  the  local  transpor- 
tation, and  the  judiciary,  were  the  most 
important  committees  of  the  city  council. 
Looking  at  the  committee  cards  for  these 
committees,  I find  that  the  three  com- 
mittees are  filled  by  27  aldermen — or  per- 
haps 28,  if  I have  not  added  them  cor- 
rectly. If  we  have  35  aldermen  we  would 
still  have  a surplus  over  these  important 
commitees.  I see  that  27  aldermen  are 
on  these  three  committees,  and  most  al- 
dermen are  on  two — on  or  more — and 
maybe  on  three.  I have  not  had  time  to 


December  10 


211 


1906 


look  through  the  other  committees  that 
fell  into  prominence  this  year,  but  by 
glancing  through  them  I find  the  same 
representative  names  that  I find  on  the 
first  three  committees.  The  fact  is  well 
recognized,  and  it  is  a fact  to  be  accepted 
that  the  alderman  whose  services  in  this 
council  have  been  efficient,  and  the  aider- 
men  who  have  the  time  to  give  to  their 
work,  will  be  chosen  for  the  important 
committees,  whether  we  have  35  aldermen 
or  350. 

Another  trouble  with  us  is  that  when 
a board  or  a committee,  after  weeks  and 
weeks  of  hard  work,  in  which  they  agree 
and  disagree,  and  agree  and  disagree 
again,  finally  bring  in  what,  in  their 
judgment  and  their  experience  is  good, 
they  have  to  wrest  over  40  or  50  other 
persons  to  their  way  of  thinking,  and  this 
means  delay  in  legislation,  which  is  a de- 
lay in  good  decisions. 

For  this  few  reasons,  I believe  that  35 
wards  should  be  preserved  and  that  only 
one  alderman  should  be  elected  from  each 
ward. 

MR.  TAYLOR  : The  great  need  of  the 
city  council  of  Chicago  is  for  men  of 
higher  equipment  and  of  stronger  calibre 
in  its  ctiy  council.  This  is  a council- 
governed  city.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
difficulty  is  increasing  in  getting  men  of 
large  capacity  to  serve  as  aldermen.  I 
believe  that  that  difficulty  will  be  in- 
creased by  increasing  the  number  of 
wards,  and  I therefore  concur  in  the  judg- 
ment of  him  who  preceded  me,  that  the 
wards  should  remain  at  the  same  number, 
even  though  we  have  two  men  in  a 
ward.  I really  believe  that  we  would 
have  a better  selection  of  men  by  having 
fewer  wards  than  a larger  number  of 
wards,  as  proposed  in  this  first  section. 
I do  not  see  why  we  have  a divergence 
from  the  ordinary  procedure,  and  why  we 
could  not  take  up  these  alternatives  in 
the  reverse  order,  as  we  have  in  other 
instances.  The  motion,  I know,  was  made 
that  we  take  up  No.  1,  but  it  seems  to 
me  to  foreclose  the  decision  on  certain 


specific  points  that  were  brought  out  in 
the  first  and  second  alternatives. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

may  I ask  Mr.  Taylor  a question?  I 
would  like  to  know  whether  you  con- 
sider seventy  too  large  for  a city  having 
a population  of  over  two  millions  of  peo- 
ple? I just  ask  that  for  information. 

MR.  TAYLOR : I certainly  believe 

that  the  business  of  the  population  of 
the  city  of  Chicago  would  be  better  trans- 
acted and  more  efficiently  done  by  thirty- 
five  aldermen  than  by  seventy,  and  I 
think  we  would  have  just  as  fair  repre- 
sentation, too. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Werno. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  from 

all  that  has  been  said,  I am  entirely  un- 
able to  see  any  good  reason  for  this 
change.  There  may  be  something  said 
in  favor  of  the  seventy  wards  and  one 
alderman,  but  I do  not  think  much  can 
be  said  in  favor  of  thirty-five  wards  and 
one  alderman.  I believe  that  unless  bet- 
ter reasons  can  be  given  than  have  so  far 
been  given,  we  should  leave  the  matter 
as  it  is. 

If  the  city  were  to  be  divided  into 
seventy  wards  and  we  then  had  one  aider- 
man  from  each  ward,  I think  possibly  we 
could  get  better  service  than  with  thirty- 
five  wards  and  one  alderman.  I am 
quite  sure  of  that,  because  as  it  has  been 
said  here,  one  of  the  reasons  given  here 
in  favor  of  seventy  wards,  is  that  it  would 
bring  the  aldermen  in  closer  touch  with 
the  people  whom  they  represent  and  they 
would  know  more  of  them,  know  more 
of  their  needs  and  wants.  Now,  if  that 
is  what  the  alderman  is  to  do  in  the  city 
council,  if  he  is  to  represent  his  people 
and  look  after  the  physical  needs  of  his 
ward,  then  it  ought  to  be  made  smaller, 
and  if  you  are  going  to  leave  the  wards 
as  they  are  and  have  only  the  one  aider- 
man,  then  you  make  conditions  much 
worse  than  they  are  now. 

Those  of  us  who  have  run  for  office 
for  the  last  few  years  as  aldermen,  know 


December  10 


212 


1906 


that  one  of  the  questions  we  are  usually- 
asked  is:  “Are  you  willing  to  give  the 
necessary  time  to  look  after  the  physi- 
cal needs  of  your  ward?”  That  is  one 
of  the  things  that  is  much  asked  of  can- 
didates. 

Now,  it  seems  as  if  the  question  arises 
when  you  have  two  aldermen  in  the  ward, 
as  there  are  to-day,  this  same  question 
will  come  up  as  to  whether  or  not  these 
men  will  give  the  necessary  time  to  look 
after  the  physical  needs  and  conditions 
of  their  ward. 

Now,  if  there  is  a question  as  to  that 
when  we  have  two  aldermen  in  a ward, 
what  would  it  be  if  you  had  one  aider- 
man  and  thirty-five  wards?  It  would  be 
practically  impossible  for  one  - man  to 
look  after  a ward  such  as  the  25  or  the 
27th,  some  of  the  South  Side  wards,  it 
would  be  impossible  for  him  to  do  that 
if  you  leave  them  as  they  are  now. 

So  it  seems  to  me  as  far  as  one  aider- 
man  to  the  ward  and  thirty-five  wards 
is  concerned,  if  you  want  to  have  good 
service,  it  is  something  that  is  out  of  the 
question.  One  man  could  not  look  after 
everything  that  must  and  should  be  look- 
ed after,  even  if  he  gave  all  his  time  to 
it;  he  could  not  get  around.  But  if  you 
have  one  alderman  in  a ward ; if  you 
think  one  alderman  in  a ward  is  better 
than  two,  then  we  ought  to  have  the 
seventy  wards  so  as  to  make  them  smaller 
in  size. 

That  would  make  the  size  of  the  coun- 
cil in  number  just  the  same  as  it  is  to- 
day, and  as  far  as  I am  personally  con- 
cerned, from  the  experience  I have  had 
in  the  council,  I have  no  particular  views 
on  that  as  to  whether  there  ought  to  be 
one  alderman  if  you  adopt  that  number 
of  wards. 

As  has  been  said  by  Alderman  Ray- 
mer,  it  sometimes  happens  that  the  al- 
dermen divide;  one  alderman  is  in  favor 
of  one  faction  in  his  ward,  or  certain 
property  owners,  and  another  alderman 
is  in  favor  of  the  other.  Now,  whether 
it  is  a bad  or  a good  condition  to  have, 


depends  upon  the  circumstances.  Some- 
times it  might  be  well  that  there  are 
two,  where  they  do  not  agree,  when  one 
might  be  favoring  a certain  element  or 
faction  that  is  asking  for  something  that 
is  not  right;  then  perhaps  it  is  a good 
thing  to  have  another  man  in  the  ward 
opposed  to  that  faction  or  that  element 
in  what  they  are  asking  for. 

So  I do  not  believe  there  is  very  much 
in  the  argument.  The  main  point  about 
this  is  to  get  the  best  possible  service 
for  the  people  of  Chicago  after  you  have 
elected  capable  and  honest  men  to  repre- 
sent the  people,  men  who  are  willing  to 
give  the  time  necessary,  and  I believe 
that  with  one  man  from  a ward,  and 
thirty-five  wards,  that  we  would  get  much 
poorer  service  for  the  people  of  Chi- 
cago than  we  are  getting  to-day  with 
two  aldermen  from  each  ward.  So  I 
should  say,  that  if  you  have  one  aider- 
man  to  each  ward,  then  you  should  have 
seventy  wards. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  there  is  a rather  strong 
sentiment  in  this  Convention  in  favor  of 
the  single  responsibility  that  would  be 
involved  in  a single  alderman  from  a 
ward.  Attention  has  been  called  by  some 
speakers  who  say  they  believe  in  one  al- 
derman, but  they  believe  that  thirty-five 
is  enough. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  we  are  not  making  a charter  for  to- 
day but  for  a number  of  years,  and  that 
the  population  of  Chicago  is  rapidly  in- 
creasing. Also,  the  undeveloped  terri- 
tory which  is  already  in  Chicago  is  be- 
ing developed  and  that  will  require  a 
greater  amount  of  attention  to  the  local 
conditions  of  the  wards,  and  it  seems 
to  me  when  you  take  into  consideration 
the  fact  that  the  alderman ’s  duty  is 
twofold;  first,  that  he  shall  look  after 
local  conditions  of  his  ward  and  meet 
his  people;  and  second,  that  he  shall  also 
legislate,  and  that  we  need  certain 
changes,  and  that  if  we  do  not  need  them 
now  wre  will  very  soon  and  we  do  not 


December  10 


213 


1906 


want  to  find  Chicago  in  short  skirts  as 
we  have  found  her  in  the  past,  I am, 
therefore,  in  favor  of  the  proposition 
of  a single  alderman  for  the  ward,  and 
starting  with  seventy  wards. 

ME.  POWEBS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I co- 

incide almost  entirely  with  the  remarks 
made  by  Alderman  Werno.  I believe  it 
would  be  a serious  mistake  to  leave  the 
wards  as  they  are  to-day  and  have  only 
ne  alderman  for  each  ward.  It  would 
be  absolutely  a physical  impossibility 
for  any  man  to  attend  to  the  duties  of 
the  office  and  the  needs  of  his  constitu- 
ents, because  with  the  present  popula- 
tion that  would  be  about  50,000  to  the 
ward. 

From  my  experience  in  the  city  coun- 
cil, and  as  alderman,  I think  to-day  that 
that  would  be  absolutely  impossible.  If 
there  is  going  to  be  a change  and  only 
have  one  alderman  for  a ward,  then  1 
say  we  should  have  seventy  wards. 

Personally  I am  in  favor  of  not  chang- 
ing from  the  representation  as  it  is  to- 
day, but  if  the  sentiment  is  one  alderman 
from  each  ward,  then  I say  seventy  wards 
is  not  too  many. 

MB.  CHUECH:  I desire  to  offer  the 

following  amendment. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

THE  SECEETAEY : By  Mr.  Church: 
The  city  may  be  redistricted  by  the  city 
council  every  ten  years,  after  the  federal 
census  has  been  taken,  but  no  more  than 
seventy  wards  shall  be  made. 

MB.  CHUECH:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Church. 

ME.  CHUECH:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

support  of  that  amendment,  it  simply 
fixes  the  number  of  wards  so  that  they 
cannot  be  increased  by  the  council,  and 
allows  the  council  to  redistrict  the  city 
as  the  population  is  increased  every  ten 
years  after  the  census  is  taken.  If  it  is 
deemed  advisable  that  that  time  should 
be  shortened,  I wrould  be  willing  to  have 
an  amendment  changing  it,  although  I 
think  ten  years  would  be  all  right. 


ME.  EOSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

have  that  read  again,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  that  again,  please. 

The  Secretary  again  read  Mr.  Church ’s 
amendment. 

ME.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  I have 

a substitute  before  the  house  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  and  I would  be  willing  to  ac- 
cept Mr.  Church’s  amendment  if  he  will 
draft  it  so  it  will  fit  in.  In  other  words, 
I still  believe  that  the  wards  should  be 
contiguous  territory,  and  that  the  area 
as  well  as  the  population  should  be 
taken  into  account.  Mr.  Church  simply 
provides  for  the  redistricting  of  the  city 
every  ten  years. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  It  occurs  to  the 

Chair  that  it  would  simply  qualify  it 
without  being  a substitute  for  it. 

ME.  CHUECH : Yes. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  And  that  ap- 

plies particularly  to  the  redistricting. 

ME.  CHUECH:  That  is  the  idea. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  May  the  Chair 

call  the  convention ’s  attention  to  a 
matter  that  in  his  judgment  ought  to 
be  discussed  at  the  same  time?  So  far 
as  the  length  of  time,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  outline  as  presented  to  this  con- 
vention relating  to  the  length  of  time  of 
the  aldermen,  or  how  th>ey  shall  be 
elected. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman— 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Eosenthal. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  We  have  made 

a recommendation  and  that  recommenda- 
tion is  embodied  in  the  following  prop- 
osition which  I send  to  the  Chair,  prop- 
osition. 3 of  No.  6,  which  I ask  to  have 
read  at  this  time. 

MB,  EAYMEE:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

strikes  me  that  we  are  dealing  with  an 
entirely  different  proposition. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Thas  is  very  true, 
but  I did  not  find  it  anywhere  here  and 
. I did  not  want  to  see  it  lost  sight  of. 
We  passed  a section  here  relating  to 
the  term  of  the  mayor,  that  it  shall  be 
the  same,  as  the  members  of  the  city 


December  10 


214 


1906 


council.  Now,  I may  not  be  able  to  find 
it,  but  when  we  come  back  to  that,  that 
should  be  determined,  what  the  term  of 
the  members  of  the  city  council  shall 
be,  so  we  can  intelligently  determine 
that. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I think,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  they  ought  to  decide  on  the 
other  proposition  first. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  very  good. 

The  Chair  simply  wanted  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  members  of  it  first. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

have  that  read,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  proposition? 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal : The  term  of  office  of  aldermen 

shall  be  four  years.  The  aldermen  shall 
be  periodically  elected  at  an  election  held 
two  years  after  the  mayoralty  election. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  What  does  that 

mean,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

has  the  floor.  Mr.  Rosenthal,  a question 
was  asked  you  relating  to  your  resolu- 
tion. Will  you  repeat  your  question,  Mr. 
MacMillan? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  What  does  that 

word  “periodically”  mean?  there,  give 
us  the  construction  of  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I am  glad  you 

said  “there.”  Mr.  Rosenthal  will  you 
explain  your  resolution,  please? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  “Periodically,” 

as  I understand  it,  means  every  period 
of  four  years.  That  is,  if  the  term  is 
four  years,  why  the  period  is  four  years, 
and  periodically  would  mean  every  four 
years.  That  is,  it  was  the  idea  of  our 
committee,  and  I might  say  here  that  that 
proposition  was  passed  in  our  committee 
by  a vote  of  nine  to  two,  that  the  elec- 
tion of  aldermen  should  occur  every  four 
years,  the  term  should  be  four  years  and 
the  election  should  be  held  between  the 
mayoralty  elections. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I desire  to  suggest  that 
there  is  a motion  before  the  house  and  it 
does  not  seem  to  me  that  this  particular 


matter  is  directly  material  to  the  motion 
before  the  house.  I believe  we  can  get 
along  better  by  settling  one  question  at 
a time.  Let  us  settle  the  question  of 
how  many  aldermen  we  will  have  and 
then  we  can  settle  the  question  of  the 
term  of  office  and  the  salary  and  other 
questions  involved. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  view  of  the 

fact  that  possibly  the  question  of  the 
terms  of  the  aldermen  might  have  some- 
thing to  do  with  the  number  of  aider- 
men,  the  Chair  suggested  its  omission, 
and  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  matter  will  stand 
over  until  this  matter  is  disposed  of. 

MR.  McCORMICK : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  the  adoption  of  the  second  alterna- 
tive to  one,  to  take  the  place  of  all  the 
others. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Just  a moment, 

it  will  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  second  alterna- 
tive to  No.  1,  as  it  appears  in  the  pro- 
ceeding at  page  52. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  de- 

sires to  state  that  this  is  the  last  substi- 
tute. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  No.  1 should  be  passed 
by  this  Convention.  I possibly  cannot 
state  any  new  reasons  that  were  not 
stated  before,  but  I think  that  if  you 
have  one  alderman  from  the  ward,  that 
he  can  serve  the  ward  better  than  two 
aldermen.  It  has  been  my  experience, 
and  was  when  I was  a member  of  the 
Board  of  Local  Improvements,  that  an 
alderman  would  come  to  me  and  ask  me 
not  to  let  such  and  such  a movement  go 
through  and  the  next  one  would  come  to 
me  and  say,  “Vote  in  favor  of  that; 
we  want  it,”  and  so  I do  not  think  two 
aldermen  can  serve  a ward  as  well  as 
one.  My  opinion  is  this:  That  if  you 
have  a small  ward  and  one  alderman, 
that  you  can  get  better  service  in  the 
interests  of  the  city,  and  for  that  reason 
I heartily  endorse  the  adoption  of  No.  1. 

MR,  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I am  in  favor  of  the  motion  made 


December  10 


215 


1906 


by  Mr.  McCormick  substituting  the  second 
alternative  to  1 : 11  The  number  of  wards 
shall  remain  as  at  present,  but  only  one 
alderman  shall  be  selected  from  each 
ward,”  and  I believe  that  the  experi- 
ence of  the  men  present  here  is  that  a 
large  body  does  not  tend  to  expedite  the 
business  of  that  body  but  rather  retards 
it.  I think  as  an  illustration  of  that 
theory  I can  point  to  the  State  Legisla- 
ture of  this  State.  We  all  know  that 
the  Senate  of  the  State  transacts  its 
business  much  more  expeditiously  than 
the  House,  and  I believe  that  is  true  of 
all  legislative  bodies.  I think  you  get 
better  results  by  smaller  bodies  than 
you  can  get  by  the  larger  ones. 

I think  there  is  a great  deal  of  force 
in  what  has  been  said  here  this  after- 
noon in  reference  to  the  undesirability 
of  having  two  aldermen  in  one  ward.  I 
believe  one  alderman  in  a ward  would 
subserve  public  interest  better  than 
two.  I believe  in  undivided  responsibil- 
ity, and  I am,  therefore,  heartily  in 
favor  of  the  last  alternative  named 
and  read;  but  if  that  cannot  be  adopted, 
I am  certainly  in  favor  of  limiting  the 
election  to  one  alderman  to  each  ward, 
because  I believe,  as  I have  stated,  that 
you  will  get  much  better  results. 
f MR.  SHANAHAN : Mr.  Chairman, 

this  matter  was  referred  to  the  Conven- 
tion from  the  committee  on  municipal 
legislation,  and  that  committee  spent  a 
great  deal  of  time  going  over  this  whole 
y subject  matter.  It  was  referred  by  that 
\ committee  to  a sub-committee,  of  which 
\ Alderman  Raymer  was  chairman.  He 
sent  out  notices  asking  for  a referendum 
1 vote  on  the  subject  to  the  members  of 
/ the  City  Council  and  to  persons  who  had 
/ been  members  of  the  City  Council  for 
\the  past  fifteen  years.  That  vote  showed 
\hat  over  90  per  cent,  were  in  favor  of 
ohe  alderman  to  a ward,  and  over  75 
percent.,  if  I remember  correctly,  were 
in  fstvor  of  50  or  60  wards. 

The  original  proposition  before  the 
sub-committee  was  in  favor  of  dividing 


the  city  into  50  or  60  wards,  with  one 
alderman  to  a ward.  Judge  Carter,  who 
was  then  chairman  of  this  Convention 
and  was  attending  those  meetings,  sug- 
gested that  it  would  not  be  a wise  thing 
to  reduce  the  present  representation  in 
the  City  Council,  and  called  attention 
to  the  fact  that  in  a very  few  years 
we  would  have  a population  of  two  and 
a half  million  in  this  city,  and  that  70 
was  small  enough  representation  in  the 
City  Council  for  such  a city. 

Every  official,  every  mayor,  every 
head  of  a department  and  the  members 
of  the  Board  of  Local  Improvements 
stated  that  it  has  been  their  experience 
that  where  there  were  two  aldermen  to 
a ward,  invariably  when  a matter  came 
up  for  improvement  one  alderman  took 
one  side  and  one  alderman  took  another. 
I think  that  we  ought  to  now  decide  as  to 
how  many  wards  we  want  and  then 
whether  we  want  one  representative  or 
two  representatives  from  a ward. 

I would  say  further  that  the  only 
contention  in  your  committee  was  as  to 
whether  we  should  have  aldermen  a 
large,  or  not.  The  committee  was  unani- 
mous almost  in  its  opinion  of  having 
seventy  wards  and  one  alderman  to  a 
ward. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

not  in  favor  of  the  alternative  having 
the  number  of  wards  remain  as  at  pre- 
sent and  one  alderman  to  a ward.  I 
have  had  six  or  seven  years’  experience 
in  the  City  Council,  in  representing  a 
very  large  ward,  very  large  in  territory, 
and  requiring  a great  deal  of  work,  that 
is,  work  in  the  ward  in  the  line  of  im- 
provements. It  has  been  my  experience 
from  the  work  I have  done  and  from 
meeting  the  people  in  my  ward,  that  if 
you  allow  the  wards  to  remain  as  they 
are  now  that  you  cannot  get  good  ser- 
vice from  the  members  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. The  work  will  be  entirely  too  great 
for  that. 

You  put  all  of  the  work  on  thirty-five 
members,  and  the  people  in  those  thirty- 


December  10 


216 


1906 


five  wards  will  suffer;  they  will  not  get 
as  good  service  as  they  are  getting  now. 
If  there  are  any  changes  to  be  made  in 
the  number  of  wards,  or  the  number 
of  aldermen,  the  proposition  of  dividing 
the  city  into  seventy  wards  and  one 
alderman  to  each  ward  should  carry.  In 
that  way  each  alderman  would  have  less 
territory  to  look  after,  and  he  could  do 
his  work  as  it  should  be  done,  and  give 
the  people  who  sent  him  to  the  Council 
the  kind  of  service  they  should  have ; 
and  if  the  people  are  to  be  considered 
in  this  matter  at  all,  the  proposition 
of  seventy  wards  and  one  alderman  to 
the  ward  should  carry. 

ME.  TAYLOK:  Mr.  Chairman,  1 

wish  to  present  an  amendment  to  the 
second  alternative  which  I will  send  to 
the  secretary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

have  to  rule  that  temporarily  that  is  out 
of  order.  There  is  an  amendment  here 
and  an  amendment  to  an  amendment. 

MB,  TAYLOE:  Pardon  me,  I did 

not  know  that. 

ME.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

rise  to  a point  of  order.  I think  that 
this  Convention  established  by  vote  at 
the  outset  a certain  order  of  procedure 
which  has  not,  to  my  knowledge,  been 
changed,  and  under  which  we  should  be 
obliged  unless  we  suspend  that  vote,  to 
begin  with  the  second  alternative.  I 
question  whether  the  matter  pertaining 
to  the  first  article  is  in  order  at  all  in 
view  of  the  former  vote  of  the  Conven- 
tion, and  I ask  for  a ruling  of  the  Chair. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Any  motion  of 

any  member  of  this  Convention  to  take 
up  any  particular  section  is  in  order. 
There  is  nothing  in  the  rules  of  the 
Convention  fixing  the  taking  up  of  these 
matters,  and  the  motion  was  made  to 
take  up  the  proposition  in  chief,  and 
there  was  no  objection  from  the  floor 
and,  therefore,  it  was  before  the  house. 
And  in  the  absence  of  anything  in  the 
rules  to  the  contrary,  it  will  be  pre- 
sumed that  the  members  of  the  Conven- 


tion can  take  up  any  matter  at  any  time 
that  they  may  see  fit. 

ME.  B.  A.  ECKHAET : Mr.  Chair- 

man, I would  like  to  rise  to  inquire 
whether  the  motion  was  made  to  take 
up  one,  or  whether  the  motion  was  to 
the  effect  that  No.  1 be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Be  adopted. 

ME,  B.  A.  ECKHAET:  Well,  then, 

I rise  to  a point  of  order:  If  the  mo- 
tion was  not  made  to  take  up  the  ques- 
tion of  No.  1,  but  simply  a motion 
made  to  adopt  it,  you  are  not  proceed- 
ing in  accordance  with  the  procedure 
heretofore  operating. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : No  objection  was 
made  upon  the  floor,  and  the  house  pro- 
ceeded to  debate  it,  and  in  the  absence 
of  anything  in  the  rules  which  must 
control  the  Chair,  it  will  be  assumed 
that  the  Convention  will  make  its  rules 
from  day  to  day,  and  take  up  such 
matters  for  discussion  as  it  may  see 
fit.  The  matter  now,  it  appears  to 
me 

ME.  McCOEMICK:  Mr.  Chairman— 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Just  one  mo- 
ment, Mr.  McCormick:  It  seems  to  me 

to  be  a tempest  in  a teapot.  The  matter 
now  stands  before  the  house  upon  Mr. 
McCormick’s  motion  to  adopt  the  second 
alternative  to  No.  1,  which  produces  all 
of  the  results  that  anybody  wants,  and 
if  there  is  no  objection 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  I wanted  to 

wait  until  you  finished  your  sentence,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  I was  simply  go- 

ing to  suggest  that  it  might  be  a good 
time  now  for  the  secretary  to  call  the 
roll. 

MB.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I just 

want  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
at  a meeting  of  this  Convention  we 
passed  a rule  relating  to  the  procedure, 
which  rule  was  that  we  should  begin 
with  the  alternative  and  work  backwards 
to  the  main  proposition.  Isn’t  that  a 
matter  of  record? 


December  10 


217 


1906 


: MMSIAHO 


THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Chair  is  un- 

der the  impression  that  that  was  done — 

MR.  WHITE:  It  was  not  done? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  for  this 

Convention  from  time  to  time  as  it 
sees  fit  to  take  up  any  proposition  re- 
lating to  the  main  proposition.  The 
Chair  cannot  regulate  the  motions 
which  members  make,  so  long  as  they 
are  germane  to  the  subject  or  to  the 
question  under  consideration. 

UR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I am  satisfied  from  my  talks  with  a 
number  of  members  here  at  this  Con- 
vention that  they  are  decidedly  in  doubt 
as  to  the  number  of  aldermen  that  we 
should  have  here  in  the  city.  There  are 
some  members  in  this  Convention  who 
think  that  the  number  ought  to  be 
seventy,  and  other  members  of  this  Con- 
vention who  think  the  number  ought 
to  be  thirty-five.  This  is  a matter  on 
'hich  there  may  well  be  a difference  of 
pinion. 

It  seems  to  me,  however,  in  voting  on 
, we  ought  to  take  one  matter  into 
(Consideration.  We  have  been  speaking 
of  an  alderman  representing  a particu- 
lar ward.  That  is  one  point  of  view, 
''but  an  alderman  represents  not  only  the 
ward,  he  represents  the  whole  city,  and 
tse,  for  instance,  in  the  Sixth  Ward,  are 
interested  not  only  in  the  sort  of  a man 
pe  get  from  the  Sixth  Ward  and  who 
is  elected  to  represent  the  Sixth  Ward 
in  the  Council,  but  we  are  also  interested 
in  the  men  who  represent  the  other  thirty- 
four  wards  of  the  city. 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  view  of  that 
a$d  in  view  of  the  fact  that  it 
is  undesirable  to  get  a large 
unwieldy  body,  that  this  is  a matter  on 
which  we  might  well  compromise  so  far 
as  the  number  is  concerned. 

I understood  that  Doctor  Taylor’s  mo- 
tion was  to  the  effect,  and  that  he  in- 
tended to  make  it  to  the  effect  to  change 
the  number  from  seventy  to  fifty.  That 
in  effect  is  an  amendment  both  to  No. 
1 and  to  the  second  alternative  to  1. 


It  strikes  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  an 
amendment  of  that  sort,  which  is  ma- 
terial and  upon  which  we  ought  to ' 
have  an  expression  of  opinion,  ought  to 
be  allowed  by  the  Chair  and  ought  to 
be  voted  on  separately. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  has 

no  option.  The  entire  matter  is  now  be- 
fore the  house. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  I move 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair’s  rul- 

ings are  purely  in  the  interest  of  keep- 
ing the  matter  in  some  orderly  fashion 
so  that  the  entire  matter  may  be  pro 
perly  presented. 

MR.  TAYLOR : I would  urge  that 

motion,  if  it  is  in  order,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  ROBINS:  The  point  of  order, 

or  the  question  seems  to  be  just  this : 
When  this  proposition  of  Mr.  McCor- 
mick’s is  adopted,  if  adopted,  it  would 
be  the  sense  of  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  ROBINS:  If  it  is  voted  down, 

then  Dr.  Taylor’s  .motion  is  in  order. 
Why  not  proceed  and  vote  on  this  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  McCormick ’s  and  then  we 
will  be  proceeding  in  an  orderly  fashion. 

(Cries  of  roll  call.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  White  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

is  in  the  interest  of  orderly  pro- 
cedure, and  I wish  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Convention  to  the  action  of  the 
Convention  as  recorded  on  page  61  in 
which  the  motion  was  made  by  Mr. 
Jones  that  where  alternatives  exist  we 
proceed  to  take  up  the  last  alternative 
and  work  back  to  the  original  proposi- 
tion. That  motion  was  put  and  carried 
by  this  Convention  and  became  the 
established  order  of  procedure  until  this 
Convention  chooses  to  change  it.  You 
will  find  that  on  page  61. 

I again,  Mr.  Chairman,  renew  my  point 
of  order,  that  we  have  not  suspended 
that  rule  of  procedure,  and  we  have 
been  proceeding  wrongly  in  view  of  that 
motion.  You  will  find  it  on  page  61. 


December  10 


218 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is 

aware  that  is  true,  but  in  the  absence 
of  any  objection  from  the  floor,  the 
Chair  assumed  that  the  Assembly  desired 
to  take  other  action  today. 

MR.  SWIFT:  That  is  the  point  I 

wished  to  make,  that  the  Convention  it- 
self by  making  no  objection  practically 
suspends  the  rule.  The  action  of  the  Con- 
vention in  permitting  the  motion  to  be 
made  and  adopted  suspended  the  rule. 

(Cries  of  roll  call.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Tie  secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  McCormick’s 
substitute.  Will  you  read  the  substitute 
first? 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute 
again. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

just  wish  to  say  that  for  the  nine  years 
I have  been  a member  of  the  Council,  1 
have  advocated  the  change  of  one  aider- 
man  to  a ward,  and  I think  in  my  actions 
before  the  committee  to  which  Mr.  Shan- 
ahan has  referred,  I so  stated;  but  I 
believe  that  in  a city  as  large  as  this  that 
the  number  of  wards  should  now  be  di- 
vided, and  I am  therefore  ih  favor  of 
about  fifty  wards. 

Yeas — Crilly,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Me 
Cormick — 3. 

Nays  — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beilfuss, 
Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke, 
Church,  Clettenberg,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon, 
G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Erickson,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lundberg, 
MacMillan,  McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Don- 
nell, Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Powers, 
Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Sethness, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow, 
Swift,  Taylor,  Yopieka,  Werno,  White, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 47. 

(During  the  roll  call.) 

DR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  I have 

an  amendment  to  substitute  for  No.  1 
and  for  the  first  alternative. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  Doctor, 

wait  until  after  the  vote  is  announced. 
Upon  the  motion  to  substitute  the  second 


alternative  to  No.  1,  the  yeas  are  three 
and  the  nays  are  forty-seven,  and  the 
motion  is  lost. 

The  Secretary  will  read  the  substitute 
for  the  first  alternative  and  for  No.  1. 

I understand,  Doctor,  that  that  is  the 
substitute  for  both  No.  1 and  the  first 
alternative  to  No.  1? 

DR,  TAYLOR:  Yes. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Taylor: 

Substitute  for  No.  1 and  the  first  alterna- 
tive to  No.  1:  The  charter  shall  provide 
for  the  redistricting  the  city  into  fifty 
wards,  having  due  regard  to  the  equaliza- 
tion of  population  and  territory ; one 
alderman  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 

MR.  POWERS:  I move  to  lay  that 

substitute  on  the  table. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  perhaps  it  would  be  in  order  to 
just  calLthe  attention  of  this  Conven- 
tion td  the  report  of  the  original  com- 
mittee on  municipal  legislation  at  this 
time.  I have  here  a copy  and  the  three 
paragraphs  of  this  subject  which  we 
are  discussing  at  the  present  time  are 
as  follows: 

I I ly.  That  the  city  shall  be  re-districted 
into  seventy  wards;  that  each  ward  shall 
elect  <me  member  of  the  City  Council. 

‘ 1 2.  That  the  aldermen  shall  be 
elected  for  two  years  and  that  all  the 
alflermen  shall  be  elected  at  the  same 
time. 

r 1 3.  That  the  salary  of  the  aldermen 
be',  fixed  at  $3,500  per  annum.” 

Now  I want  to  say  in  regard  to  that, 
thait  the  active  members  of  the  com- 
mittee who  reported  that  to  this  body 
wer£  Representatives  McGoorty,  Shana- 
han, Parker  and  Church,  and  Aldermen 
— ex^Aldermen  Raymer  and  Eidmann. 

I do  not  think  any  of  the  gentlemen 
missed  any  of  the  meetings  of  that  com- 
mittee, and  their  combined  efforts  pro- 
duced those  three  clauses  that  were  sent 
in  in  the  original  report.  Now  I have 
no  objection  to  the  voting  down  of  those 
three  clauses,  but  they  were  no  sooner 
published  in  the  city  papers  of  Chicago, 


December  10 


219 


1906 


— or  rather,  they  were  no  sooner  pub- 
lished by  the  committee  than  the  papers 
almost  unanimously  endorsed  the  senti- 
ment as  propounded  here. 

Now  what  I want  to  get  at  is,  if  that 
is  so,  and  it  is  apparently  the  general 
sentiment  of  the  city,  I would  like  to 
get  a straight  vote  on  these  three  sec- 
tions before  they  are  clouded  by  amend- 
ments of  fifty  or  forty  wards,  or  seventy 
aldermen.  I think  these  sentiments 
should  go  before  the  house  and  that  we 
should  have  an  opportunity  to  vote  on 
them  before  we  cloud  them.  I do  not 
see  how  we  are  going  to  do  it.  I agree 
with  the  Chairman  in  his  ideas  as  to 
motions,  that  as  long  as  somebody  is 
putting  a motion  to  lay  on  the  table 
and  somebody  making  another  motion 
with  an  amendment,  it  may  not  be  pos- 
sible to  do  it,  but  I think  it  is  hardly 
fair  to  the  committee  if  it  does  not  get 
an  opportunity  to  go  before  the  house 
before  it  is  clouded. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I do  not  think 

there  is  any  obstacle,  Mr.  Linehan,  if 
you  introduce  that  as  a substitute  for 
Dr.  Taylor ’s  motion. 

MR.  LINEHAN : I move  the  adop- 
tion of  the  first  number 

THE  SECRETARY:  What  page,  Mr. 
Linehan? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Page  five  of  Oc- 

tober 3rd.  That  is  the  minutes.  I do 
not  think  you  will  find  it  anywhere  else. 

THE  SECRETARY : Page  five  of  Oc- 

tober 3rd? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Yes,  the  second 

column. 

THE  SECRETARY:  The  second  col- 

umn? 

MR.  LINEHAN : Yes,  section  one. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  five.  I 

don’t  find  it  on  page  five. 

MR.  LINEHAN : Second  column, 

page  five. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  here  it  is, 

section  one. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Attention,  gen- 

tlemen. 


THE  SECRETARY:  This  is  page  5, 

report  of  the  committee  on  municipal 
legislation. 

The  Secretary  read  the  report. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  perhaps 

there  is  only  one  of  those  propositions 
that  is  germane  to  the  proposition  under 
discussion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  Number 

1.  That  is  the  first  paragraph  and  that 
is  properly  before  the  Convention  in  a 
proposition,  and  therefore  the  Chair 
will  assume  that  that  will  be  withdrawn 
for  the  time  being. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I will  withdraw  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  the  matter 

reverts  now  to  Dr.  Taylor’s  substitute 
for  No.  1,  and  the  alternative  to  No.  1. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  the 

question  of  the  substitute  I wish  to  say 
a few  words.  All  the  advantages,  or 
nearly  all  of  the  advantages  in  favor  of 
one  alderman  from  a ward  life  in  re- 
ducing, in  my  judgment,  in  reducing  the 
number  of  people  that  person  represents, 
and  the  amount  of  territory  to  which 
that  person  has  to  give  his  individual  at- 
tention. I believe  that  the  one  alderman 
proposition  is  a sound  proposition.  If 
the  number  is  left  at  thirty-five,  or  at 
fifty  as  proposed  by  this  amendment  or 
substitute,  you  will  have  a very  large 
territory  for  each  alderman.  You  will 
increase  the  expense  of  each  campaign 
materially  because  there  will  be  a real 
campaign  each  time. 

We  will  not  get  away  from  party  or- 
ganization in  the  city  of  Chicago.  I 
personally  am  not  anxious  that  we  should 
get  away  from  party  organization,  and 
that  one  alderman,  he  must  be  either  a 
democrat  or  a republican.  The  method 
that  has  been  followed  in  some  wards, 
of  arranging  that  the  aldermen  should 
be  one  a republican  and  the  other  a 
democrat  has  worked  very  nicely  and 
has  reduced  expenses  of  candidates  in 
certain  wards. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you  make  sev- 
enty aldermen  with  seventy  wards,  you 


December  10 


220 


1906 


will  have  a real  campaign  in  the  ward 
each  election,  and  there  will  be  a great 
deal  of  genuine  expense  attached  to  the 
candidates  meeting  the  people.  I would 
like  to  have  that  expense  kept  in  reason- 
able figures  so  that  an  ordinary  man 
whom  the  people  want  to  represent  them 
and  whom  they  felt  was  really  qualified — 
and  I say  ‘ 1 ordinary,  ’ ’ I suppose  I ought 
to  say  a poor  man,  although  I did  not 
wish  to  use  that  phrase — should  have 
the  right  of  getting  into  the  game. 

If  you  make  a large  territory  you 
increase  the  necessary  campaign  costs 
of  each  election. 

Another  thought  in  the  administration 
of  the  business  of  the  city;  it  has  been 
my  privilege  to  know  something  about 
that  administration  for  four  or  five 
years.  I have  found  aldermen  after  al- 
dermen, who  have  said  to  me:  1 1 1 will 

admit  that  I am  a member  of  that  com- 
mittee, Eobins,  but  I cannot  attend  to 
this,  because  my  time  is  so  taken  up 
with  these  other  matters.”  Now,  there 
is  a certain  physical  limit  to  the  pos- 
sibilities of  any  man ’s  service  as  we 
all  know,  and  I believe  that  if  the  wants 
of  the  people  of  Chicago  so  far  as  their 
legislative  body  is  concerned,  when  you 
divide  up  their  legislative  work  between 
seventy  members  you  will  find  they  will 
do  their  full  duty,  they  will  use  their 
full  time,  and  then  some. 

For  these  reasons,  I hope  the  substi- 
tutes will  be  voted  down. 

(Cries  of  roll  call.) 

THE  CHAIKMAN:  Eoll  call  upon 

Dr.  Taylor’s  substitute.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  substitute  and  then  call 
the  roll. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Crilly,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.,  Lathrop,  McCormick,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  Eosenthal,  Taylor. — 9. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke,  Church, 
Clettenberg,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Erickson, 
Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman, 


Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMillan,  O ’Don- 
nell, Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Powers, 
Eaymer,  Eobins,  Sethness,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Swift,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer 
—42. 

(During  the  roll  call.) 

ME.  CEILLY : Mr.  Chairman,  I would 
like  to  explain  my  vote:  I am  voting 
for  the  one  alderman,  for  the  ward;  I 
do  not  care  particularly  how  many  wards 
we  have.  I heard  it  stated  here  that 
there  were  75  per  cent,  or  more  of  the 
aldermen  had  been  interviewed  on  this 
question,  and  they  all  thought  the  one 
alderman  was  much  better  than  two.  I 
voted  aye. 

ME.  HILL : I rise  to  explain  my  votF. 

I understand  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee is  the  result  of  a great  deal  of  time 
and  careful  thought,  and  they  have  prac- 
tically decided  that  seventy  is  the  better 
number  in  view  of  the  rapid  growth  of 
the  city.  I have  listened  to  aldermen 
of  long  experience  and  I have  always 
heard  them  speak  in  favor  of  seventy. 
Now,  I understand  that  the  motion  of 
Alderman  Snow  is  substantially  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee with  the  exception  that  the  wards 
shall  be  formed  of  contiguous  and  com- 
pact territory  and  both  area  and  popu- 
lation be  taken  into  consideration.  I 
think  the  committee  have  no  objections 
to  it,  and  it  seems  to  me  the  more  prac- 
tical and  reasonable  way  would  be  to 
divide  the  city  into  fifty  wards,  and 
perhaps  in  a few  years  you  would  have 
to  begin  to  make  arrangements  to  in- 
crease the  same  by  going  to  the  Legis- 
lature or  some  other  place.  I therefore 
vote  no. 

ME.  SHEDD:  Mr.  Chairman,  before 

I vote  I would  like  to  ask  by  what  basis 
of  reasoning  Mr.  Eobins  came  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  City  of  Chicago  must 
be  represented  in  the  council  either  by 
Bepublican  or  Democrat!  His  argument 
is  a little  singular.  I myself  have  ob- 
served that  there  is  a very  strong  ele- 


December  10 


221 


1906 


ment  called  the  ‘ 1 Independent  Element,  ’ ’ 
and  another  one  called  the  ‘ 1 Socialist, ’ ’ 
that  may  claim  the  privilege  of  election 
to  the  City  Council,  and  I would  like 
to  ask  the  gentleman  how  he  arrived  at 
that  conclusion. 

ME.  EOBINS:  The  only  trouble  with 

the  gentleman  is,  I did  not  say  that.  The 
thing  I said  was:  That  it  would  result 

in  each  candidate  for  alderman  at  each 
election  having  to  make  a real  fight  if 
there  was  only  one  alderman.  Now,  if 
Mr.  Shedd  was  as  familiar  with  practical 
polities  as  he  is  with  business  matters, 
he  would  know  that  there  are  some 
wards  in  the  City  of  Chicago  in  which 
there  is  not  a real  campaign,  and  has 
not  been  for  some  years  in  certain 
wards,  and  the  reason  is,  the  Democrats 
have  a representative  and  the  Republi- 
cans  have  a representative  and  there  is 
none  of  the  third  part  vote  in  that  ward 
sufficiently  large  to  make  up  a fight  at 
this  time.  Therefore,  those  gentlemen 
arrange  a nice  gentlemen’s  agreement, — 
about  which  Mr.  Shedd  would  know  some- 
thing— and  there  is  no  real  contest  in 
that  ward. 

ME.  SHEDD:  I would  like  to  know 

by  the  record.  I think  you  stated  clearly 
either  a Democrat  or  a Eepublican  would 
be  elected.  I would  like  to  have  the 
record  show  whether  that  was  said  or 
not. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  I do  not  hear 

your  request. 

ME.  SHEDD:  I would  like  to  know 

from  the  record  as  to  the  statement  of 
Mr.  Eobins.  If  I am  not  correct  in  my 
understanding  that  he  did  state  it. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : We  cannot  get 

that  now,  Mr.  Shedd,  until  the  notes  are 
transcribed. 

MB.  EOBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the 

sake  of  making  things  a little  clearer 
and  easier  I will  withdraw  that  re- 
mark, Mr.  Shedd,  if  I did  say  that.  I 
believe  I am  known  as  not  being  especi- 
ally anxious  that  either  Democrats  or 


Eepublicans  shall  be  elected,  anyhow. 
(Laughter.) 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Has  Mr.  Shedd 

voted? 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Gentlemen,  upon 

Dr.  Taylor’s  substitute  on  the  motion 
to  adopt,  the  yeas  are  nine,  and  the 
noes  are  forty-two,  and  the  motion  is 
lost,  and  the  question  reverts  now  to  Al- 
derman Snow ’s  motion. 

ME.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  I desire 

to  renew  my  motion  for  the  substitute 
as  offered  by  myself  and  amended  by 
Mr.  Church  as  a substitute  for  1. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  it  and  then  we  will  call  the 
roll. 

The  Secretary:  By  Messrs.  Snow  and 
Church:  The  charter  shall  provide  for 
re-districting  the  city  into  seventy 
wards,  of  compact  and  contiguous  terri- 
tory, and  with  an  equitable  distribution 
of  area  and  population,  as  soon  as  pos- 
sible after  the  adoption  of  this  charter, 
one  alderman  to  be  elected  from  each 
ward.  The  city  shall  thereafter  be  re- 
districted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Shall  we  have  a 

roll  call? 

(Cries  of  “vote. ”) 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Gentlemen,  all 

who  are  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  Al- 
derman Snow ’s  motion  will  signify  so 
by  saying  aye,  opposed  no.  The  ayes 
have  it  and  it  is^adopted. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN" : The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  2. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  2 as  it  appeal's 
in  the  proceedings  at  page  52. 

ME.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  that  the  salary  of 
aldermen  shall  be  fixed  at  $3,500  a year. 
Is  there  any  discussion? 

MR.  SHEDD:  I move  its  adoption. 


December  10 


222 


1906 


ME.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  there 

does  not  seem  to  be  any  discussion,  I 
would  like  to  speak  on  that  motion.  I 
believe  that  $3,500  a year  is  too  large  a 
salary  to  offer  aldermen  in  order  to  get 
the  best  class  of  aldermen  in  the  City  of 
Chicago.  I believe  that  the  alderman 
should  be  a man  to  whom  $3,500  a year 
will  not  be  sufficient  of  an  object,  so 
that  he  would  be  willing  to  devote  his 
whole  time  to  that  position.  There  are 
many  men  who  do  not  now  seek  an  al- 
dermanic  position  because  of  the  low 
salary,  who  would  take  that  position  if 
the  salary  were  $3,500  a year. 

I believe  that  a salary  of  that  size 
would  tend  to  decrease  the  standard  of 
ability  which  is  found  in  the  Council. 
I believe  that  that  Council  should  con- 
tain men  who  have  their  own  minds, 
should  contain  some  men  of  large  means, 
some  professional  men  who  will  look 
upon  the  position  as  a position  of  honor, 
and  that  it  will  not  attract  men  who 
are  attracted  merely  by  the  size  of  the 
salary. 

I believe  that  $3,500  awarded  to  each 
alderman  would  not  be  objectionable, 
but  I do  not  believe  that  it  should  be 
awarded  to  them  as  a salary.  It  seems 
to  me  that  a much  better  plan,  for  in- 
stance, would  be  allow  a salary  say  of 
$2,000  a year,  and  to  allow  each  alderman 
an  assistant  for  assistance  at  an  expense 
of  say  not  to  exceed  $1,500  per  year,  and 
that  those  should  be  under  the  civil  ser- 
vice. 

I believe  that  that  plan  would  enable 
men  to  conduct  their  wTork  in  that  way 
without  undue  expense  and  with  much 
better  results  for  the  people  of  the  city. 
As  I view  it,  the  position  of  alderman  is 
a dual  one.  I believe  that  an  alderman 
if  he  does  his  duty  properly  should  act 
properly  as  an  inspector  in  his  own  ward 
and  territory  to  see  that  the  public 
works  are  properly  constructed  and  that 
the  money  of  the  tax  payers  whom  he 
represents  is  properly  expended  in  those 
works,  and  from  my  personal  talks  with 


some  of  the  members  of  this  Council  I 
understand  that  if  an  alderman  would 
give  attention  to  that  duty,  he  could 
save  many  times  his  salary  to  his  con- 
stituents in  the  course  of  a year. 

The  second  duty  of  the  alderman  is 
that  of  a legislator,  and  in  that  capacity 
we  should  have  strong  and  able  men,  men 
to  whom  $3,500  per  year  for  their  whole 
time  would  not  be  sufficient  to  attract 
their  services. 

Now,  in  this  first  capacity  of  an  in- 
spector or  a supervisor  of  the  ward,  I 
believe  that  the  aldermen  should  have 
the  benefit  of  assistants.  I do  not  be- 
lieve that  he  should  be  required  to  go 
around  and  personally  inspect  the  work 
going  on  in  connection  with  the  repaving 
of  the  streets  or  in  connection  with  the 
sewers  or  the  cleaning  of  the  streets,  or 
any  other  matters  of  that  kind,  but  I 
believe  that  he  should  have  the  assistance 
of  a man  who  may  be  a specialist,  if 
you  please,  established  so  by  the  civil 
service,  who  shall  assist  him  and  who 
can  call  his  attention  to  matters  of 
major  importance  when  they  arise. 

I therefore  should  like  to  offer  as  an 
amendment  to  this  proposition  a pro- 
vision which  would  provide  for  a salary 
of. $2, 000  a year  and  for  an  assistant  at 
not  to  exceed  $1,500  a year.  I should 
like  the  Secretary  to  read  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  substitute. 

The  Secretary:  By  Mr.  Jones:  Each 
alderman  shall  be  entitled  to  compen- 
sation at  the  rate  of  $2,000  per  annum 
and  to  an  assistant  or  assistants  at  an 
expense  of  not  to  exceed  $1,500  per  an- 
num, such  assistants  to  be  subject  to 
the  civil  service  law. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Do  you  recog- 

nize me,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I did  not  under- 

stand, did  you  recognize  me? 


December  10 


223 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir,  I recog- 

nize you. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : I am  opposed 

to  this  amendment  suggested  by  Senator 
Jones,  because  it  strikes  me  it  is  based 
entirely  upon  a misconception  of  what 
the  duties  and  functions  of  an  alder- 
, man  are.  An  alderman  is  not  supposed, 
according  to  modern  notions,  at  aDy  rate, 
to  see  that  garbage  cans  are  kept  clean 
or  to  see  that  the  offal  is  removed  from 
alleys  or  see  that  the  smoke  nuisance  is 
abated  in  certain  districts.  Those  are 
all  executive  functions. 

The  alderman  is  charged  with  legis- 
lative functions  and  we  are  introducing 
ffito  this  charter,  by  supporting  an 
amendment  of  this  nature,  an  utter  mis- 
conception and  an  utter  misapplication 
of  the  duties  of  an  alderman. 

It  seems  to  me  that  if  one  thing  has 
been  made  clear  in  this  city  above  all 
others,  with  reference  to  the  City  Coun- 
cil, it  is  this:  that  the  alderman  has 
too  much  of  this  minor  work  to  look 
after  and  does  not  have  enough  of  the 
«ity^at  large  to  look  after. 

Therefore  I believe  that  this  amend- 

ment should  be  voted  down. 

MR.  HILL:  I thoroughly  agree 

with  Senator  Jones;  it  is  desirable  to 
send  to  the  City  Council,  and  we  do 
want  men  who  have  made  a success  in 
their  own  business,  and  are  large 

enough  to  represent  us  in  the  City 
Council.  We  do  want  men  of  that 
calibre,  but  $3,500  is  not  sufficient  to 
induce  them  to  seek  the  office.  It  seems 
to  me  we  should  make  the  position  suf- 
ficient to  recompense  those  men,  as 
far  as  possible,  for  the  time  they  de- 
vote to  the  city  service.  Now,  I can- 
not see  any  good  reason  why  we  should 
divide  the  salary  in  that  manner.  The 
moment  you  do  anything  of  that  kind 
the  aldermen  will  be  besieged  by  a 
body  of  men  who  will  be  after  the 
$1,500.  I do  not  agree  to  the  propo- 
sition to  divide  it  into  three  or  four 
pieces.  It  is  a fact  that  an  alderman 


would  under  that  means  be  able  to  em- 
ploy an  assistant  who  would  be  there- 
by able  to  follow  up  a little  employ- 
ment of  his  own.  I do  not  think  that 
is  right.  I do  think  the  men  we  send 
to  the  City  Council  should  be  able  to 
employ  such  assistants  as  they  need, 
and  should  be  absolutely  independent 
in  that  direction.  I think  we  should 
pay  them  $3,500,  and  even  more.  I 
think  they  will  be  worth  that  if  we 
get  first-class  men.  I do  think  we 
should  force  upon  them  the  alternative 
by  paying  them  $1,500.  I think  we 
should  send  to  our  City  Council  those 
men  who  are  competent  to  perform  its 
duties,  otherwise  they  should  not  be 
there.  I therefore  am  opposed  to  the 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any 

further  discussion  on  the  substitute  of 
Senator  Jones? 

MR.  SNOW:  I wish  to  say  one  or 

two  words  on  that  matter.  It  strikes 
me  that  the  proposition  of  Senator 
Jones  is  not  one  that  would  make  for 
the  best  interests  of  the  city.  Re- 
duced down  to  its  final  analysis,  it  is 
practically  that  the  local  duties  of  an 
alderman  shall  be  performed  by  a 
$1,500  substitute,  and  we  have  no  guar- 
antee as  to  his  qualifications  and  fit- 
ness for  the  office;  the  aldermen  shall 
have  nothing  to  say  on  that,  and  yet 
he  will  be  held  responsible  by  the 
people  for  his  services.  Now  it  seems 
to  me  that  the  natural  and  logical  re- 
sult will  be  that  so  far  as  the  local 
duties  of  the  aldermen  are  concerned, 
they  will  be  performed  by  a $1,500 
man,  and  your  alderman  will  draw 
$2,000  and  he  will  not  be  required  to 
give  his  own  personal  attention  to  the 
conditions  of  his  ward.  It  seems  to 
me  that  it  is  highly  essential  that  a 
man  big  enough  to  be  an  alderman 
shall  be  required  to  look  after  the  ma- 
terial interests  of  his  ward  himself, 
and  that  he  shall  come  down  to  legis- 
late for  the  city  as  a whole.  For  that 


December  10 


224 


1906 


reason  it  seems  to  me  that  the  substi- 
tute shall  be  adopted. 

MR.  ECKHART,  (B.  A.) : I believe 

that  the  amendment,  if  carried , as 
printed  in  the  charter  for  assistant  al- 
dermen, would  divide  the  responsibili- 
ty of  the  aldermen,  as  has  been  stated. 
I am,  however,  not  in  favor  of  paying 
$3,500  a year  for  the  services  of  the 
aldermen.  Not  because  I do  not  be- 
lieve they  are  worth  it,  but  because  I 
believe  you  should  elect  men  to  the 
City  Council  who  have  some  public 
spirit  and  civic  pride,  and  are  willing 
to  give  their  time  and  attention  to 
that  position  for  something  else  than 
salary.  I believe  that  $3,500,  if  you  in- 
crease the  number  of  aldermen  to 
seventy,  would  be  quite  a raid  upon 
the  treasury;  it  would  approximate  to 
a quarter  of  a million  dollars  per  an- 
num. In  the  present  financial  condi- 
tion of  the  city,  I hardly  think  it  is 
justified,  so  long  as  your  city  is  in 
such  a deplorable  condition  financial- 
ly, as  it  is  today,  and  as  long  as  your 
streets  and  your  buildings  are  in  their 
present  dilapidated  condition,  and  re- 
quire improving.  We  should  not  be- 
come extravagant  at  this  time  by  vot- 
ing such  very  large  and  extravagant 
salaries  for  the  aldermen.  I think, 
however,  that  you  might  compromise 
on,  say,  $2,500  a year,  and  with  that 
in  view,  I offer  the  following  substi- 
tute, namely,  by  substituting  “$2,500” 
for  “$3,500.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  proper 

time,  Mr.  Eckhart,  for  that  will  be 
after  Senator  Jones’  substitute  is  dis- 
posed of. 

MR.  JONES:  I would  be  willing  to 

waive  a roll  call  on  this  and  put  it  to 
a vote.  I think  I am  in  the  minority. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor Senator  Jones’  substitute  will  fa- 
vor the  same  by  saying  “aye.” 

The  motion  was  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  substitute 


is  lost  and  the  original  motion  is  be- 
fore the  house.  Mr.  Eckhart ’s  amend- 
ment will  be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Eck- 
hart: Amend  by  substituting  $2*, 500 

for  $3,500. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

say  just  a word  on  behalf  of  the  report 
of  the  committee  which  has  made  it 
$3,500.  The  sentiment  of  the  commit- 
tee was  entirely  different — or  some  of 
the  members — from  what  has  been  ex- 
pressed here.  The  assumption  on  the 
part  of  some  of  the  committee  was 
that  by  paying  a better  salary  on  the 
Council  you  would  get  better  men. 
That  is,  there  -would  not  be  held  up 
the  same  excuse  to  self-seeking  men 
who  would  want  to  make  it  profitable 
enough  for  that  class  of  men  to  go  to 
work  at  that  salary  when  it  was  $3,500. 
That  would  be  a fair  salary.  That 
is  the  sentiment  on  the  part  of  the 
committee,  so  you  see  there  is  another 
side  of  the  question.  Now,  when  you 
say  that  $3,500  is  too  high,  I think  you 
are  making  a great  mistake.  $3,500  is 
not  too  high.  $2,000  is  not  much  of  a 
salary  today  for  an  ordinary  mechanic, 
let  me  remind  you.  It  is  five  dollars 
a day  and  double  time  for  overtime, 
as  eve^ybo'dy  knows — or  time  and  a 
half.  And  he  doesn ’t  work  unless  he 
gets  it.  It  seems  tcfine iJiis  Is  not 
a /high  salary;  and  let  me  say  this 
i/uch  about  that:  The  first  step  in 

'reformation  of  the  work  of  this  Coun- 
cil,  if  you  put  it  that  way,  was  by 
paying  salaries  to  the  aldermen.  There 
were  men  in  this  Council  when  the 
proposition  was  made  who  said  it  was 
a shame  to  pay  them  a salary.  Who 
were  they?  They  were  the  particular 
agents  of  the  corporations>^-NbW7~that^ 
is  rather~stnmg-iaTiguager  That  is  ten 
or  fifteen  years  ago,  and  I want  to 
say  that  I consider  this  is  the  next 
step,  if  you  pay  them  a salary  of 
$3,500.  You  want  to  get  men  of  abili- 


December  10 


225 


1906 


ty,  and  if  yon  say  so,  men  who  have 
shown  success  in  their  own  business. 
Why,  you  have  men  here  who  have 
failed  in  their  own  business.  Failed! 
And  they  come  in  here  and  make  a 
successful  salary  out  of  corporations 
here  after  their  own  business  has  failed 
them.  That  is  what  you  have  when 
you  pay  that  salary.  As  soon  as  you 
pay  them  a commensurate  salary  you 
raise  the  personnel  of  this  Council,  un- 
til today  there  is  no  longer  the  finger 
of  scorn  pointed  at  it.  I say  it  should 
be  $5,000  instead  of  $3,500,  because 
there  are  men  in  this  Council  that 
$5,000  is  not  too  much  of  a salary  for. 

ME.  EOBINS:  I am  a little  sur- 

prised at  this  substitute  or  amendment 
coming  from  a business  man.  It  would 
seem  to  me  from  observing  the  actual 
working  of  the  City  Council,  and  the 
condition  of  the  city  for  the  past  few 
years,  that  the  reason  that  the  alleys 
and  the  streets  are  as  they  are,  is  be- 
cause you  do  not  pay  your  aldermen 
enough  to  get  into  the  City  Council 
men  who  can  give  enough  time  to  it  to 
make  the  alleys  and  the  streets  as  they 
should  be.  One  of  the  things  that 
every  man  familiar  with  the  City  Coun- 
cil, and  interested  in  the  retention  of 
honorable  and  able  men  in  that  body 
from  year  to  year  have  had  to  meet, 
ever  since  I have  been  in  this  city, 
has  been  this  statement:  I cannot  af- 
ford to  serve  any  longer;  I cannot  do 
it.  I have  got  to  look  out  for  my 
family  and  my  own  personal  interests, 
and  you  know  that  I have  to  spend 
that,  or  nearly  all  of  it,  on  every  elec- 
tion. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  thing  as  it 
is.  A campaign  in  the  wards  of  the 
city  that  I know  most  about,  requires 
about  $1,200  of  honest  expenditure  to 
really  be  in  the  race;  and  it  requires 
sometimes  $2,500  and  $3,000  to  get 
elected.  Now,  when  an  aldermen  is 
elected  from  a ward,  from  the  hour  that 
he  is  elected  until  he  leaves  the  City 


i Council,  he  is  conscious  of  the  fact 
that  he  is  denying  his  business  the  at- 
tention that  it  requires,  and  that  he  is 
receiving  no  equivalent  for  himself  or 
his  family.  Now,  the  aspiration  to 
serve  the  city  is  a noble  aspiration,  but 
we  should  put  it  in  such  a way  as  to 
make  it  possible  for  any  man  to  give 
the  city  good  service,  and  not  at  the 
same  time  to  feel  that  he  is  robbing 
his  own  home. 

Now,  all  you  have  to  do  is  to  remem- 
ber the  last  election.  We  remember 
that  several  of  the  aldermen  were  not 
candidates  for  office,  and  why?  I went 
to  some  of  these  aldermen  and  urged 
them  that  they  do  not  leave  the  City 
Council.  They  had  served  long  and 
honorably,  when  I went  to  them.  They 
said:  “We  cannot  stay  there  any  long- 
er; we  have  been  there  so  long,  and 
cannot  stay  there  longer,  because  we 
are  not  paid  enough  to  justify  the 
tremendous  loss  of  time.  ” 

Whenever  you  go  to  an  aldermen  and 
ask  him  anything  in  regard  to  a spe- 
cial matter  in  which  you  may  be  par- 
ticularly interested,  or  which  is  partic- 
ularly interesting  in  your  judgment,  or 
in  the  judgment  of  your  particular 
friends,  or  the  people  in  your  locality, 
no  matter  who,  you  feel  mean  about  it, 
if  you  are  on  the  square;  you  realize 
that  you  are  taking  this  time  from  this 
man,  and  that  he  is  receiving  practical- 
ly no  compensation  in  return. 

Now,  the  history  of  legislation  in  this 
country  by  city  councils,  as  far  as  I 
know  it,  is  that  those  city  councils  that 
are  paid  the  least  turn  out  the  worst 
legislation,  and  those  city  councils  that 
are  paid  the  most  represent  the  best 
people  of  the  city.  T wish  that  this 
provided  for  $5,000,  and  if  I thought, 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  people  of  the 
city  of  Chicago  were  educated  up  to 
the  point  to  know  the  value  of  a good 
alderman,  and  to  make  it  possible  for 
him  to  remain  in  the  public  service,  I 
should  offer  an  amendment  of  $5,000 — 


December  10 


226 


1906 


to  make  this  $5,000.  The  only  reason  I 
do  not  do  that  is  because  I am  glad 
to  get  this  much,  and  I think  the  peo- 
ple of  Chicago  will  give  more  later. 

ME.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I do  not  believe  that  this  question 
about  which  we  are  concerning  our- 
selves should  really  concern  us  in  the 
Charter  Convention.  I do  not  think 
that  this  provision  ought  to  be  incor- 
porated in  the  fundamental  laws  for 
the  government  of  this  city  at  all.  It 
seemfe  to  me  it  should  be  flexible. 
Therefore,  I have  sent  to  the  desk  a 
substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr. 
Rosenthal. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: The  compensation  of  aldermen 

shall  be  fixed  by  the  City  Council  from 
time  to  time;  provided  that  the  salary 
of  any  alderman  shall  not  be  increased 
or  diminished  during  his  term  of  office. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  substitute 
for  the  entire  matter. 

MR.  SWIFT:  I would  suggest  that 

there  be  added:  “And  shall  not  exceed 
the  sum  of  $3,500  per  year.” 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

may  I be  permitted  to  say  a word  in 
answer  to  that?  The  City  Council  is 
the  best  judge  of  the  financial  condi- 
tion of  the  city,  and  it  also  can  judge 
best  as  to  what  an  alderman  should 
have.  The  very  men  who  are  serving 
the  city  know  best  what  their  needs 
are.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  entire 
matter  can  well  be  settled  in  the  way 
I have  suggested. 

MR.  DEYER:  It  seems  to  me  that 

idea  is  wrong  in  principle,  for  this 
reason:  Many  of  the  most  notorious 
scandals  that  we  have  had  in  this  coun- 
try have  arisen  because  of  the  fact 
that  a certain  legislative  body  has  de- 
manded to  fix  their  own  salaries;  they 
are  the  ones  that  are  particularly  in- 
terested in  that  question,  and  they  are 


called  upon  to  act  in  a delicate  posi- 
tion, where  they  are  asked  to  vote  in  or 
out  of  their  pockets,  a certain  sum  of 
money.  It  seems  to  me  they  are  not  in 
a position  to  decide  the  question  fair- 
ly. There  are  men  of  wealth  in  the 
community  who  may  be  influenced  for 
the  purpose  of  currying  public  favor 
by  voting  against  the  proposition  which 
poorer  men  would  not  do.  I do  not 
think  a member  of  a legislative  body 
should  be  put  in  that  position,  partic- 
ularly when  we  have  other  indepen- 
dent and  more  or  less  disinterested 
bodies  who  are  not  doing  it. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  I think,  Mr. 

Chairman,  we  should  pass  this  No.  2 as 
it  stands,  with  possibly  an  amendment 
in  some  way  providing  for  a power  to 
change;  and  I have  prepared  an  amend- 
ment which  I was  going  to  offer  after 
action  was  taken  on  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Eekhart.  I do  not  believe  we  should 
fix  as  a charter  position  a salary  which 
cannot  be  changed  except  by  amend- 
ment of  the  legislature,  and  I there- 
fore think  we  should  adopt  No.  2 as 
it  stands,  with  a provision  conferring 
power  upon  the  City  Council  to  change 
the  salary  by  two-thirds  vote  of  that 
body. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  any 

further  discussion?  I would  suggest 
that  we  dispose  of  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  mo- 
tion— 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  you  should  make  it  $3,500 
as  a minimum,  with  an  increase  to 
$5,000,  and  you  will  take  into  consid- 
eration men  of  intelligence;  make  it  a 
minimum  salary  of  $3,500,  and  a maxi- 
mum of  $5,000,  and  not  more  than  that. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I think  it  would 

be  a mistake  for  this  Convention,  in 
fixing  the  salary  of  the  aldermen  at  a 
stated  figure.  Alderman  Dever  has 
given  us  a very  good  reason  for  it. 
Not  only  would  the  body  itself  hesi- 
tate to  take  action  because  of  the  criti- 
cism that  it  would  be  subjected  to,  but 


December  10 


227 


1906 


it  is  a fact  that  in  some  campaigns 
they  would  make  that  a test  question. 
Fixing  the  salary  by  the  aldermen 
might  mean  that  some  people  are  just 
mean  enough  to  attack  an  alderman  in 
voting  a salary  which  the  individual 
may  think  a little  excessive.  I want 
to  say  from  experience,  gentlemen,  that 
the  question  of  getting  elected  to  the 
aldermanic  position  is  sufficiently  diffi- 
cult without  this  body  putting  upon  it 
any  more  restrictions  than  we  have.  I 
believe  that  $3,500  is  right;  it  is  right 
today,  and  it  will  be  right  for  a good 
many  years  to  come.  I do  not  believe 
that  the  onus  or  the  duty  of  fixing  the 
salary  should  be  placed  upon  the  aider- 
men.  I believe  that  this  Convention 
should  fix  it  here  and  now;  and  for  that 
reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  I am  in  favor 
of  No.  2 as  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question — Mr.  Rosenthal’s  sub- 
stitute— as  many  as  favor  it,  signify 
by  saying  aye. 

The  motion  was  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 

substitute  is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

now  upon  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Eck- 
hart  to  the  original  question,  amending 
the  amount  from  $3,500  to  $2,500. 

MR.  ECKHART,  (B.  A.) : I believe 

that  that  amendment  ought  to  prevail. 
I am  not  very  particular  about  it,  but 
I do  want  to  challenge  a statement  that 
has  been  made  during  the  discussion 
that  the  reform  in  the  City  Council  of 
Chicago  dates  from  the  day  or  time 
when  they  were  paid  a salary  of  $1,500. 
I believe  that  that  is  a mistake.  I 
think  the  gentleman  was  in  error.  The 
reform  of  the  city  of  Chicago  dates 
from  the  day  when  other  agencies  were 
at  work  with  the  people  in  this  city 
which  required  of  their  public  officials 
closer  attention  to  duty.  It  is  not  the 
$1,500  that  reformed  the  Council,  but  it 
was  the  civic  pride  and  the  public  spirit 
of  the  citizens  and  the  civic  bodies  that 


demanded  of  their  aldermen  an  account- 
ing. 

I think  there  ought  to  be  a limit  as 
to  the  salary  that  should  be  paid  and 
it  ought  to  be  fixed;  but  I think,  how- 
ever, it  should  not  be  extravagant,  it 
should  not  be  large  until  the  city  is  in 
a financial  condition  to  afford  it.  I be- 
lieve there  are  many  improvements 
necessary  in  this  city  that  will  require 
an  increase  in  our  valuation  and  a 
higher  rate  of  taxation  in  order  to  make 
the  necessary  progress  in  that  direc- 
tion. I think  physically  our  city  is  in 
a deplorable  condition,  and  I think,  too, 
that  until  such  time  as  our  valuation 
of  the  assessable  property  increases — 
until  the  taxation  is  increased  and  the 
improvements  are  made,  that  we  shall 
not  be  in  a position  to  vote  too  high  a 
salary. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  I want  to  say  in 

justification  of  what  Mr.  Robins  said, 
he  is  right,  and  that  Mr.  Eckhart  has 
stated  the  truth  also,  that  it  was  the 
civic  bodies  at  that  time  which  had 
something  to  do  with  the  reform  of  the 
City  Council.  This  fact  that  the  civic 
bodies  advocated  the  paying  of  salaries 
is  one  of  the  things  that  were  of  neces- 
sity in  that  work.  Every  gentleman 
who  is  in  the  Council  today  that  was  in 
the  Council  at  that  time  will  remem- 
ber that  it  was  the  custom  whenever 
the  property  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
came  before  the  Council  in  any  way  for 
one  of  the  gentlemen  who  felt  he  was 
not  personally  in  favor  of  the  civic 
bodies,  it  was  the  custom  for  him 
to  argue  that  the  aldermen  donate 
their  salaries.  That  seemed  to  be 
the  very  worst  thing  in  their  judg- 
ment that  could  happen,  that  some 
men  were  being  paid  a salary.  Now, 
T was  going  to  refrain  from  taking  any 
part  in  this  discussion  as  an  alderman, 
because  T expect  to  remain  in  the  Coun- 
cil for  some  time  longer,  and  maybe 
I have  said  too  much  already;  but  the 
idea  of  paying  a salary  to  the  alder- 


December  10 


228 


1906 


men  would  do  great  things  in  my  judg- 
ment is  reforming  the  Council.  You 
have  to  have  good  men.  Many  of  the 
men  come  from  wards  represented  by 
people  that  are  not  wealthy  people  and 
they  send  them  who  could  not  afford  to 
spend  their  time  representing  those 
wards  in  the  Council  without  enough 
money  to  pay  their  campaign  expenses 
at  least. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  sent  to 

the  desk  another  substitute  which  I 
think  answers  the  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  amendment? 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: The  compensation  of  aider- 

men  shall  be  at  the  rate  of  $3,500  per 
annum,  provided,  first,  that  the  City 
Council  shall  have  power  to  increase 
this  salary  on  a two-thirds  vote  of  all 
the  members  of  the  Council,  and, 
second,  that  the  salary  of  no  alderman 
shall  be  increased  or  diminished  dur- 
in  his  term  of  office. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I made  the  state- 

ment a few  minutes  ago  that  I be- 
lieved' $3,500  was  enough  today  and 
would  be  enough  for  many  years  to 
come;  I still  believe  I am  right  and  I 
move  that  this  amendment  be  tabled. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  be- 

fore the  house  is  Alderman  Raymer ’s 
motion  to  table  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  amend- 
ment to  Mr.  Eekhart’s  amendment  to 
the  main  question. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I don’t  know 

what  the  parliamentary  status  of  af- 
fairs is  at  this  moment  but  I desire  to 
speak  on  Mr.  Eckhart’s  amendment.  Is 
that  now  pending? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter 

pending  is  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  amendment. 
We  will  try  to  get  to  Mr.  Eckhart’s 
amendment  after  a bit. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I would  like  to 

have  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  amendment  read 
again. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  ' 


amendment  shall  be  read  again  by  the 
Secretary. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  motion  to  lay  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
amendment  upon  the  table.  As  many 
as  favor  that  motion  signify  by  saying 
‘ 1 aye.  ’ ’ 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  seems  to  me  that 

motion  is  a wise  motion.  It  seems  to 
me  to  not  trouble  the  legislature  with 
the  matter  of  the  salary  of  the  City 
Council  is  a good  thing  to  do,  when  it 
is  sufficiently  safeguarded  and  has  been, 
previously  established,  why  it  seems  to 
me  it  is  a wise  provision  to  make  at 
this  time.  It  insures  home  rule  in  that 
matter,  and  sufficiently  safeguards  it  to 
make  it  certain  that  without  public 
knowledge  there  would  be  no  increase, 
and  provides  a way  by  which  increase 
may  be  had  without  burdening  the 
legislature  with  that  matter.  It  seems 
to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  provision 
should  prevail. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor the  motion  of  Mr.  Raymer  to  table 
Mr.  Rosenthal’s  amendment 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  a 

roll  call?  As  many  as  favor  the  motion 
to  lay  on  the  table  will  signify  by 
saying  “aye. ” Those  opposed  “no.” 
The  motion  to  table  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart’s 

amendment  to  the  pending  matter  is 
before  the  house. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I had  the  floor 

some  time  ago,  and  I may  have  ex- 
ceeded my  privilege.  But  I rise  to  sup- 
port the  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Eckhart  to  substitute  $2,500  for  $3,500. 
I do  not  believe  that  an  increase  to 
$3,500  at  this  time  would  be  advisable 
or  desirable  because,  in  the  first  place, 
it  calls  for  an  outlay  upon  the  part  of 
the  city  for  the  seventy  aldermen  of 
more  than  $140,000,  which  in  the  pres- 


December  10 


229 


1906 


ent  financial  condition  of  the  city 
would  seem  to  be  a doubtful  proposi- 
tion. The  city  is  now  hard  pressed 
for  funds  to  get  along  with,  and  to 
add  an  additional  burden  of  $140,000 
immediately,  it  seems  to  me  is  almost 
too  much  a strain  on  the  city’s  fi- 
nances. 

Furthermore,  I doubt  whether  $3,500 
would  prove  to  be  better  than  $2,500 
for  this  reason:  it  would  make  the 
place  more  attractive,  it  would  make 
the  campaign  for  nomination  more 
strenuous  and  much  more  expensive, 
for  the  higher  the  salary  is  the  greater 
would  be  the  fight  for  the  position. 
There  would  be  a stubborn  fight  for  the 
nomination,  and  also  a stubborn  fight 
for  the  election.  If  the  salary  was 
$1,500  the  expense  would  not  be  so 
great;  if  you  make  it  $3,500  you  in- 
crease the  expense  of  securing  the  nom- 
ination and  increase  the  expense  of  the 
election.  This  would  be  more  true  when 
you  consider  the  fact  that  the  propo- 
sition now  pending  recommended  by 
the  committee  that  the  term  of  aider- 
men  be  extended  from  two  years  to 
four  years.  Now,  suppose  a candidate 
for  aldermen  in  his  campaign,  wants  to 
spend  his  entire  salary,  that  would  be 
at  least  four  times  $3,500,  or  $14,000. 
Now,  I doubt  very  much  if  the  salary 
was  increased  to  $2,000  more  than  it  is 
now  whether  the  aldermen  after  all 
would  care  very  much  for  it.  We  are 
now  paying  larger  salaries  for  aider- 
men — or  as  large  as  are  paid  in  any 
other  city  in  the  country.  Generally 
they  are  paid  $1,000,  or  $5  a session. 
It  seems  to  me  we  are  up  to  the  rea- 
sonable limit,  at  least  with  the  addi- 
tion of  $1,000.  $2,500  constitutes  a 

fair  salary.  A man  is  not  expected  to 
devote  his  entire  time  to  this  work 
and  he  does  not,  but  it  is  something 
which  is  a sort  of  adjunct  to  some  other 
business  or  occupation,  his  regular 
work,  therefore  I am  in  favor  of  the 
amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Eckhart. 


ME.  HILL:  I think  the  Convention 

should  settle  this  matter  of  the  amount 
to  be  paid  to  aldermen  right  here  and 
now.  We  have  had  the  same  question 
before  the  legislature  for  two  or  three 
sessions,  and  it  is  a fact  that  there 
are  a number  of  members  that  are 
afraid  to  vote  upon  the  question  be- 
cause they  are  afraid  their  constitu- 
ents won ’t  like  what  they  do. 

Now,  the  question  of  the  price  it 
seems  to  me  is  an  important  one.  We 
don’t  want  a Council  for  the  city  of 
Chicago  that  shall  be  known  as  a rich 
man’s  council.  We  want  to  make  this 
a matter  that  men  of  moderate  means 
will  aspire  to  this  office,  without  sac- 
rificing their  own  business.  I think 
they  should  be  paid  a compensation  for 
their  time.  The  price  of  $3,500  I do 
not  think  is  at  all  large.  It  is  more 
than  most  men  expect  to  get,  but  we 
hope  to  get  good  business  men,  who 
have  their  own  business,  men  who  have 
at  the  present  time  moderate  salaries, 
and  we  must  pay  them  enough  so  that 
they  will  feel  they  are  not  sacrificing 
their  business  in  accepting  this  posi- 
tion. I think  $3,500  is  not  out  of  rea- 
son. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 
tary call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Eckhart ’s 
amendment?  Mr.  Eckhart ’s  amend- 
ment was  to  substitute  the  words 
“$2,500”  for  the  words  “$3,500.” 
Yeas— Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J. 
W.;  Jones,  MacMillan,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  O’Donnell,  Shedd,  White — 9. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beil- 
fuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke, 
Church,  Clettenberg,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W. ; Dixon,  T.  J.;  Guerin, 
Hill,  Hoyne,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Line- 
han,  Lundberg,  McCormick,  Owens, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Powers,  Raymer,  Rob- 
ins, Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan, 
Shepard,  Snow,  Swift,  Yopicka,  Werno, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 40. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Eck- 

hart’s  motion  to  amend  by  substituting 


December  10 


230 


1906 


‘ ‘$2,500”  for  “$3,500,”  yeas  9,  nays  40, 
and  the  amendment  is  lost.  The  ques- 
tion reverts  upon  Mr.  McCormick’s  mo- 
tion to  adopt  the  second  paragraph  as 
printed.  As  many  as  are  in  favor  sig- 
nify by  saying  “aye. ” Those  apposed 
“no.”  The  ayes  have  it  and  it  is  so 
ordered. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I move  we  ad- 

journ. I understand  the  rules  are  to 
adjourn  at  5 o’clock 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I do  not  under- 

stand that  there  is  such  a rule. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  If  not,  I move 

we  adjourn  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  two 

matters  to  come  up  here,  the  first  is 
a motion  introduced  by  Professor  Mer- 
riam  at  the  last  meeting;  what  will 
you  do  with  that;  it  was  laid  over  un- 
til today? 

MR.  SNOW:  If  you  are  going  to 

put  his  motion,  there  is  another  motion 
I want  to  bring  up  before  the  Conven- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  us  dispose 

of  Professor  Merriam’s  first. 

MR.  BURKE:  I move  the  adoption 

of  that  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  and 

-seconded  that  Professor’s  Merriam’s 
motion  for  the  appointment  of  a com- 
mittee be  concurred  in.  All  those  in 
favor  say  “aye.”  Opposed,  “no.” 
The  motion  is  carried. 

MR.  SNOW:  There  is  one  matter  in 

connection  with  that  portion  of  the 
charter  referring  to  the  City  Council 
that  has  not  yet  been  taken  care  of  or 
cognizance  of.  I think  Mr.  Rosenthal 
probably  has  a provision  there  which 
will  be  considered,  and  I suggest  offer- 


ing it  now  in  order  that  it  may  be 
published  and  we  may  see  it  later.  I 
refer  to  the  provision  covering  the 
length  of  the  term  of  the  members  of 
the  Council. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  already 

before  the  Convention. 

MR.  SNOW:  It  is  before  the  Con- 

vention? 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  it  is  be- 

fore the  Convention. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I move  that  we  adjourn  now.  Some  of 
the  members  of  this  Convention  have 
another  meeting  to  attend. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  unable  to  meet  in  this  room 
Wednesday  afternoon  on  account  of  a 
meeting  of  the  Board  of  Local  Im- 
provements. That  is  the  only  meeting 
they  will  have  which  will  interfere 
with  the  Charter  Convention  work.  The 
Chair  would  like  to  ask  if  the  Con- 
vention want  to  fix  a time  now  for  the 
next  day  meeting,  or  do  you  want  to 
wait  until  the  meeting  of  tomorrow 
evening  to  fix  a time? 

MR.  SNOW:  Tomorrow  evening.  I 

suggest  that  it  go  over  until  tomorrow 
evening. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  the  meeting  stands  adjourned 
until  tomorrow  evening  at  7:30  o’clock. 

MR.  WHITE:  What  is  the  special 

order? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  special  or- 

ders are  for  this  week,  and  I presume 
the  Convention  will  take  up  the  rou- 
tine. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Tuesday,  December  11,  1906,  at 
7 :30  o ’clock  p.  m. 


December  10 


231 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 


city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  The  Mayor  is  still  pending: 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 

Alternative  to  4:  The  term  of  office 

of  the  mayor  shall  be  the  same  as  that 
of  the  members  of  the  city  council. 


IY.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ate provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


December  10 


232 


1906 


Y.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  the  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 


Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 


with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 


YI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 


2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  THE  CITY  COUNCIL  is  still 
pending: 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years.  The  aldermen  shall  be 
periodically  elected  at  an  election  held 
two  years  after  the  mayoralty  election. 


December  10 


233 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY  ME.  ROSENTHAL. 

As  an  amendment  to  Chapter  IV.  en- 
titled ELECTIONS.  By  adding  the 
following  proposition  numbered  6 : 

6.  The  only  elective  city  officers  (not 
including  aldermen  and  municipal 
judges)  shall  be  the  Mayor  and  City 
Treasurer.  The  City  Treasurer  shall  be 
ex-officio  city  collector. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

XXII. 

5.  SECTION Nothing  in  this  act 

shall  be  construed  to  modify,  impair  or 
affect  or  to  confer  upon  the  city  coun- 
cil power  to  pass  any  ordinance  modi- 
fying, impairing  or  conflicting  with  the 
provisions  of  Section  18  of  an  act  en- 
titled “An  act  to  provide  for  the  an- 
nexation of  cities,  incorporated  towns 
and  villages  or  parts  of  same  to  cities, 
incorporated  towns  and  villages”  ap- 
proved April  25th,  1889,  or  to  any  pro- 
vision of  any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  or  creat- 
iag  or  defining  criminal  offenses  or  relat- 
ing to  the  prosecution  and  punishment 
thereof,  nor  shall  any  amendment  or 
addition  be  made  to  the  charter  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  except  by  the  General 
Assembly,  by  which  this  section,  or  any 
part  thereof  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
be  abrogated,  repealed  or  annulled. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  a'nd  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

For  Week  Beginning  Monday,  December  10. 

SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53. 

SECTION  XVII.— Education,  at  page  56. 

PARAGRAPH  3.— Suffrage,  at  page  52. 


December  10 


234 


1906 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  92, 

first  column:  Line  13,  insert  word 

“speak”  instead  of  “come.” 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  101, 

second  column:  Line  22,  after  the  word 
‘ 1 then 5 ’ add  ‘ ‘ who  shall.  ’ 5 


MR.  SHEDD:  On  page  128,  first 

column,  second  line,  strike  out  “in  a” 
and  insert  therefor : ‘ 1 eliminating  the. 1 ’ 
Also,  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
‘ 1 paper,  ’ ’ insert  ‘ 1 but  retaining  the  par- 
ty column.” 


MR.  POST : On  page  130,  second 

column,  fifth  line  from  bottom^,  sub- 
stitute the  word  “constitutional”  for 
the  word  “satisfactory.” 


MR.  SHEPARD:  On  page  134,  first 

column,  last  paragraph,  fifth  line,  strike 
out  “that  is,  that  all  municipal  officers 
and  city  officers,  including  the  municipal 
court  judges  shall  be  elected  in  the 
spring”  and  insert  therefor:  “that  is, 
that  all  city  officers  shall  be  elected  in 
the  spring  at  one  and  the  same  election, 
except  the  municipal  court  judges. 1 * 


MR,  SHANAHAN:  On  page  159, 

first  column,  next  to  last  line,  strike 
out  “it  along”  and  insert  “about  its 
passage.  ’ * 


MR.  WERNO:  On  page  161,  left 

hand  column,  line  25,  strike  out  the 
word  “has”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof 
the  word  “have.” 

Also  on  page  161,  right  hand  column, 
13th  line,  strike  out  the  words  “to 
give”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  “who  gives.” 


MR.  LINE  HAN : On  page  162,  first 

column,  next  to  last  line,  strike  out 
word  “devoted”  and  insert  “di- 
vorced.” Also  same  column,  last  line, 
strike  out  word  “ to  ” and  insert 
“from.”  Also,  same  page,  second  col- 
umn, first  line,  strike  out  “we  are  pro- 
posing” and  insert  “a  proposal.” 


MR.  POWERS:  On  page  166,  sec- 

ond column,  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  lines, 
strike  out  “Well,  can’t  he  do  that 
without  the  consent  of  this  Conven- 
tion?” and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  “He 
cannot  do  that  without  the  consent  of 
this  Convention.  ’ * 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  170, 

first  column,  fourth  line,  after  the  word 
“entrance”  insert  the  following:  “to 
the  service  protected  by  the  law.” 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1906 


(Hljtraijtf  (Cl)artrr  (In  mi  nit  uni 

Convened,  December  12,  1900 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell.  Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley,  ...  Secretary 

,;nh»  Barrett  Chamberlin,  a&st.  Secy 


December  11 


237 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Tuesday,  December  11,  1906 

7:30  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

^ Present — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
'Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown,  Burke,  Carey, 
‘o Church,  Clettenberg,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
^Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Erickson,  Fisher,  Guerin, 
^Hill,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Linehan, 
^MacMillan,  McCormick,  McKinley,  Mer- 
jfriam,  O’Donnell,  Oehne,  Owens,  Paullin, 
^Pendarvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Raymer,  Rin- 
'f  aker,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 
Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Thompson,  Vopicka,  Walker,  Werno,  Wil- 
kins, Young — 46. 

Absent  — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beilfuss, 
Brosseau,  Cole,  Crilly,  Cruice,  Dixon,  T. 
J.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fitzpatrick, 
Gansbergen,  Graham,  Haas,  Harrison, 
Hoyne,  Lathrop,  Lundberg,  McGoorty, 
Patterson,  Powers,  Revell,  Sethness, 
Shedd,  Sunny,  White,  Wilson,  Zimmer — 
28. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  A quorum  pres- 

ent. The  Secretary  has  a number  of 
communications  which  he  will  read. 

MR.  WERNO:  I would  like  to  ask 

what  became  of  the  communication  re- 
ceived the  other  day  from  the  United 
Societies,  what  disposition  was  made 
of  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  was  read  here 

and  ordered  printed,  but,  by  a mistake  of 
the  printer,  one  clause  was  left  out.  The 
communication  itself  is  printed. 

MR.  WERNO:  The  proposition  was 

not  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Was  it  not,  Mr. 

Secretary? 

THE  SECRETARY:  The  letter  was 

printed;  the  resolution  was  left  out.  It 
will  be  inserted  in  the  next  proceedings. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  was  an  error 

of  the  printer’s. 

THE  SECRETARY:  It  was  set  and 

just  dropped  out. 

MR.  WERNO:  In  order  that  that  may 
appear  of  record,  I move  that  it  be  print- 
ed in  the  next  copy  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  would  be  print- 
ed, anyway,  alderman ; the  Secretary  ex- 


December  11 


238 


1906 


plained  it  to  me,  that  the  printer  dropped 
it  out. 

ME.  POST : A point  of  information. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

ME.  POST:  In  the  minutes,  on  page 

145,  I am  reported  as  having  asked 
the  Chairman  what  became  of  the  substi- 
tute to  the  amendments  that  were  to  be 
reconsidered.  That  does  not  correctly  re- 
port me.  What  my  exact  language  was 
I cannot  now  recall,  but  the  substance 
of  my  inquiry  was  what  became  of  par- 
agraph B of  Section  4 A,  Section  4,  on 
the  subject  of  elections.  That  is  the 
paragraph  relating  to  the  holding  of 
elections  in  May.  The  answer  of  the 
Chairman  w*as  that  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Cole  they  were  laid  on  the  table.  Now, 
I find  Mr.  Cole ’s  motion  to  lay  upon 
the  table  covered  substitutes  to  reso- 
lutions then  pending.  I do  not  under- 
stand this  particular  one  was  pending. 
All  I wish  to  know,  Mr.  Chairman, 
is  what  has  become  of  that  clause.  I 
am  informed  by  the  Secretary  that  no 
action  has  been  taken  unless  it  was  in- 
cluded in  Mr.  Cole ’s  motion. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : I presume  it  was 

assumed  that  it  was  included  in  Mr. 
Cole’s  motion.  I have  no  independent 
recollection  of  it. 

ME.  POST : Shall  we  so*  understand 

that  without  any  further  question? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

ME.  Post:  Then  I am  satisfied. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Are  there  any 

further  corrections  or  amendments  to 
the  minutes?  If  not  ,they  will  stand 
approved  as  the  records  of  the  Con- 
vention. Let  the  secretary  read  the  com- 
munications. There  is  a communication 
here  from  Mr.  Eevell  in  relation  to  this 
proposition  in  regard  to  the  election  of 
Aldermen  and  the  secretary  will  read  it. 

THE  SECEETAEY : By  Mr.  Eevell: 

The  manner  of  selecting  the  common 
council  is  one  of  the  most  important 
problems  which  this  Convention  has  to 
consider.  In  order  to  provide,  what  ap- 
pears to  me  to  be  a safe  and  compre- 


hensive plan,  I introduced  a series  of 
resolutions  in  relation  thereto.  It  is  not 
worth  while  for  me  to  restate  the  prop- 
ositions contained  in  the  resolutions,  be- 
cause I presume  you  are  all  familiar 
with  them. 


Since  introducing  the  resolutions,  my 
opinion  has  been  modified,  I may  say 
wholly  changed,  in  relation  to  permit- 
ting an  alderman  to  succeed  himself.  I 
am  inclined  to  believe  that  it  would  be 
unwise  to  create  restrictions  which 
would  deprive  the  public  of  the  services 
of  good  aldermen.  Indeed,  it  appears 
to  me  that  an  alderman  ought  to  be 
able  to  render  better  service  in  succeed- 
ing terms  than  he  was  in  the  first  term. 
The  right  sort  of  men  should  be  con- 
tinued in  the  council  just  as  long  as 
they  are  willing  to  stay  there. 

Concerning  the  resolutions,  I desire 
the  Convention  to  understand  that  I have 
no  hard  and  fast  convictions  concern- 
ing any  particular  phase  of  the  propo- 
sitions which  they  contain.  I am  open 
to  conviction,  if  good  objections  can  be 
offered  against  any  of  them.  But  unless 
such  criticisms  are  made  and  sustained, 
I am  strongly  of  the  opinion  that  the 
plan  proposed  in  the  resolutions  is  freer 
from  objection  than  any  other  which, 
thus  far,  has  been  brought  to  my  no- 
tic^ 

/ One  of  the  strongest  arguments  in  fa- 

tvor  of  the  plan  which  I have  proposed, 
is  that  it  will  relieve  the  public,  to 
some  extent  at  least,  from  bad  ward 
dominations.  When  the  election  of  al- 
dermen is  confined  to  the  voters  of  the 
‘\ward,  those  who  bring  about  the  nomi- 
nations have  much  less  to  fear  from 
. 

the  condemnatory  sentiment  of  the  ward 
than  they  would  fear  from  the  voters 
of  the  entire  city.  The  method  under 
consideration  would  act  automatically — 
and  that  is  the  most  valuable  plan  for 
securing  good  results — to  bring  about 
good  nominations.  The  final  result  would 
be  that  the  people  of  the  entire  city 
would  pass  upon  ward  nominations,  not 


December  11 


239 


1906 


for  the  purpose  of  depriving  the  ward 
of  representation,  but  to  say  which  can- 
didate presented  by  the  ward  was  most 
acceptable  for  the  general  purpose  of 
the  council. 

It  should  be  kept  in  mind  in  this 
connection  that  under  the  present  system 
the  nomination  and  election  of  aider- 
men  is  left  entirely  to  the  voters  of  the 
ward.  Under  the  ‘‘general  system’’, 
whereby  a city  council  would  be  nomi- 
nated and  elected  by  the  voters  of  all 
the  city,  the  ward  would  have  no  proper 
representation.  The  plan  proposed  by 
me  gives  the  ward  the  opportunity  at 
/the  primary  election  to  select  candidates. 
#Tlie  voters  of  the  entire  city  at  the 
general  election  cannot  reject  all  these 
candidates,  but  must  select  one  of  them. 
Thus,  the  ward  has  a voice  in  naming 
a representative  of  ward  interests.  The 
city  at  large  next  has  a chance  to  select 
.^that  alderman  which  the  voters  believe 
would  best  subserve  the  interests  of  the 
I city  generally.  It  is  erroneous  to  sup- 
l pose  that  under  the  system  suggested 
the  ward  would  be  deprived  of  actual 
j representation. 

\]/t  has  always  seemed  to  me  that  there 
is  manifest  unfairness  in  some  of  the 
wards  of  the  city,  sending  to  the  council 
term  after  term,  men  who  are  notoriously 
unfit  for  such  a position.  Were  the  full 
burden  of  responsibility  for  such  a selec- 
tion to  fall  upon  such  wards  alone  there 
would  be  less  harm,  as  “the  punishment 
would  fit  the  crime.  ’ ’ But  for  wards 
to  contribute  suoh  men  to  a council 
which  is  to  legislate  for  others  who  have 
no  voice  in  their  selection,  is  unfair. 

Objections  may  be  made  that  by  this 
method  we  are  going  to  have  too  many 
candidates  on  a ticket.  In  common  with 
what  seems  to  be  the  sentiment  of  this 
Convention,  I am  in  favor  of  reducing 
the  number  of  candidates  to  the  lowest 
possible  limit,  but  only  and  always  con- 
sistent with  securing  the  best  possible 
welfare  of  the  people. 

It  may  be  objected  also  that  a sweep- 


ing city  victory  for  one  party  or  the 
other  might  too  greatly  change  the  com- 
plexion of  the  council.  On  consideration, 
it  will  be  seen  that  the  proposition  would 
not  operate  in  this  way.  It  may  be 
determined  that  the  proper  plan  would 
be  to  have  forty  wards.  By  this  plan 
but  nine  aldermen  in  addition  to  the  one 
which  would  be  elected  any  way,  would 
be  elected  each  year.  Upon  the  basis, 
as  here  presented,  of  sixty  wards,  but 
fourteen  additional  aldermen  would  be 
elected  each  year.  Probably  half  of  the 
aldermen  elected  would  be  elected  any- 
way by  the  victorious  party;  therefore,  it 
can  readily  be  seen  that  it  reduces  the 
possible  sweeping  change  to  a matter  of 
small  importance.  In  other  words,  it 
would  have  to  take  sweeping  and  con- 
secutive victories  on  the  part  of  any  one 
party  to  make  the  great  change  which 
seems  to  be  apparent  without  analyzing 
the  proposition. 

The  interests  of  the  city  as  a whole 
are  greater  than  the  interests  of  any 
particular  portion  of  the  city.  In  other 
words,  the  interests  of  the  entire  city 
are  greater  than  the  interests  of  a ward. 
One  of  the  worst  features  of  the  pres- 
ent system  is  the  fact  that  the  general 
interests  of  the  city  are  made  to  subserve 
the  personal  interests  of  aldermen  who 
trade  and  traffic  in  them  in  order  to 
secure  local  advantages  for  wards,  in 
order  that  the  alderman  may  popularize 
himself  in  his  own  ward.  This  trafficking 
in  the  interests  of  the  city  is  one  of 
the  very  worst  abuses  of  the  present 
system.  It  may  be  set  down  as  a fact 
that  no  city  government  can  ever  be 
right  as  a whole  unless  it  is  as  nearly 
right  as  it  can  be  made  in  all  its  parts. 

More  and  more  as  the  city  grows,  it 
is  obvious  to  me  that  we  will  need  men 
as  aldermen  who  shall  be,  within  certain 
limits,  real  administrative  officials — as- 
sistant mayors  of  the  wards — of  the 
smaller  Chicagos.  There  are  men  in 
every  ward  who  are  as  large  as  the 
city.  But  this  fact  does  not  make  them 


December  11 


240 


1906 


too  large  for  a ward.  It  only  makes 
them  more  competent  to  deal  with  the 
local  problems  of  their  wards.  By  hav- 
ing the  stamp  of  approval  of  the  entire 
city  upon  them,  they  will  be  all  the 
more  efficient  in  bringing  about  benefi- 
cial results  for  their  wards. 

It  is  especially  important  when  the 
sanitary  and  street  cleaning  services  of 
a ward  are  considered  that  men  of 
broad  views  and  fearless  characteristics 
be  elected  as  aldermen.  And,  such  men 
once  elected  and  enabled  to  carry  out 
proper  regulations  within  their  ward, 
would  be  in  no  doubt  of  renomination 
and  re-election.  In  the  four  years  of 
their  service  they  would  be  enabled  to 
establish  permanently  changed  and  im- 
proved conditions.  They  would  be  en- 
abled to  eliminate  unwarranted  objec- 
tions and  lawless  objectors  from  the 
politics  of  the  ward. 

To  properly  perform  the  service  of 
alderman  according  to  the  plan  which  I 
have  suggested,  would  require  that  the 
alderman  give  almost  his  entire  time  to 
such  service.  He  should  be  properly 
compensated  and  furnished  with  a secre- 
tary. Proper  expenditures  of  this  sort 
would  be  the  most  profitable  investment 
the  taxpayers  of  Chicago  could  possibly 
make. 

Some  of  the  wards  of  Chicago  have 
as  much  as  60,000  population.  Compare 
the  expenses  of  operating  a city  of  60,- 
000  persons  with  what  the  plan  which 
is  here  proposed  would  cost  for  each 
ward.  Then  apportion  the  general  ex- 
penses of  the  City  of  Chicago  to  the 
respective  wards.  The  result  of  such 
figuring  will  show  that  the  administrative 
charges  against  the  wards  to  be  very 
far  less  than  that  of  a city  of  equal 
size. 

We  are  just  now  planning  for  a better 
Chicago — for  conditions  that  will  bring 
greater  contentment  to  our  people.  The 
Burnham  scheme  may  take  many  years 
to  fully  accomplish  and  this  is  an  im- 
portant matter  for  the  future.  And 


more  than  ever  before,  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, there  should  be  eliminated  from  the 
city  council  those  who  are  not  able  to 
plan  for  the  making  of  Chicago  a ‘ 1 world 
city”.  But,  in  the  accomplishment  of 
such  a result,  it  should  not  be  lost  sight 
of  that  those  portions  of  the  city  which 
need  sanitation  and  the  creation  of  more 
wholesome  living  conditions  should  be 
among  the  first  to  be  cared  for.  The 
surroundings  of  the  wage  worker  should 
not  be  allowed  to  stand  as  evidence  in 
proof  of  the  criticism  which  unwarranted 
agitation  makes  of  the  ‘ 1 present  order  of 
things  ’ \ 

Among  the  suggestions  which  have 
come  to  me  since  the  introduction  of  the 
resolutions  referred  to,  is  one  that  a good 
plan  would  be  to  have  the  ward  nomi- 
nate and  elect  one  alderman.  Then,  in 
addition,  the  ward  would  nominate  a 
second  candidate.  But  upon  this  second 
candidate  the  entire  city  would  vote.  It 
is  thought  by  some  that  the  ward  and 
the  city  would  be  brought  into  closer 
co-operation  in  this  manner.  I am  hardly 
convinced  that  any  plan  which  seeks  to 
perpetuate  the  alderman  which  owes  noth- 
ing to  any  constituency  except  that  which 
exists  in  his  ward,  is  a good  plan. 

But,  as  I said  at  the  outset,  I hope 
there  will  be  the  widest  possible  discus- 
sion of  the  propositions  which  I have 
offered.  There  are  perhaps  advantages 
in  the  scheme  which  I have  overlooked. 
There  may  be  objections  which  have 
not  occurred  to  me.  At  any  rate,  I will 
be  pleased  at  any  conclusion  which  may 
be  reached  as  the  result  of  full  and 
fair  discussion. 

(During  the  reading.) 

MB.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

that  the  communication  of  Mr.  Bevell 
be  printed  in  the  record,  and  that  further 
reading  be  dispensed  with. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  that 

the  further  reading  of  this  communica- 
tion be  dispensed  with.  Is  that  your 
intention? 

MR.  CHURCH : I understand  this  is 


December  11 


241 


1906 


merely  an  argument  of  Mr.  Eevell  that  he 
has  prepared  and  that  is  being  read. 

ME.  SMULSKI : Is  this  a matter 

that  we  are  likely  to  vote  on  this  even- 
ing? 

THE  CHAIEMAN : We  have  already 

voted  on  it. 

ME.  SHEPAED:  Let’s  hear  it. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  The  matter  of 

the  election  of  aldermen,  Mr.  Chairman, 
is  still  before  us.  This  communication 
may  bear  upon  it.  I think  we  should 
hear  it. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  I think  the  quick- 
est way  is  to  continue  the  reading  of 
the  communication.  The  reading  by  the 
secretary  will  be  continued. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  the  communication  will  be 
printed  in  the  record.  The  secretary  has 
another  communication. 

THE  SECEETAEY : I have  no  more. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Mr.  Eosenthal,  do 
you  desire  the  floor?  If  the  gentlemen 
will  talk  louder,  please,  so  that  the  sten- 
ographer will  get  it. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  I do  not  desire 

to  address  the  house  at  this  time. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  first  matter 

that  will  be  taken  up  here  will  be  the 
resqlution  presented  by  Mr.  Eosenthal 
at  the  last  meeting,  relating  to  the  term 
of  aldermen,  and  the  time  and  manner 
of  their  election. 

ME.  O’DONNELL:  Where  is  it  re- 

ported? 

THE  SECEETAEY:  On  page  232, 

the  lower  right-hand  column.  The  fol- 
lowing resolution  on  the  subject  of  the 
City  Council  is  still  pending:  “The 

term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall  be  four 
years.  The  aldermen  shall  be  periodi- 
cally elected  at  an  election  held  two 
years  after  the  mayoralty  election.  ’ ’ 

MB.  EOSENTHAL:  I move  the  adop- 
tion, Mr.  Chairman,  of  that  proposition. 

MB.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I think 

that  this  question  of  the  term  of  office 
of  aldermen  should  be  considered  in  con- 
nection with  the  term  of  office  of  mayor. 


The  question  concerning  the  mayor’s 
term  of  office  was  deferred.  It  is  printed 
on  page  231.  Now  the  alternative  to  4, 
is  to  the  effect  that  the  term  of  the 
office  of  the  mayor  shall  be  the  same  as 
that  of  the  City  Council.  It  seems  to 
me  that  it  would  be  better  for  us  to 
decide  whether  or  not  they  shall  have  the 
same  term  of  office  first,  and  then  we 
can  decide  whether  the  term  of  office 
of  each  shall  be  two  years  or  four  years. 
Therefore,  I move  as  a substitute  to  Mr. 
Eosenthal ’s  motion,  that  we  adopt  the 
alternative  to  4. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL :'  Mr.  Chairman, 
I will  withdraw  my  motion  temporarily. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Your  motion  is 

to  take  up  alternative  No.  4,  printed  on 
page— 

ME.  JONES : 231 ; which  reads,  ‘ ‘ The 
term  of  office  of  the  mayor  shall  be 
the  same  as  that  of  the  members  of 
the  City  Council. 

ME.  McCOEMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I would  ask  Mr.  Jones  if  he  is  willing  to 
have  his  motion  made  that  the  term  of 
office  of  both  the  mayor  and  aldermen 
shall  be  four  years.  I would  like  to 
see  the  term  of  the  mayor  be  four  years, 
if  that  is  not  possible,  I would  elect  the 
mayor  for  four  years,  anyway. 

ME.  JONES:  I will  withdraw  my 

motion  if  Mr.  McCormick  wishes  to  make 
a motion  that  the  term  be  four  years. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Do  you  desire 

to  make  such  motion? 

ME.  McCOEMICK : My  personal 

views  are  that  both  the  mayor  and  aider- 
men  should  be  elected  for  four  years,  and 
I wish  to  vote  for  that.  If  the  Conven- 
tion should  be  in  favor  of  giving  the 
aldermen  only  two  years,  I would  still 
be  in  favor  of  the  mayor  of  four  years. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  There  is  no  mo- 

tion before  the  house. 

ME.  JONES:  I would  repeat  what  I 

said  to  Mr.  McCormick,  if  he  wishes  to 
make  that  motion  I would  withdraw 

THE  CHAIEMAN : State  the  motion. 

ME.  McCOEMICK:  That  the  term 


December  11 


242 


1906 


of  office  of  the  major  and  the  citj  coun- 
cill  shall  be  four  rears. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr.  McCormick, 
that  the  term  of  major  and  aldermen 
shall  be  four  years.  The  matter  is  now 
before  the  house  for  its  discussion. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McCormick. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I believe  the 

term  of  mayor  and  aldermen  should  be 
for  four  years  because  I believe  we 
should  make  the  hardships  of  holding  pub- 
lic office  as  few  as  possible;  and  also  be- 
cause I believe  when  a man  is  elected  to 
an  office  he  should  have  a suitable  time 
in  which  to  demonstrate  his  work.  In 
the  experience  of  the  city  of  Chicago,  a 
man  is  no  sooner  elected  and  has  begun 
his  work,  no  sooner  an  alderman  has  been 
elected  and  gotten  fully  into  the  har- 
ness until  comes  the  question  of  his  re- 
nomination and  afterwards  re-election. 
It  is  more  often  than  otherwise,  within 
that  time,  that  he  has  not  had  a fair 
opportunity  to  develop  the  policy  which 
he  supports.  It  means  when  a man  is 
elected  for  two  years  that  he  has  stand- 
ing before  him  public  sentiment,  he  is 
threatened  by  special  interests  who  may 
oppose  him  with  an  attempt  to  defeat  his 
re-nomination  and  defeat  his  re-election, 
with  the  effect  of  taking  away  from  him 
the  courage  and  high  purpose  which 
should  be  that  of  a man  in  public  office. 

MR.  FISHER : I would  like  to  say,  in 

addition  to  what  Mr.  McCormick  has 
said,  that  I am  in  favor  of  Mr.  Mc- 
Cormick’s resolution  for  the  reason  that 
he  has  named,  and  also  for  the  reason 
that  I think  it  would  tend  to  lessen  the 
influence  of  the  city  council  or  of  the 
mayor  either  as  to  parts  of  a co-relative 
organization  here.  To  attempt  to  have 
any  system  of  checks  and  balances,  if  the 
term  of  office  of  either  of  them  is  less 
than  that  of  the  other,  and  under  the 
system  which  has  thus  far  been  adopted 
by  the  Convention,  of  retaining  the  veto 
power  in  the  mayor,  if  you  add  to  that 


a term  of  office  longer  than  that  of  al- 
dermen, we  are  going  to  that  extent  in- 
crease the  relative  influence  of  the  mayor 
at  the  expense  of  the  city  council.  It 
seems  to  me  the  proposition  is  clearly 
correct  on  that  ground  as  well  as  for 
the  reason  stated  by  Mr.  McCormick. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further  dis- 

| cussion  ? 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I oppose  the 

motion  of  Mr.  McCormick.  I would  be 
in  favor  of  the  mayor  for  four  years,  but 
I am  opposed  to  electing  the  aldermen 
for  four  years,  and  I will  tell  you  why. 
In  the  first  place,  we  call  the  members 
of  the  legislature  to  account  every  two 
years;  we  call  the  members  of  Congress 
to  account  every  two  years. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  How  about  the 

j Senate? 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I will  get  to 

that  later;  and  I assume  that  the  legisla- 
tive body  and  the  executive  branch  of  the 
city  government  is  now  going  to  be  sep- 
arated. We  have  taken  the  mayor  out 
of  the  city  council  to  preside  over  it, 
and  we  assume  that  the  city  council  is 
going  to  be  the  legislative  branch  of  this 
city.  We  have  given  them  a salary  of 
$3,500,  which  I don’t  think  is  too  much, 
but  it  is  enough  that  they  can  afford  to 
make  a campaign  every  two  years.  And 
I don’t  believe  it  would  be  wise  to  make 
a city  council  with  a life  of  four  years, 
and  if  you  should  happen  to  get  a few 
bad  ones  in  it  you  couldn’t  get  them  out, 
and  if  you  get  good  ones . you  can  re- 
elect them ; and  I think  it  would  be  much 
better  for  the  interests  of  the  people  to 
elect  a council  every  two  years  and  let 
them  go  back  to  the  people  for  their 
endorsement. 

And,  another  reason,  I believe  it  would 
be  better  in  this  great  city,  with  all  the 
interests  that  are  here,  and  the  interests 
that  are  to  be  here;  public  sentiment 
changes  in  less  than  four  years,  and  you 
might  have  a council  here  that  might  be 
entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the  senti- 
1 ment  of  this  city  and  its  needs,  in  four 


December  11 


243 


1906 


years,  and  you  might  get  a city  council 
here  that  four  years  would  be  all  the 
time  you  would  ever  want.  I would  like 
to  vote  for  a mayor  for  four  years,  but 
I would  like  to  elect  a city  council  every 
two  years. 

ME.  LINEHAN : On  page  5,  of  the 

first  column — that  is  the  report  of  the 
committee — I would  like  to  move  No.  2 
as  a substitute  for  that  part  of  McCor- 
mick’s motion  relating  to  aldermen. 

ME.  LINEHAN:  No.  2;  that  the  al- 

dermen be  elected  for  two  years,  and  that 
all  of  the  aldermen  be  elected  at  the 
same  time. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Do  you  desire  to 

move  that  as  a substitute  for  that  por- 
tion of  the  motion  which  relates  to  al- 
dermen ? 

MB.  LINEHAN:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  That  will  re- 

quire a division  of  the  question,  and  the 
Chair  would  suggest  that  you  take  a 
vote  upon  the  mayoralty  and  then  upon 
the  aldermen. 

ME.  LINEHAN : I have  no  objec- 

tion, but  I don’t  want  to  lose  the  right 
to  that  amendment  before  the  house. 

MB.  O’DONNELL:  I move  a divi- 

sion of  the  question. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  ‘ ‘ aye.  ’ ’ Op- 
posed ‘ 1 nay.  ’ ’ 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : The  motion  is 

now  that  the  mayor  shall  be  elected  for  a 
term  of  four  years.  Are  you  ready  for 
that  question?  All  those  in  favor  of  the 
motion  signify  by  saying  “aye. ” Op- 
posed ‘ 1 nay.  ’ ’ 

The  motion  prevailed. 

The  next  part  of  Mr.  McCormick’s  mo- 
tion is  that  the  aldermen  shall  be  elected 
for  four  years,  and  Mr.  Linehan  moves 
as  a substitute  for  that  motion  No. 

2 of  the  report  of  the  committee  on 
municipal  legislature;  that  the  aldermen 
be  elected  for  two  years  and  that  all 


of  the  aldermen  be  elected  at  the  same 
time. 

ME,  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 
say  a few  words  in  regard  to  this. 
After  due  consideration  by  the  com- 
mittee, that  was  the  result.  Now,  sev- 
eral members  were  aldermen,  and  it 
was  stated  that  in  nearly  every  instance 
from  60  to  80  per  cent  of  the  aldermen 
were  re-elected.  That  is  sufficient  rea- 
son to  quiet  any  fears  that  may  exist 
as  to  this  council,  when  voting  on  the 
two  years,  voting  to  have  them  alto- 
gether, the  possibility  of  leaving  this 
council  without  proper  adnimistration, 
or,  rather,  by  taking  away  men  who 
are  trained  in  the  work  of  this  coun- 
cil, the  danger  that  would  exist  in  tak- 
ing them  away.  The  answer  to  that  is 
that  60  to  80  per  cent  always  come 
back.  That  goes  to  show  that  the  de- 
serving ones  come  back  to  this  council. 

Then,  the  voting  every  two  years  is 
a matter  of  referendum.  A mayor  is 
elected  with  a certain  policy;  it  may  be 
the  traction  question,  or  it  may  be  any 
other  question.  A board  of  aldermen  is 
elected  with  him.  The  people  can 
change  their  opinion  inside  of  two 
years;  as  an  expression  of  that  change, 
they  would  change  the  great  body  of 
the  aldermen,  and  that  would  be  suf- 
ficient notification  to  the  mayor  that 
the  policy  is  no  longer  desirable  by  the 
people. 

On  the  other  hand,  if  the  policy  is  de- 
sirable, and  the  aldermen  are  not  sup- 
porting the  mayor,  there  will  be  an 
opportunity  for  the  people  to  send  in 
someone  that  will  support  him.  That 
was  the  argument  offered  by  the  com- 
mittee. 

There  is  also  the  possibility  to  my 
mind  that  this  body  might  be  subject 
to  what  is  called  dry  rot,  and  the  only 
way  you  can  get  that  out  of  a body,  a 
legislative  body,  or  even  a working 
body,  is  to  discharge  the  whole  gang 
and  hire  a new  one.  That  is  the  way 
we  do  on  a job. 


December  11 


244 


1906 


I want  to  preserve  the  right  of  the 
people,  if  it  is  possible  to  do  so.  I 
have  no  fear  of  that  whatsoever.  I 
want  to  preserve  the  right  of  the  people 
on  the  election  day  if  it  cleans  out  this 
whole  council,  if  they  so  desire,  and  put 
in  a new  set  of  aldermen.  I do  not  an- 
ticipate that  they  want  to  do  so,  but 
if  they  do,  they  are  the  ones  that  ought 
to  have  the  right  to  do  so,  and  not  this 
council.  I don’t  fear  that  at  any  time 
it  would  be  so  cleaned  out,  but  I want 
to  preserve  the  right. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I think  it  would 
be  a great  mistake  at  this  time  for  this 
city  to  elect  aldermen  for  a term  of 
four  years.  The  people  of  Chicago  have 
had  a great  deal  of  trouble  with  the 
aldermen.  This  body  of  aldermen  has 
been  a gerat  concern  to  the  people  here 
for  many  years.  I think  it  is  not  out 
of  the  way  to  say  that  the  people  of 
Chicago  are  in  terror  of  their  aldermen. 
Prom  time  to  time  it  has  been  demon- 
strated that  it  takes  the  greatest 
watchfulness  on  the  part  of  the  people 
to  keep  the  council  that  they  elect  here 
straight.  It  takes  the  greatest  dili- 
gence and  care  in  the  respective  wards 
of  the  city  to  see  that  rascals  are  pre- 
vented from  coming  to  the  council.  The 
danger  is  all  over  the  country,  of  the 
tyranny  of  the  people  by  those  who 
are  elected  and  called  servants  of  the 
people.  In  most  instances  they  are  mas- 
ters. Take  your  congress  or  your  legis- 
lature, or  this  council, — it  has  done  its 
best  in  Chicago  to  be  masters  of  the 
people.  Now,  to  go  for  four  years,  to 
give  them  a four-year  term  of  office 
without  a check  on  them,  four  years 
may  be  all  they  desire.  It  is  not  the 
money,  the  salary,  that  is  paid  to  them, 
that  should  be  the  incentive;  it  should 
be  the  patriotism,  the  civic  pride  or 
love  of  the  city  that  should  actuate 
aldermen  here  in  Chicago.  It  is  not 
the  paltry  sum  that  is  paid  them  for 
compensation.  We  want  men— men  who 
love  Chicago,  not  alone  this  generation, 


but  that  will  love  generations  to  come — 
great,  high,  tall  men,  above  any  selfish 
desire,  and  for  you  to  pass,  to  give 
them  a four-year  term  here  now,  if  you 
do  that,  you  will  have  the  full  comple- 
ment of  public  enemies  in  this  council. 

But  you  cannot  give  it  to  them  for 
four  years.  The  people  of  Chicago 
never  will  vote  for  a charter  enlarging 
and  extending  this  office  to  four  years, 
and  they  should  not.  Give  them  two 
years,  and  if  there  is  a good  man  elect- 
ed for  two  years — and  the  history  of 
Chicago  has  been  where  a man  who  has 
been  faithful,  tried,  and  a trusted  serv- 
ant and  has  proved  himself  so  to  the 
people,  he  has  been  returned  without 
any  question.  We  have  had  our  own 
troubles  trying  to  drive  the  rascals 
out.  I am  opposed  to  the  four-year 
term,  and  I sincerely  trust  this  Conven- 
tion will  not  make  the  mistake  of  mak- 
ing this  office  a four-year  office.  Two 
years  is  long  enough.  The  people  can 
be  trusted  and  the  people  are  never  mis- 
taken. I have  been  in  Chicago  almost 
forty-five  years,  as  man  and  boy,  and  I 
have  not  seen  the  people  ungrateful 
very  often.  Occasionally  there  is  a slip 
in  the  mind  of  the  people,  but  in  the 
main  the  people  are  grateful  to  public 
servants  for  faithfulness,  for  faithful 
service,  and  we  can  trust  the  people  to 
return  a good  alderman.  I sincerely 
trust  the  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  to  my  left  here  will  pass. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

we  have  just  decided  by  a practically 
unanimous  vote — at  any  rate,  no  one 
heard  any  dissenting  voice — that  the 
term  of  office  of  the  mayor  shall  be  four 
years.  What  reason  has  been  advanced 
here  upon  this  floor  to-night  why  there 
should  be  any  differentiation  between 
the  office  of  the  mayor  and  the  term  of 
office  of  the  aldermen.  It  is  within  the 
recollection  of  all  of  us  that  we  have 
had  sitting  in  the  chair  occupied  by  the 
Chairman  this  evening  men  who  have 
been  just  as  bad,  if  not  worse,  possi- 


December  11 


245 


1906 


bly  they  were  worse  than  any  of  the 
worst  members  that  we  have  ever  had 
in  the  council.  Now,  we  are  going  to 
elect  men  of  that  sort,  who  have  legal 
power  upon  the  action  of  .the  council, 
and  over  whose  veto  a measure  can 
be  passed  only  by  a two-thirds  vote — 
you  are  going  to  elect  that  man  for 
four  years  and  elect  members  of  the 
council  for  a term  of  only  two  years. 
What  reason  is  there  for  this  differ- 
ence? Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  if 
we  act  in  this  way  we  shall  not  ac- 
complish the  real  reform  for  which  this 
Convention  was  organized;  that  we  are 
not  making  any  real  progress  in  munic- 
ipal affairs.  For  years  one  thing  that 
has  been  a blessing  in  this  city  above 
all  others  has  been  that  we  have  a coun- 
cil-governed city;  not  a mayor-governed 
city.  You  take  other  cities — take  a 
city  like  New  York.  New  York  is  not 
a council-governed  city.  New  York  is 
governed  by  the  legislature  practically, 
but  it  is  not  governed  by  a council. 
There  is  no  such  thing  as  real  home 
rule  in  New  York.  Now,  here  we  have 
a city  in  which  we  are  going  to  have 
real,  true  home  rule.  We  know,  as  a 
matter  of  practical  knowledge  and  as 
a matter  of  common  observation,  that 
many  a man  when  he  first  gets  into 
the  council  is  not  well  qualified  to  sit 
there,  but  as  he  goes  along  he  gains  ex- 
perience; and  about  the  time  the  man 
is  really  experienced,  about  the.  time 
the  man  becomes  useful  as  a public 
servant,  he  is  turned  out  of  the  coun- 
cil, and  perhaps  somebody  else  is  elect- 
ed in  his  place.  From  the  moment  he 
gets  in,  as  a matter  of  fact,  he  is  look- 
ing forward  to  the  next  election,  or  he 
is  looking  forward  to  his  retirement. 
We  should  not  have  this  state  of  affairs. 
And  the  only  way  to  change  it — the 
only  way  to  remedy  it — is  by  electing 
our  aldermen  for  a longer  time. 

We  have  heard  a great  deal  of  talk 
on  the  floor  of  this  Convention,  and 
we  hear  a great  deal  of  talk  outside 


about  the  voice  of  the  people,  and 
about  the  government  of  the  people. 
We  are  forgetting  our  bearings,  it  seems 
to  me,  at  times.  This  government  of 
ours  is  not  a government  by  the  people 
in  a narrow  or  democratic  sense;  and 
the  term  I am  using  11  democratic,”  is 
not  in  the  party  sense,  but  I use  the 
word  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  term. 
It  is  not  that  sort  of  government,  but 
the  representative  form  of  government. 
We  send  our  representatives  into  the 
council  chambers,  and  into  the  halls  of 
the  legislature,  and  into  the  halls  of 
congress  for  the  purpose  of  governing 
the  people.  That  is  the  only  way  in 
which  we  conduct  a proper  sort  of  a 
government.  We  cannot  conduct  it  in 
any  other  way.  Now,  let  us  be  care- 
ful. It  seems  to  me  this  is  the  proper 
principle  to  follow;  that  is,  to  be  care- 
ful about  the  men  we  send  into  our 
council  chambers,  and  the  men  we  send 
into  our  legislative  halls.  And  these 
chimerical  troubles  we  hear  so  much 
about  will  be  done  away  with.  We 
have  heard  some  talk  here  about  the 
sentiments  of  the  people  changing.  Of 
course,  the  sentiments  of  the  people 
change;  they  fluctuate  constantly.  They 
change  in  the  course  of— some  people 
— every  six  months;  possibly  every 
three  months.  Do  you  want  them  to 
govern  us,  do  you  want  that  sort  of 
government,  or  do  you  want  that  senti- 
ment reflected  in  our  government?  Our 
legislative  bodies  should  be  more  con- 
servative than  the  people,  but  not  more 
conservative  than  some  persons  intend 
they  should  be.  But  the  legislature 
should  be  representative  of  the  people, 
and  composed  of  the  leaders  of  the  peo- 
ple, for  they  are  the  men  who  really 
act  and  propose  legislation,  and  not  of 
persons  whose  ears  are  merely  close  to 
the  wall  to  see  and  hear  what  the  multi- 
tude may  want  them  to  do — a multitude 
that  has  not  considered  the  question  as 
we,  i it  our  councils,  consider  them;  not 
with  the  care  that  students  should  con- 


December  11 


246 


1906 


sider  them.  These  men  are  delegated 
to  these  chambers  for  that  very  pur- 
pose. Under  those  circumstances  it 
seems  to  me  we  should  be  making  a 
great  mistake  to  shorten  the  term.  At 
any  rate  we  should  be  making  a mis- 
take in  making  the  term  less.  As  has 
been  well  pointed  out  by  Mr.  Fisher, 
not  only  at  this  time,  but  in  a previous 
meeting,  it  would  be  a decided  error  to 
exalt  the  office  of  mayor  in  the  council- 
governed  city;  and  it  is  really  our  in- 
tention to  have  a council-governed  city 
— it  would  be  a mistake  to  exalt  the 
office  of  mayor  over  that  of  alderman. 
I think,  therefore,  this  motion  should 
be  voted  down. 

MB.  McCORMICK:  I want  to  speak 
just  a word. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  require 

unanimous  consent  of  the  house. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  But  this  is  an- 

other motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  is  another 

motion.  I beg  pardon. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I want  to  say 

a few  words  about  the  four-year  term 
for  aldermen.  I fully  agree  with  this 
gentleman  who  said  that  aldermen 
should  be  held  to  strict  account  for  their 
action,  and  that  all  the  men  who  are  un- 
faithful to  their  trust  should  be  de- 
feated at  the  polls  at  the  earliest  pos- 
sible opportunity.  But  this  is  not  the 
only  way  to  secure  good  aldermen. 
Good  men  should  be  encouraged  to 
hold  their  office.  They  should  be 
strengthened  in  their  desire  to  do  right, 
and  the  four-year  term  will  be  an  en- 
couragement and  will  add  strength  to 
their  arms. 

The  general  public  takes  general  in- 
terest in  public  affairs;  but  special  in- 
terests take  special  interests  in 
public  affairs.  A courageous,  honest 
alderman  is  continually  stepping  on  the 
toes  of  some  special  interest.  He  is 
continually  making  an  attack  on  spe- 
cial interests,  and  their  rights  by  a 
righteous  vote  upon  such  a subject  as, 


say,  the  traction  question  or  some  prop- 
osition equally  as  important.  The  gen- 
eral public  may  not  be  at  present  in- 
formed as  to  the  value  of  his  vote  to 
them,  but  the  special  interests  know 
they  have  lost  something  that  they 
ought  not  to  have.  Among  other  votes 
taken  in  recent  years  was  the  vote  of 
licensing.  The  men  who  voted  for 
thousand-dollar  license  aroused  an  or- 
ganization bound  to  oppose  them. 
There  have  been  several  votes  taken  on 
the  wide-tire  ordinance,  and  the  men 
who  voted  for  the  wide  tires  arrayed  an 
organization  against  them.  In  the  case 
of  one  alderman  who  voted  for  the 
original  wide-tire  ordinance,  on  coming 
up  for  election  the  next  spring,  his  ward 
was  flooded  with  circulars,  and  by  one 
thing  and  another  his  defeat  came  ab- 
solutely from  the  wide-tire  association 
which  wanted  narrow  tires.  It  was  my 
conviction  that  association  went  into 
politics  in  every  ward  in  this  city 
where  it  thought  it  had  influence.  You 
find  that  after  four  years  the  Council 
weakened  its  ordinance.  Again,  a 

campaign  for  the  position  of  alderman 
is  not  the  most  pleasant  way  of  spend- 
ing three  or  four  weeks.  Men  in  these 
wards  who  had  to  climb  three  pairs 
of  stairs,  in  house  after  house,  in 

making  a house  to  house  canvass  did 
not  enjoy  it.  Men  do  not  care  to 
go  out  night  after  night,  and  night 

after  night,  trying  to  canvass  their 
ward,  any  more  than  they  are  com- 
pelled to.  Frequently  you  find  the 
case  of  a man  in  the  Council  who  does 
not  like  campaign  work  going  out 

after  his  two  years  in  the  council.  He 
retires  rather  than  go  through  another 
campaign.  In  two  years  a man  may 
not  have  done  enough  work  to  have 
his  good  recognized;  in  two  years  he 
may  not  do  enough  bad  to  have  his 
bad  recognized  by  the  general  public. 
The  special  interests  with  their  special 
agents  know  all  about  it  and  are  active 
| every  two  years.  Let  us  not  weaken 


December  11 


247 


1906 


our  hold  upon  the  men  in  making  them 
do  what  is  right,  but  let  us  stand  up 
together  and  strengthen  the  man  who 
says  he  will  do  his  best  and  is  doing 
his  best  for  the  city. 

MR.  HILL:  It  appears  to  me  that 

every  argument  advanced  here  for  a 
four  years  term  for  the  aldermen,  ap- 
plies with  equal  force  to  members  of 
Congress  and  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. It  may  be  correct — I suppose 
that  members  of  Congress  and  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature  should  not  be 
considered  any  different  than  aider- 
men.  I do  not  suppose  an  alderman  is 
made  of  any  finer  fibre  than  the  other. 
But  I favor  the  two  years’  term  for 
another  reason,  and  it  is  along  gen- 
eral lines.  The  recommendation  of  this 
Convention  to  the  State  Legislature 
will  have  a great  deal  of  force  un- 
doubtedly. But  after  we  get  to  the 
Legislature  we  are  then  obliged  to  go 
over  the  whole  grounds  again  and 
convince  those  who  will  not  have  the 
opportunity  to  work  here, — country 
members  who  are  affected  by  other  in- 
terests and  other  views.  It  will  be 
quite  difficult  for  us  to  get  them  to 
agree  upon  all  points.  For  that  reason 
it  seems  to  me  that  we  should  proceed 
along  conservative  lines.  We  should 
not  put  into  this  recommendation  any- 
thing of  a radical  nature  that  may 
endanger  the  bill  before  the  Legisla- 
ture, or  may  endanger  it  when  it  comes 
to  a referendum  vote  to  the  people  of 
Chicago.  I speak  generally  now,  not 
particularly  of  this  one  point,  al- 
though it  emphasizes  what  I wish  to 
say.  I believe  our  custom  of  two 
years’  term  for  aldermen  should  be 
considered.  If  we  put  a lot  of  radical 
things  in  this  bill — and  by  radical  I 
mean  things  that  may  be  ahead  of  the 
people — for  that  which  may  be  radical 
this  year  may  be  conservative  next 
year  in  view  of  the  advance  or  the 
experience  we  may  have.  It  would 
be  desirable  perhaps  from  a theoreti- 


cal standpoint,  and  these  things  would 
be  desirable  as  we  know  them,  per- 
haps, but  they  may  be  ahead  of  the 
people,  and  when  we  go  down  to  the 
Legislature  we  may  find  opposition  and 
we  may  have  great  difficulty  in  se- 
curing the  real  things  that  we  want 
there  in  view  of  the  radical  things 
that  we  propose;  and  it  is  the  ordin- 
ary things  that  we  must  try  for.  We 
should  not  try  to  pass  legislation  if 
it  is  of  a radical  nature.  On  many 
of  those  things  in  the  bill  we  must 
go  before  the  people  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  and  again  canvass  the  sub- 
ject, and  if  there  is  nothing  in  the 
charter  that  will  arouse  a whole  class 
of  people  against  another,  we  shall  find 
things  easier.  Otherwise,  we  shall  have 
to  convince  them,  and  all  that  we  have 
gone  through  of  this  trouble  and  ex- 
pense may  be  in  vain  for  our  pro- 
posals may  be  rejected  by  the  people 
of  Chicago.  Now,  my  own  view  on 
this  whole  question  is  that  this  whole 
charter  from  one  end  to  the  other 
should  be  upon  conservative  lines.  It 
is  not  right  that  we  should  stuff  this 
charter  with  things  that  are  so  far 
ahead  of  the  people  that  the  members 
of  the  Legislature  you  send  down  to 
Springfield  have  got  to  take  the  bur- 
den upon  themselves.  It  is  not  right 
for  you  to  put  those  things  into  this 
charter  so  that  when  we  come  up  be- 
fore the  people  of  Chicago  we  have  on 
one  side  arrayed  against  us  a great 
class  because  it  includes  something 
that  class  does  not  believe  in;  be- 
cause it  adopts  something  radical  in 
its  nature.  By  that  means  you  will 
have  two  classes  arrayed  against  us 
and  against  the  whole  charter. 

Now,  this  is  not  the  last  opportunity 
the  people  of  Chicago  will  get  to  fix 
this  charter  as  it  should  be.  If  we 
confine  ourselves  to  conservative  lines 
and  produce  a charter  on  general  lines 
with  the  great  advantages  that  we  de- 
sire at  this  campaign  of  education — as 


December  11 


248 


1906 


to  finance,  and  education,  and  con- 
solidation, etc.;  if  we  follow  the  things 
that  are  necessary  and  that  the  people 
do  want,  when  we  come  to  pass  it 
through  the  Legislature,  this  charter 
will  represent  the  vote  of  the  people 
of  Chicago.  Then,  each  step  thereafter 
may  be  taken  up  of  itself  by  the  refer- 
endum vote  and  the  little  ballot  by 
which  it  may  be  submitted  to  the 
people  of  Chicago.  Thus,  they  can  act 
on  them  intelligently.  But  when  class 
is  arrayed  against  class,  you  endanger 
the  whole  bill.  I feel  earnestly  in  this 
matter  that  we  should  follow  conserva- 
tive lines  on  the  whole  bill.  There  are 
other  subjects  coming  up  that  the  gen- 
tlemen here  sincerely  hope  to  see  put 
into  this  charter;  and  perhaps  some  of 
them  feel  as  earnestly  as  they  do  that 
theoretically  they  should  be  there; 
and  ultimately  they  may  be  in  the 
charter,  but  I do  not  think  it  is  wise 
to  put  them  in  at  this  time.  I think 
we  should  take  step  by  step  and  pro- 
ceed slowly  and  carefully;  that  we 
should  test  out  each  step  and  not  ham- 
per the  whole  charter  in  the  way  I 
have  suggested.  In  some  ways  we 
may  be  ahead  of  the  people,  and  by 
so  being  we  shall  array  class  against 
class. 

Now,  many  of  us  here  have  received 
letters — I have  received  one  in  regard 
to  the  home  rule  proposition  in  which 
one  class  of  people  want  Chicago  to  have 
extreme  home  rule.  They  have  decided 
on  the  question  of  Sunday  closing  and 
saloon  licenses  and  so  forth.  On  the 
other  hand  you  have  another  class  of 
people  just  as  earnestly  requesting 
that  there  shall  be  put  into  this  char- 
ter something  which  will  prevent  hav- 
ing prohibition  districts  in  the  city.  As 
the  matter  now  stands,  we  should  take 
our  steps  one  by  one.  There  is  a 
matter  which  I think  we  should  be  a 
little  careful  about.  We  should  pro- 
ceed carefully  and  cautiously  in  those 
matters  and  along  conservative  lines, 


making  as  few  changes  as  possible  and 
have  the  consent  of  the  people  and 
follow  up,  step  by  step,  as  sentiment 
grows  up  in  favor  of  it,  and  in  time 
we  will  have  things  right.  But  if  you 
put  them  all  in  one  omnibus  bill  it 
will  be  a great  disadvantage  and  you 
will  array  class  against  class.  I do 
not  say  these  measures  should  not  be 
adopted,  but  they  should  not  be  put 
in  one  bill  at  the  present  time  to  put 
up  before  the  people  of  Chicago.  One 
class  will  object  to  it  on  one  ground 
and  another  class  will  object  to  it  on 
a totally  different  ground  and  vote 
against  it;  and  a third  class  will  ob- 
ject to  it  on  a third  ground  until  we 
shall  have  lost  our  whole  bill  and  we 
shall  not  have  got  the  great  advan- 
tages we  desire  and  we  were  called 
together  particularly  for.  That  is,  im- 
provement in  the  taxing,  better  finance, 
and  educational  matters,  and  these 
things  that  are  desired  to  have  im- 
proved. Therefore,  I think  the  two 
years’  term  is  sufficient.  The  people 
are  accustomed  to  it  and  they  will 
vote  for  it,  and  we  will  not  have  class 
arrayed  against  class  because  we  have 
gone  ahead  of  the  people  and  what 
they  are  accustomed  to. 

MR.  SMULSKI:  No  doubt  this 

charter  will  give  great  powers  to  the 
council,  therefore,  the  election  and 
manner  of  the  election,  and  tenure  of 
office  of  the  members  of  the  city  coun- 
cil is  a very  important  one.  I don’t 
believe  that  a change  of  tenure  of 
office  of  an  alderman  from  two  to 
four  years  is  such  a radical  change. 
Furthermore,  I don’t  believe  we  should 
leave  anything  in  this  matter  to  spec- 
ulation or  conjecture. 

Now,  it  has  been  stated  by  Mr. 
Linehan  that  we  always  elect,  re-elect 
from  60  to  80  per  cent,  of  the  same 
men  to  the  council.  That  is  only  a 
speculation.  We  have  done  it  in  the 
past,  we  may  do  it  in  the  future,  but 
a time  may  come  when,  through  a 


December  11 


249 


1906 


general  sweep,  an  entirely  new  mem- 
bership of  the  city  council  might 
come  in  at  one  time,  and  the  City  of 
Chicago  be  left,  I believe,  in  a very 
serious  predicament,  if  all  the  mem- 
bers of  this  council  were  new  men. 

Of  course  you  say  it  would  not  hap- 
pen, but  that  is  only  speculation;  it 
may  happen.  And  we  have  no  right 
to  put  anything  into  this  proposed 
charter  that  will  make  a condition  of 
that  kind  possible;  and  we  should  have 
members  of  the  city  council  elected  at 
two  different  times;  make  the  term 
four  years  and  elect  two  aldermen,  say 
the  odd  numbers  of  the  wards  at  one 
time,  and  the  even  numbers  at  an- 
other; but  you  must  not  permit  a con- 
dition to  exist  where  all  the  members 
of  the  city  council  at  one  time  can  be 
new  members. 

I believe  that  the  term  of  office  of 
an  alderman  should  be  four  years.  It 
has  been  very  properly  stated  that  a 
man  who  becomes  a member  of  the 
city  council  for  the  first  time  is  not 
able  to  cope  with  the  different  prob- 
lems confronting  the  city  council,  and 
in  the  City  Hall  for  the  first  two 
years.  He  learns  what  the  duties  of 
an  alderman  are  in  the  first  year  and 
the  second  year,  and  after  he  has  been 
here  for  two  years  he  is  able  to  cope 
with  the  problems  that  come  before 
this  council;  and  it  is  folly  to  say  that 
a man  will  be  re-elected  just  because 
he  is  a good  alderman,  or  that  he  will 
be  defeated  because  he  is  a bad  aider- 
man.  We  know,  from  experience,  that 
good  men  have  been  defeated  for  re- 
election,  and  that  bad  men  have  been 
returned  time  and  time,  irrespective  of 
the  term  of  office  to  which  they  have 
been  elected. 

I believe  that  it  is  time  now  to 
change  the  term  of  office  of  the  aider- 
men,  and,  as  long  as  the  mayor's  term 
is  now  going  to  be  four  years — because 
that  is  the  law  now — we  ought  to  put 
a provision  into  this  charter  that  will 


provide  that  the  term  of  office  of  al- 
dermen be  the  same  as  that  for  mayor. 
The  council  is  going  to  be  the  body 
that  is  going  to  govern  the  city,  and 
the  mayor  is  simply  going  to  be  a 
member  of  that  council,  and  it  should 
be,  as  has  been  stated  before,  a council- 
governed  city,  and  you  must  not  make 
the  office  of  aldermen  less  important 
than  that  of  the  mayor. 

I believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
councilmen  of  Chicago  should  be  elect- 
ed for  four  years. 

MR.  SWIFT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I take 

decided  issue  with  the  proposition  that 
this  is  a council-governed  city.  It  is 
not  a council-governed  city. 

MR,  SMULSKI:  It  should  be. 

MR.  SWIFT:  No,  it  should  not  be. 

It  is  an  officially-governed  city;  it  is 
an  administration-governed  city.  I 
know,  in  the  history  of  a mayor  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  who,  during  the  course 
of  two  years  vetoed  approximately  300 
orders  and  ordinances  passed  by  the 
city  council.  Of  that  approximate  300, 
less  than  1,  or  perhaps  1 per  cent,  of 
his  vetoes  were  over-ridden  by  the 
council.  Now,  that  is  a fact.  , 

I know,  in  the  history  of  one  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago,  where  one 
Monday  night,  upon  a 4-cent  fare  or- 
dinance that  was  passed  by  the  city 
council,  some  60  to  8,  on  the  succeed- 
ing Monday  night  the  veto  of  the 
mayor  was  sustained  by  60  to  8.  Is 
it  a council-governed  city? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  What  year  was 

that? 

MR.  SWIFT:  It  was  the  year  1896- 

1897. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  a big 

difference. 

MR.  SWIFT:  Is  it  a council-govern- 

ed city?  Then  you  don't  know  what 
you  are  talking  about,  for  I was  the 
mayor,  and  I do  know  what  I am 
talking  about.  I tell  you,  gentlemen, 
this  thing  of  trying  to  disassociate  the 
administrative  and  the  legislative 


December  11 


250 


1906 


body  is  all  wrong.  It  is  the  intent 
of  the  people  to  elect  an  administra- 
tion, and  that  means  all  that  it  im- 
plies: an  administration-governed  city. 

We  speak  of  a mayor's  administra- 
tion by  what  was  done  dur- 

ing his  administration;  by  what 
was  done  by  the  council  as  well  as 
by  the  actions  of  the  mayor.  Very 
often,  the  people  of  whom  we  hear  so 
much,  the  people  primarily  get  just 
such  a city  government  as  they  de- 
sire. The  people  are  selfish,  the  people 
are  arrayed  against  the  people.  The 
alderman  stands  between  the  two.  A 
proposition  comes  into  the  council,  to 
one  of  them  who  has  not  any  more  than 
taken  his  seat,  and  he  offers  it  until 
his  fellow  alderman,  at  the  suggestion 
of  the  people,  moves  that  that  be 
laid  upon  the  table  or  be  deferred,  or 
speaks  against  it. 

This  thing  of  attempting  to  differ- 
entiate, to  disassociate  the  administra- 
tion from  the  council,  is  all  wrong;  it 
should  be  one  harmonious  whole;  that 
was  the  intent  of  the  people.  As  I 
said  before,  when  they  elect  an  ad- 
ministration, they  elect  council  and 
they  elect  a mayor,  and  they  elect  the 
mayor  to  select  the  proper  men  for  the 
heads  of  the  departments.  True,  the 
council  legislates.  Who  carries  out  this 
legislation? — the  men  appointed  by  the 
mayor.  The  mayor  is  accountable  to 
the  people.  I don't  know  that  there 
is  much  about  the  term  of  two  or  four 
years.  My  preference  would  be  four 
years,  on  account  of  reasons  advanced 
upon  this  floor,  by  members  of  this 
Convention,  as  to  the  difficulty  that 
confronts  a man,  a candidate  who  had 
been  selected  by  the  people.  The  cry 
has  gone  up  all  over  this  city — you 
and  I have  heard  it — that  the  people 
have  very  little  to  do  in  the  selection 
of  their  officials;  that  the  officials  are 
selected  by  a coterie  of  politicians,  and 
that  they  have,  perhaps,  a choice  of 
two  evils,  the  lesser  of  the  two.  I 


don't  know  that  I am  in  great  sym- 
pathy with  those  constant  reiterations 
of  what  the  people  want.  What  the 
people  do  want,  or  the  majority  of  the 
people,  is  honest  legislators  and  honest 
mayors,  and  honest  heads  of  depart- 
ments. That  is  what  they  want,  and 
that  is  what  they  will  get;  and  they 
will  get  it  better  when  they  have  a 
man,  in  my  estimation,  the  mayor  se- 
lected for  the  term  of  four  years,  than 
if  he  is  selected  for  the  term  of  two. 

This  is  a great  corporation.  I don't 
care  how  intelligent,  how  successful  a 
man  may  have  been  in  the  conduct  of 
his  business  affairs,  but  knows  little  or 
nothing  about  this  great  cosmopolitan 
.city,  that  has  not  rubbed  up  against 
the  different  people.  There  is  no 
other  city  on  this  globe  as  cosmopoli- 
tan as  Chicago.  He  may  have  been 
very  successful  in  the  conduct  of  his 
special  affairs;  he  may  have  been 
adept  as  a specialist  in  his  busi- 
ness affairs;  he  may  have  been 
selected  on  account  of  his  great  success 
as  a specialist  in  his  business  affairs, 
and  make  a most  abject  failure  in  his 
conduct  of  the  office  of  mayor.  Why? 
Because  it  is  entirely  new  to  him. 
Not,  by  any  means,  that  we  should 
confine  our  selection  to  the  office  of 
mayor  to  someone  who  has  held  office, 
but  the  chief  argument  in  my  mind  to 
the  lengthening  of  the  office  to  four 
years  is,  it  may  be  that  that  man,  with 
his  superior  knowledge,  with  the  fact 
that  he  has  been  a success  in  his  own 
special  business  affairs,  may  adapt 
himself  by  contact  with  the  mem- 
bers of  the  council,  and  with  the 
people  of  this  city,  so  that,  in  time, 
he  may  become  an  acceptable  mayor. 
And  he  cannot  do  it  in  any  other  way 
than  by  coming  in  contact  with  the 
practical  workings  of  this  city  govern- 
ment, I don't  care  who  he  is  nor  how 
successful  h„e  may  have  been  in  his 
own  business  affairs.  He  must  be  a 
man  accustomed  to  rub  up  against  the 


December  11 


251 


1906 


people,  to  learn  the  wants  of  the 
people  and  to  learn  that  which  is  to 
the  best  interest  of  the  people,  and 
he  can  learn  it  only  by  being  educated 
in  the  office,  to  the  duties  of  the  office, 
and  the  requirements  of  the  office. 
Now,  then,  it  has  been  stated  on  the 
floor  here 

ME.  ROSENTHAL:  May  I ask  you 

a question? 

MR.  SWIFT:  Certainly. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I suppose  you 

are  speaking  in  favor  of  the  two-year 
term? 

MR.  SWIFT:  No,  sir,  I am  not.  I 

am  speaking  in  favor  of  the  four-year 
term. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  all. 

MR.  SWIFT:  Now,  as  has  been 

stated  on  the  floor  what  the  nomina- 
tion of  the  candidate  means.  I have 
been  surprised  to  find, — of  course  I 
have  been  out  of  politics  for  ten  years, 
— I am  a hay-seed,  I am  rusty, — I have 
been  surprised  to  hear  on  this  floor 
that  it  costs  from  ten  to  twelve  hun- 
dred dollars  for  every  canvass  an  al- 
derman makes!  Why?  Answer  why? 
Who  takes  it?  Where  does  it  go?  In 
olden  times,  twenty-five  dollars  to  fifty 
dollars  would  be  quite  an  expense  to 
be  elected  alderman  to  the  City  of 
Chicago.  Twelve  hundred  dollars  to 
twenty-five  hundred  dollars.  Who  gets 
the  money?  The  people!  Are  you  edu- 
cating the  people  to  the  idea  that  a 
candidate  for  alderman  must  buy  that 
office?  It  is  wrong:  absolutely  wrong: 
absolutely  wrong  in  principle  and — if 
it  is  a fact — in  fact.  Is  my  time  up? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir;  you 

have  got  two  minutes  yet,  Mr.  Swift. 

MR.  SWIFT:  I am  in  favor  of  the 

selection  of  a mayor  for  four-year 
term;  I am  in  favor  of  the  selection 
of  aldermen  for  a four-year  term.  If 
that  alderman  is  a man  of  parts;  if  he 
is  of  the  simplest  sense;  if  he  is  a 
man  of  integrity,  he  will  attempt  to 
do  that  in  his  four  year  term  of  office 


which  will  meet  the  approval  of  his 
people.  If  he  does  not  do  that,  he 
knows  that  at  the  end  of  four  years 
he  will  be — to  use  the  common  par- 
lance— passed  up.  Some  men  may  do 
as  much  harm  in  two  years  as  some 
other  man  will  do  in  four.  I am  not 
a pessimist:  I am  an  optimist.  I am 
not  a knocker:  I am  a booster.  I be- 
lieve in  the  inherent  honesty  of  our 
people:  I am  not  looking  for  dishonest 
men.  I am  not  one  accustomed  to 
call  a council  a “gang”;  I don’t  like 
the  word:  they  are  not  a gang.  There 
may  be  some  members  of  the  council 
who  are  a little  off.  There  are  some 
members  of  Congress  who  are  a little 
off.  There  are  some  senators  of  the 
United  States,  who  have  the  dignified 
office  of  senator  of  the  United  States, 
who  are  reputed  to  be  a little  off.  As 
a whole,  the  members  of  the  city  coun- 
cil of  Chicago  will  rank  with  any  of  the 
citizens  of  Chicago,  if  taken  as  a 
whole. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I am  in  favor  of  the 
four-year  proposition. 

MR.  POST.  When  this  proposition  was 
first  brought  to  my  attention  it  seemed 
to  me  to  involve  very  little  of  import- 
ance. The  difference  between  a two 
years’  term  and  a four-year  term  did 
not  seem  to  be  of  very  great  importance; 
but  as  this  discussion  has  gone  on,  the 
real  meaning  of  this  extension  of  the 
term  has  become  apparent.  The  object 
appears  to  me  to  elect  representatives 
of  the  people  of  the  city  as  far  away 
from  the  people  of  the  city  as  possible, 
and  have  them  as  high  above  the  people 
of  the  city  as  possible  and  keep  them  so 
as  long  as  possible.  In  other  words  this 
is  a step  in  the  direction  of  creating  a 
council  oligarchy,  instead  of  being  a 
question  between  the  two  years  and  the 
four  years.  We  are  told  that  these  rep- 
resentatives are  not  the  servants  of  the 
people,  and  are  not  to  be  the  servants 
of  the  people,  that  they  are  to  be  the 
governors  of  the  people,  the  masters  of 


December  11 


252 


1906 


the  people,  and  this  difference  between 
four  years  and  two  years,  in  this  differ- 
ence we  find  the  whole  question  of  pop- 
ularity and  the  centralization  involved. 

Mr.  Eosenthal  tells  us  this  is  a repre- 
sentative and  not  a democratic  govern- 
ment. I don’t  know  where  he  gets  his 
authority.  The  only  authoritative  docu- 
ment I know  of  that  indicates  the  char- 
acter of  the  government  of  the  United 
States  describes  them  as  being  republi- 
can in  form.  Governments  are  usually 
maintained  in  'form  republican.  It  is  per- 
fectly well  known  there  are  two  different 
types  of  republican  government;  there  is 
the  democratic  form  of  republican  gov- 
ernment, and  there  is  the  republican  form 
of  republican  government.  It  is  true 
that  for  the  most  part  our  republican 
form  of  government  has  been  of  the  rep- 
resentative type,  the  old  New  England 
town  meeting  democratic  type,  we  are 
bringing  in  more  and  more  in  harmony 
with  the  democratic  type  in  our  referen- 
dum and  initiative  in  different  parts, of 
the  country;  but  it  is  true  that  on  the 
whole-  our  republican  form  of  govern- 
ment has  been  of  the  representative  type 
and  representative  of  what?  Who  are 
these  aldermen  representing?  Shall  they 
represent  the  democratic  form  of  govern- 
ment, or  who  shall  they  represent?  Shall 
they  represent  the  colleges  or  the  college 
graduates,  the  social  clubs  of  distinction 
and  luxury,  or  shall  the  alderman  repre- 
sent the  people  as  a whole? 

In  other  words,  are  we  in  our  repre- 
sentative form  of  government  maintain- 
ing a mechanism  that  brings  into  form 
of  law  the  sentiment  of  the  people,  the 
popular  sentiment,  or  is  it  our  purpose  to 
raise  a body  which  shall  tell  the  people 
what  they  want  or  at  any  rate  what  they 
must  have?  Thus,  the  legislative  body 
proposed  may  thus  put  into  the  form  of 
law  for  local  government  the  sentiment 
of  the  people,  not  of  any  particular  class, 
and  I can  hardly  consider  it  a hardship 
for  a man  who  has  been  elected  by  the 
people  that  he  shall  reasonably,  fre- 


quently, be  sent  to  the  people  to  be  re- 
turned by  the  people;  if  he  has  been 
a good  man  I cannot  see  why  it  would 
be  any  hardship  for  him  to  be  returned  to 
the  people  for  their  approval  of  his  acts. 
It  may  be  a hardship  when  one  feature 
of  the  legislative  body  is  pitted  against 
some  popular  sentiment,  or  some  private 
interest,  that  the  popular  sentiment  or 
the  private  interest  is  strong  enough  to 
defeat  him  from  coming  back  again,  but 
be  that  as  it  may,  if  we  are  to  have  rep- 
resentative government,  it  is  right  that 
men  should  go  back  to  the  people,  be  he 
right  or  be  he  wrong,  in  the  course  of  a 
certain  length  of  time,  be  he  right  or  be 
he  wrong  in  the  course  he  has  taken,  and 
ask  them  to  endorse  him.  I do  not  mean 
to  say  with  some  of  the  gentlemen  here 
that  the  people  will  always  return  good 
men.  They  will  not.  There  are  some 
people  that  will  vote  for  bad  men,  and 
we  will  not  always  have  the  best  men, 
the  most  efficient  men  or  the  best  men 
morally,  returned  to  the  council;  we  will 
not  always  have  them.  But  we  always 
will  have  an  opportunity  to  return  to 
the  council  the  men  who  have  proved 
themselves  to  their  constituencies  as  rep- 
resenting popular  sentiment,  as  represent- 
ing the  popular  sentiment  of  their  con- 
stituencies; as  Mr.  Swift  says,  the  peo- 
ple always  are  the  rulers,  they  rule  every- 
where, in  Illinois  and  in  Russia,  and  in 
Chicago;  and  the  men  of  this  city  are 
the  men  to  rule,  and  so  we  want  it  to 
be  that  the  people  may  easily  rule,  not 
so  that  it  shall  be  difficult  for  the  peo- 
ple to  rule.  When  there  is  a mechanism 
provided  that  makes  it  difficult  for  the 
people  to  rule,  we  have  revolutions;  when 
the  people  cannot  express  themselves 
through  the  referendum  or  by  the  elec- 
tions the  history  is  that  they  rise  and 
revolt,  and  those  things  lead  to  the  revo- 
lutions. If  you  make  your  mechanism 
so  that  the  people  can  express  their  senti- 
ments of  law  with  the  greatest  possible 
ease  you  will  avoid  riots,  you  will  avoid 
revolutions,  you  will  avoid  upheavals, 


December  11 


253 


1906 


because  the  people  have  a method  of  ex-  I 
pression. 

I believe  that  between  two  years  and 
four  years,  with  all  that  is  involved  in 
that  question,  I believe  that  those  who 
understand  the  question  will  consider 
it  again,  and  will  consider  this  question 
of  very  little  importance,  but  I think 
that  it  is  a matter  of  great  deal  im- 
portance, for  when  we  have  taken  this 
first  step,  it  is  in  the  direction  of  creating 
a council  which  shall  be  not  the  ser- 
vants of  the  people  of  Chicago  nor  the 
masters  of  the  people  of  Chicago. 

ME.  FISHEK:  It  has  been  a very 

curious  experience  to  me  to  listen  to  the 
different  points  urged  by  those  members 
who  have  advocated  the  two-year  term, 
and  it  has  been  a curious  experience  also 
to  me  when  I find  the  gentlemen  who 
voted  with  absolute  unanimity  in  favor 
of  the  four-year  term  for  mayor,  are  now 
proposing  to  go  on  and  vote  in  favor  of 
a two-year  term  for  the  aldermen.  We 
have  retained  the  veto  power  of  the 
mayor  of  this  city;  we  have  created  the 
mayor  of  this  city  equal  to  one-sixth  of 
the  body  of  the  city  council  solely  on  | 
that  account.  You  have  created  an  office 
which  Mr.  Swift  has  well  pointed  out  to 
you,  can  by  the  exercise  of  three  hun- 
dred vetoes  in  a year  or  two  years,  prac- 
tically one  per  cent,  he  says,  only  over 
ridden — can  dominate  your  entire  city 
council.  And  yet  nobody  objected  to  that 
on  the  ground  it  was  autocratic.  The 
whole  difficulty  with  this  thing  is  that  we 
are  so  apt  to  judge  things  by  our  own 
limited  personal  experience.  We  think 
that  the  thing  with  which  we  are  familiar 
must  necessarily  be  the  right  thing.  Mr. 
Swift  believes  in  the  mayoralty  form  of 
government,  because  he  was  mayor,  and 
because  he  found  the  difficulties  of  the 
mayor — he  found  that  the  mayor  in  his 
case  could  be  more  efficient  if  the  mayor 
had  more  power.  That  is  to  say,  he 
could  carry  out  his  policies  as  mayor 
more  readily  if  there  was  nobody  there 
to  check  him  up;  and,  if  he  was  fortu- 


nate enough  to  have  a city  council  which 
would  vote  60  to  8 against  him  one  night 
and  60  to  8 in  favor  of  him  the  next 
night,  he  would  only  reverse  30  then — 
with  300  vetoes  in  the  time  he  states, 
about  one  per  cent,  as  I recall  about  300 
vetoes,  why  I think  he  didn ’t  have  a 
great  deal  of  difficulty  with  the  coun- 
cils of  those  days  so  far  as  he  was  con- 
cerned. 

Now,  the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side, 
Mr.  Linehan,  representing  a radically 
different  opinion,  the  other  class  of  al- 
dermen retained  two  years — wants  the 
aldermen  retained  for  two  years  instead 
of  four  years;  but  Mr.  Linehan  voted  in 
favor  of  the  four-year  term  for  mayor, 
and  was  in  favor  of  the  retention  of  the 
veto  power,  and  proposes  to  put  a man 
in  office  who  may  repeat  what  Mr.  Swift 
did.  Now,  Mr.  Linehan  has  referred  to 
the  mayor,  and  I take  it  that  on  that 
point  that  no  member  of  the  Convention 
knows  more  about  it  than  we  do,  we  have 
had  expressions  of  opinion  as  to  how 
they  feel  on  the  question  of  the  four- 
year  term  with  the  veto  power,  and  not 
many  gentlemen  are  against  that  propo- 
sition, but  some  of  them  are  now  advo- 
cating this  two-year  term  for  the  coun- 
cilmen,  they  would  have  them  here  for 
two  years,  which  would  cause  them  to 
seek  re-election  every  two  years.  Now, 
with  a mayor  with  such  power,  with  such 
power  in  the  mayor  as  has  been  referred 
to  by  Mr.  Swift,  would  he  not  control  the 
appointment  of  the  heads  of  executive 
departments,  and  so  for  the  purpose  of 
controlling  the  affairs  of  the  nominees  of 
the  different  wards,  he  would  have  great 
influence;  we  would  have  our  aldermen 
candidates  for  the  city  council  dominated 
to  a large  extent  by  the  mayor.  Now, 
we  have  had  the  same  condition  with 
regard  to  aldermen  in  this  city  for  a good 
many  years  past;  and  I tell  you  that 
the  mayors  of  this  city  had  in  many  re- 
spects in  this  city  exercised  a great  and 
controlling  influence  in  the  election  and 
in  the  nominations  of  aldermen  in  their 


December  11 


254 


1906 


wards;  and  that  is  one  reason — take  the 
last  election,  without  regard  to  the  re- 
sult of  the  election,  take  the  democratic 
nominees  for  the  different  offices,  were 
there  not  a great  many  democratic  nomi- 
nees whose  nominations  were  under  the 
influences  of  the  administration? 

Who  would  be  in  favor  of  such  a 
council  as  has  been  advocated  here,  who 
would  be  in  favor  of  having  the  city 
council  at  the  mercy  of  that  man’s  su- 
perior power,  such  as  Mr.  Swift  has  re- 
ferred to?  Personally,  I don’t  believe  in 
it.  I believe  thoroughly  in  the  sort  of 
thing  that  he  does  not  believe  in,  namely 
in  the  council  of  many  as  a fundamental 
government.  I believe  as  he  has  said  that 
the  mayor  should  have  been  selected  by 
this  Convention,  and  put  into  the  char- 
ter as  an  executive  officer ; then  you 
could  elect  him  for  four  years  and  pay 
no  attention  to  him;  if  he  has  control 
of  your  legislative  body  the  council  could 
change  it  and  meet  the  exigencies. 

The  sort  of  government  that  Mr.  Swift 
has  outlined  is  one  symmetrical,  harmoni- 
ous organization.  I do  not  believe  in  sub- 
ordinating the  legislative  to  the  executive. 
There  are  a great  many  other  things 
coming  up,  as  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Hill, 
and  we  are  going  to  vote,  I assume  upon 
those  matters;  we  are  going  to  vote  upon 
the  question  of  a two-year  term  for 
mayor  and  also  on  the  question  of  the 
adoption  of  certain  principles  in  regard 
to  the  referendum  and  the  initiative  and 
other  matters  of  importance,  upon  the 
control  of  public  utilities  and  matters 
of  that  sort.  Now,  if  you  are  going  to 
exercise  popular  control  over  matters  of 
that  kind,  if  you  are  going  to  have  the 
principle  of  the  referendum  and  the  in- 
itiative body  and  all  of  those  things, 
you  will  have  to  give  your  council  power, 
or  you  are  going  to  absolutely  emasculate 
it  and  render  it  inefficient  for  anything. 

MR.  POST : May  I ask  a question  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly. 

MR.  FISHER : Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST : May  we  rely  upon  get- 


ting a referendum  in  the  case  we  have  a 
four-year  term  for  aldermen  ? That  would 
very  materially  affect  my  vote  one  way 
or  the  other. 

MR.  FISHER:  Well,  of  course,  I 

don ’t  know,  that  remains  to  be  seen. 
When  we  get  to  the  adoption  of  the 
draft  of  the  charter  we  are  going  to  have 
an  opportunity  to  disagree  with  the  draft 
if  we  want  to;  and  I for  my  part,  speak- 
ing for  myself,  I am  not  making  up  my 
mind  to  everything  today  as  to  just  how 
I shall  vote  on  any  of  these  propositions. 
For  my  own  part  I stand  ready  to  be 
convinced  by  any  argument  that  will  ap- 
peal to  reason,  by  any  member  of  this 
Convention,  upon  any  question  that  I 
have  taken  an  opposite  position  on.  I 
presume  other  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion feel  the  same  way. 

But  we  have  to  have  some  theory  of  a 
government  which  is  to  be  symmetrical 
and  harmonious,  as  Mayor  Swift  has  said : 
if  that  is  true,  shall  you  put  the  city 
council  under  the  control  and  domina- 
tion of  your  mayor? 

One  more  thing  I want  to  say.  I do 
not  understand  Mr.  Hill’s  allusion  as  to 
the  question  of  conservatism.  I didn’t 
quite  get  his  point  of  view  as  to  what 
constitutes  conservatism.  He  says  you 
must  not  put  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture up  against  knocking  out  the  four- 
year  term  for  mayor  and  then  pay  no  at- 
tention to  what  the  press  and  people  of 
Chicago  want  you  to  do.  Does  he  think 
it  is  conservative  not  to  give  what  the 
press  and  people  of  Chicago  want  in  the 
way  of  a charter?  What  are  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  going  to  do  about 
rejecting  the  four-year  term  if  the  peo- 
ple of  Chicago  want  a mayor  for  a four- 
year  term?  Who  are  these  classes  he 
wants  us  to  rub  against  on  this  propo- 
sition? His  proposition  is  that  we  re- 
tain what  we  have  because  it  is  conserva- 
tive and  we  are  going  to  retain  the  four- 
year  term  for  mayor  because  we  have  it. 
Now,  we  have  not  elected  any  four-year 
term  mayor  as  yet.  We  have  a law 


December  11 


255 


1906 


which  has  just  gone  into  effect  whereby 
we  probably  will  have  an  election  in  the 
near  future  when  we  will  elect  a four- 
year  term  mayor.  But  we  have  not  done 
it  yet.  Mr.  Hill  says  it  is  conservative  to 
do  it,  to  do  that  which  we  have  not  as 
yet  done,  and  that  is  why  it  would  not  be 
conservative  to  do  something  else,  that 
we  shall  elect  a four-year  term  mayor. 

One  more  thing  which  I would  like  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to 
and  that  is  that  the  bill  which  went  to 
the  legislature  creating  a four-year  term 
for  mayor  went  from  the  city  council, 
and  it  went  with  the  recommendation  or 
provision  for  a four-year  term  for  aider- 
men,  and  there  was  no  popular  dissent. 
I venture  to  say  there  was  not — I did 
not  see  any  and  I read  the  papers  care- 
fully, for  it  was  my  business  at  that  time 
particularly  to  pay  attention  to  it — I did 
not  see  any  newspaper  of  the  city  of 
Chicago,  I did  not  see  in  any  newspaper 
a single  editorial  comment  which  was 
against  the  proposition  of  a four-year 
term  for  aldermen.  All  of  them  were 
in  favor  of  the  four-year  term  for  mayor 
and  for  the  four-year  term  for  aider- 
men,  and  I have  yet  to  hear  of  a single 
popular  assembly  of  any  kind  raising  its 
voice  in  opposition  to  that  proposition. 
It  went  down  to  Springfield,  and  it  has 
been  a mystery  to  me  and  a great  many 
other  people  why  the  members  of  the 
legislature  at  Springfield  struck  out  the 
four-year  term  for  aldermen,  and  the 
only  explanation  I have  been  able  to  get, 
and  I have  been  given  this  explanation 
by  certain  members  of  the  legislature 
was  that  when  they  commenced  to  con- 
sider the  changes  which  went  into  the 
method  of  electing  men,  when  they  con- 
sidered all  those  matters,  it  was  over- 
ruled and  put  out. 

Now,  you  have  presented  to  you  an  in- 
strument which  should  be  able  to  bring 
about  a harmonious  whole,  and  you  are 
going  to  provide  for  taking  care  of  every 
difficulty  that  may  present  itself. 

MR.  DEVER:  This  is  the  second  or 


third  time  I have  found  it  impossible  for 
me  to  express  my  opinion  upon  the  sub- 
jects considered.  I agree  with  some  of 
the  things  Mr.  Fisher  has  said.  I have 
felt  that  the  mayor  and  the  aldermen 
ought  to  be  elected  for  the  same  term  of 
office  and  at  the  same  time.  I favored 
that,  and  I favor  it  yet  for  the  reason 
that  I do  not  see,  I do  not  know  of 
any  reason  why  the  mayor  should  have 
a controlling  influence  over  the  political 
destinies  of  the  servants  of  this  city  and 
the  aldermen  who  represent  it  from  time 
to  time. 

If  you  have  a term  of  four  years  for 
the  mayor  and  two  years  for  the  aider- 
men  you  are  going  to  make  the  mayor 
more  powerful,  you  will  give  the  mayor 
absolute  control  in  many  of  the  wards  of 
this  city,  and  this  control  he  will  have 
whether  the  mayor  be  elected  under  a 
republican  or  democratic  party,  and  of 
necessity  he  will  have  to  go  back  again 
to  the  people.  I think  it  is  a mistake 
for  the  council  to  have  a term  of  one 
length,  for  the  aldermen  to  have  one 
term  and  another  for  the  mayor.  And 
that  leads  up  to  the  first  remark  I made, 
it  seems  to  me  that  we  had  ought  to 
have  voted  in  some  different  form  on 
this  matter  than  we  did;  it  seems  to  me 
it  would  have  been  better  to  have  first 
voted  upon  the  question  of  whether  we 
favored  the  same  term  of  office  for  mayor 
and  for  aldermen  and  the  same  tenure 
of  office,  then  we  could  have  gotten  a 
clear  expression  from  the  Convention  one 
way  or  the  other.  If  you  vote  <<ayeM 
then  we  could  get  an  intelligent  vote  on 
the  question  of  what  the  term  should 
be,  and  if  our  legislative  procedure  should 
take  that  form,  I would  be  very  glad  if 
we  could  do  that.  Now,  it  would  be 
very  difficult  not  to  have  a two-year  term 
for  the  office  of  mayor  and  aldermen 
alike.  I think  that  we  ought  in  municipal 
elections,  which  is  a matter  of  local  in- 
terest, we  should  turn  to  the  people  as 
often  as  we  can.  I think  it  is  healthy,  I 
think  it  is  a healthy  thing  for  the  com- 


December  11 


256 


1906 


inunity  itself,  to  have  political  discussion 
rife  in  the  community.  I think  it  is  a 
healthy  thing  to  call  attention  over  and 
over  again  to  these  things,  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  people  to  the  things  that 
touch  as  closely  as  municipal  affairs.  For 
that  reason  and  other  reasons  that  have 
not  been  touched  upon  here  I favor  a 
reasonably  short  term  for  the  aldermen 
and  the  mayor,  too.  It  has  been  said 
it  was  necessary  that  we  should  give  the 
mayor  a chance  to  learn  the  duties  of 
his  office,  and  by  practical  experience  he 
became  during  the  last  two  years  of  his 
term  a better  man  and  a more  efficient 
public  official.  It  has  been  said  that 
that  can  only  be  done  or  can  be  best 
done  if  you  make  him  a four-year  term 
mayor.  The  theory  and  argument  urged 
in  support  of  that  is  that  the  first  two 
years  would  be  more  or  less  of  an  ap- 
prenticeship in  the  office  of  mayor.  I 
don’t  think  that  is  a very  sound  argu- 
ment. I don’t  see  any  reason  why  that 
same  argument  does  not  apply  to  the 
two-year  term,  only  in  less  degree  per- 
haps. 

But  the  answer  to  that  argument  is, 
I think  that  it  is  an  answer  that  cannot 
very  well  be  reasoned  away — is  if  a 
man  is  good  he  can  show  it  during  his 
first  term  of  office,  and  if  he  has  been 
a good  mayor  for  two  years,  or  touch- 
ing the  proposition  that  Mr.  Post  spoke 
about,  that  of  representative  govern- 
ment— if  he  has  represented  the  will  of 
the  city,  the  will  of  the  people  of  the 
city  of  Chicago  during  his  first  two  years 
of  office,  there  is  no  sound  reason  why 
he  cannot  be  returned  to  office  for  two 
years  more.  That  is  true  of  the  aider- 
men.  Now,  what  applies  to  one  applies 
to  the  other.  If  he  has  been  a good 
alderman  for  two  years,  he  can  be  re- 
elected and  if  he  has  been  a poor  aider- 
man  he  can  be  defeated. 

There  is  nothing  in  this  long  term  idea. 
Most  of  the  aldermen  have  not  been  in 
favor  of  the  four-year  term.  We  have 
had  experiences  in  this  city  where  the 


mayor  himself  was  a worse  public  official 
than  any  alderman  that  ever  sat  in  the 
city  council.  If  that  is  true,  four  years 
is  too  long  for  a man  to  sit  in  the 
mayor ’s  chair,  and  the  people  would  have 
an  opportunity  to  get  rid  of  him  at  the 
end  of  two  years. 

See  what  the  men  of  that  type  can  do. 
Take  for  instance,  the  case  of — take  for 
instance  as  they  are  now  in  this  city  be- 
fore the  city  council,  we  have  before  the 
city  council  today  the  question  of  the 
franchises  of  great  corporations,  and  the 
question  of  the  great  public  utilities  of 
this  city,  the  telephone  matters  and  the 
electric  light  matters  and  the  traction 
company  matters  are  here;  and  we  have 
the  cold  storage  matters  and  the  stock 
yards  matters  and  different  propositions 
of  that  kind.  Now,  if  we  had  at  the 
helm  a mayor  such  as  Mr.  Rosenthal  has 
described,  if  we  had  that  type  of  a mayor 
sitting  in  the  mayor’s  chair,  why  at  the 
end  of  his  two  years  ’ term,  would  he 
not  sign  every  one  of  those  grants,  if 
that  was  correct,  and  thus  make  it  per- 
sonally profitable  for  him  to  give  these 
franchises  of  from  twenty  years  to  fifty 
years?  Are  the  people  to  be  tied  up  and 
at  the  mercy  of  these  great  public  utility 
corporations?  That  is  the  greatest  dan- 
ger in  connection  with  the  long  term  idea. 
I think  it  would  be  far  better  to  elect 
the  officials  frequently,  and  while  it 
might  be  more  expensive  so  to  do  I 
think  we  can  better  afford  to  do  it,  that 
is,  we  can  better  afford  to  leave  the  in- 
terests of  the  people  of  this  city  to  the 
people  than  to  have  at  the  head  of  the 
city  such  a man  as  Mr.  Rosenthal  re- 
ferred to. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  on  Mr.  Linehan ’s  sub- 
stitute for  Mr.  McCormick ’s  motion. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I would  like  to 

have  the  Secretary  state  the  two  motions. 
There  has  been  so  much  discussion  I do 
not  believe  all  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention will  know  just  what  they  are 
voting  on. 


December  11 


257 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  the  gentle- 

man who  made  the  motion  will  divide 
the  question,  the  Chair  will  do  so. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  No,  I don’t 
mean  that.  I wish  it  to  be  re-stated.  I 
would  like  to  have  my  motion  stated  and 
then  Mr.  Linehan ’s  substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 
tary state  Mr.  McCormick’s  motion  and 
then  Mr.  Linehan ’s  substitute  ? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Mr.  McCor- 

mick’s motion  is  printed  at  page  231, 
No.  4,  “The  term  of  office  of  aldermen 
shall  be  four  years.  ’ ’ Mr.  Linehan ’s 
motion  is  that  the  aldermen  be  elected 
for  two  years,  and  that  all  of  the  aider- 
men  be  elected  at  the  same  time. 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  Before  the  roll 

is  called  I would  like  to  ask  for  a divi- 
sion of  Mr.  Linehan ’s  motion.  I think 
it  is  susceptible  of  a division,  and  that 
we  might  vote  more  clearly  upon  it  if  it 
were  divided. 

MR.  DEYER:  I second  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  and 

seconded  that  Mr.  Linehan ’s  motion  be 
divided.  All  those  in  favor  say  “aye.” 
Those  opposed  “ no.  ” It  is  so  ordered. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  vote 

will  be,  shall  aldermen  be  elected  for  two 
years  and  upon  that  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Burke,  Church,  Dever,  Guerin, 
Hill,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  McKinley,  Pen- 
darvis,  Rainey,  Shanahan,  Vopicka,  Wal- 
ker—13. 

Nays — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown,  Carey, 
Clettenberg,  Dixon,  G.  W]1. ; Erickson, 
Fisher,  Hunter,  Jones,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Cormick, Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Oehne, 
Owens,  Paullin,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shep- 
ard, Smulski,  Snow,  Swift,  Taylor,  Wer- 
no,  Wilkins,  Young — 27. 

MR.  DEVER:  In  the  hope  that  I may 

get  a chance  before  the  Convention  ad- 
journs officially  for  a two-year  term  for 
mayor,  I vote  “aye.” 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I think,  perhaps, 

enough  has  been  said  on  the  proposition. 


At  least  the  discussion  has  benefited  me 
to  the  extent  that 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Speak  a little 

louder,  Mr.  Pendarvis,  so  that  we  may 
all  hear  you,  so  that  the  reporter  will 
hear  you. 

(During  roll  call). 

MR,  PENDARVIS:  It  has  benefited 

me  to  the  extent  of  educating  me  either 
up  or  down  on  the  position  that  Aider- 
man  Dever  has  just  taken.  It  would 
seem  to  me  almost  impossible  to  get  this 
question  into  such  shape  that  one  could 
accurately  vote  his  sentiment;  but  after 
listening  to  the  extended  discussion  I 
have  reached  the  point  where  I prefer  to 
vote  for  a two-year  term  for  mayor 
rather  than  a four-year  term  for  aider- 
men.  If  we  should  look  at  this  matter 
from  the  standpoint  of  councilmen,  if 
I should  look  at  it  from  the  position  of  a 
member  of  the  lower  house  of  the  General 
Assembly  of  Illinois,  I should  say  that 
a four-year  term  was  probably  prefera- 
ble; but  I do  not  believe  it  would  take 
me  very  long  to  make  up  my  mind  on 
that,  but,  in  viewing  the  point  from  the 
position  of  the  citizen  I think  we  would 
be  apt  to  reach  a different  view.  In 
comparing  the  house  and  senate  at 
Springfield,  I am  not  ready  to  say  that 
we  reach  better  results  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  people  by  electing  senators 
every  four  years  than  wTe  do  by  electing 
the  members  of  the  lower  house  for  two 
years.  It  is  generally  acknowledged  that 
the  position  of  senator  is  much  preferable 
for  the  length  of  the  term  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  office,  but  from  the  stand- 
point of  the  people,  I do  not  believe  you 
would  get  the  majority  of  people  to  say 
that  it  is  preferable.  Now,  I think  that 
argument  is  applicable  to  a certain  ex- 
tent to  the  position  of  alderman. 

And  another  difficulty  confronts  us, 
confronts  me  as  I try  to  make  up  my 
mind  to  vote  for  the  four-year  term  for 
aldermen,  and  that  was  referred  to  in 
the  remarks  of  Mr.  Smulski.  He  says  that 
we  do  not  want  all  the  council  to  go  out 


December  11 


258 


1906 


at  one  time,  and  therefore  there  should 
be  elected  one-half  of  the  council  at  one 
time  and  the  other  half  at  another  time. 
That  necessarily  means  every  two  years 
in  one-half  of  the  wards  of  this  city  you 
are  going  to  have  an  election  and  at 
the  same  time  you  would  not  be  hav- 
ing an  election  for  alderman  in  the 
other  half,  and  I can  readily  see  why, 
or  I can  readily  see  where  such  pro- 
cedure as  that  would  result  in,  I fear, 
a very  bad  situation,  especially  if  it 
should  be  found  that  some  local  issue 
presents  itself  such  as  we  had  at  the 
recent  election  of  mayor,  where  opposi- 
tion can  be  concentrated  against  an  al- 
derman, and  possibly  voters  can  be  trans- 
ferred from  one  ward  to  another  where 
no  election  is  taking  place.  It  has  been 
almost  impossible  for  me  to  view  this 
question  from  any  point  of  view  where 
some  such  objection  as  that  was  not 
raised.  I therefore  think  that  I must 
vote  for  the  two-year  term,  and  I hope 
I shall  have  the  privilege  of  voting  for 
the  two-year  term  for  mayor.  I vote 
‘ ‘ aye.  ’ ’ 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I want  to  explain 

my  vote.  I was  a member  of  the  mu- 
nicipal legislature  that  made  this  report. 
The  committee  was  almost  unanimous  on 
the  vote  that  the  term  of  the  mayor 
should  be  four  years.  I voted  in  the 
committee — for  twTo  years — I voted  in 
the  committee  on  that  proposition,  and 
while  I am  inclined  to  the  four-year 
term  for  aldermen,  I shall  support  the 
recommendation,  and  vote  for  two  years. 
I vote  “aye. ” 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish 

to  explain  my  vote.  I favor  the  four- 
year  term,  not  the  two-year  term — for 
the  reason  that  I believe  we  will  get 
more  good  men  to  run  for  the  office  of  al- 
derman if  you  make  the  term  four  years, 
than  you  will  if  you  have  the  term  only 
two  years;  and,  I take  it,  that  is  really 
the  fundamental  reason  for  offering  this 
change.  The  citizens  of  Chicago  want 
honest  and  efficient  councilors,  and  I be- 


lieve that  we  can  get  a better  council, 
from  the  better  citizens,  by  making  the 
term  four  years,  than  it  seems  to  me 
we  will  otherwise.  I am  of  the  opinion 
that  we  should  get  a better  council  by 
having  the  four-year  term.  Therefore, 
I vote  “no. ” 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  change  my  vote  vote  from 
“aye”  to  “no.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell 

changes  his  vote  from  ‘ 1 aye  ” to  “ no.  ’ ’ 

THE  SECRETARY:  O’Donnell,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Line- 

lian’s  motion  to  substitute  two-year  term 
for  three  years,  the  ayes  are  13,  and  the 
noes  are  27.  The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I wish  to  give 

notice  that  I shall  move  to  reconsider  the 
vote  by  which  this  was  passed  at  the 
next  meeting  of  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  record  will 

so  show.  Before  the  second  part  of  Mr. 
Linehan’s  motion  is  taken  up,  it  will  be 
advisable  to  put  Mr.  McCormick’s  mo- 
tion, fixing  it  at  four  years.  All  who 
are  in  favor  of  it  signify  in  the  usual 
way.  Those  opposed?  Do  you  want  a 
roll  call? 

A MEMBER : No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

carried. 

MR.  MACMILLAN : As  I under- 

stood it,  Mr.  Linehan’s  motion  was  di- 
vided. What  becomes  of  the  second  part? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  second  part 

will  be  taken  up  now.  The  next  matter 
is  the  second  part  of  Mr.  Linehan’s  mo- 
tion that  all  aldermen  should  be  elected 
at  the  same  time. 

MR.  DEYER:  Mr.  Chairman,  do  I 

understand  that  you  wish  to  have  it  the 
same  time  that  the  mayor  is  elected? 

MR.  SNOW:  It  should  show  in  the 

motion  that  the  intention  is  to  elect  the 
aldermen  at  the  same  time  the  mayor 
is  elected;  that  is  the  intention  of  the 
motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  nothing 

in  the  proposition  that  suggested  that, 


December  11 


259 


1906 


but  the  committee  report  provided  for  a 
two  years’  term  of  aldermen,  and  that 
they  should  be  elected  at  the  same  time. 
Now,  the  Convention  having  voted  for  a 
four  years’  term,  the  question  before  the 
Convention  is  whether  you  want  to  elect 
all  the  four-year  aldermen  at  the  same 
time  as  the  mayor. 

ME.  SNOW : I move  to  amend  the 

motion  as  it  stands,  by  providing  that  the 
aldermen  should  be  elected  at  the  same 
time  that  the  mayor  is  elected. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  All  of  them? 

ME.  SNOW:  All  of  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  It  has  been  seconded  that 
all  the  aldermen  be  elected  at  the  same 
time  the  mayor  is  elected. 

ME.  BTJBKE:  I desire  to  offer  an 

amendment  to  the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  amendment. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  By  Mr.  Burke: 

The  city  shall  be  divided  into  seventy 
wards,  each  of  which  shall  elect  one  al- 
dermen, whose  term  of  office  shall  be  four 
years.  The  aldermen  elected  in  the  year 
1908,  in  wards  bearing  odd  numbers, 
shall  vacate  their  offices  at  the  end  of 
two  years,  and  those  elected  in  wards 
bearing  even  numbers  at  the  end  of  four 
year,  and  vacancies  occurring  by  expira- 
tion of  term  shall  be  filled  by  election  of 
aldermen  for  a full  term. 

THE  CHAIBMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  substitute  for  Alderman 
Snow ’s  motion. 

ME.  SNOW:  The  mover  of  the  motion 

may  desire  to  be  heard  on  that. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  Mr.  Burke,  do 

you  desire  to  further  discuss  the  matter? 

ME.  BUEKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I had 

two  amendments  there;  I would  like  to 
withdraw  the  amendment  which  I just 
offered  and  which  has  just  been  read. 

ME.  SNOW : I thought  you  would 

think  better  of  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  ob- 

jection, and  Mr.  Burke’s  amendment  will 
be  withdrawn  and  this  one  read. 


THE  SECEETAEY:  By  Mr.  Burke: 

The  city  shall  be  divided  into  seventy 
wards,  each  of  which  shall  elect  one  al- 
derman whose  term  of  office  shall  be  two 
years.  The  aldermen  elected  in  the  year 
1908  in  wards  bearing  odd  numbers  shall 
vacate  their  offices  at  the  end  of  one 
year,  and  those  elected  in  wards  bearing 
even  numbers  at  the  end  of  two  years, 
and  vacancies  occurring  by  expiration  of 
term  shall  be  filled  by  election  of  aider- 
men  for  a full  term. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I arise  to  a 

point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understand 

that  we  have  just  voted  for  a four-year 
term,  and  that  has  been  adopted.  We 
cannot  now  introduce  a motion  to  make 
it  two  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  un- 

der the  impression  that  this  is  an  in- 
direct method  of  securing  a second  vote 
on  the  same  proposition,  and,  therefore, 
the  Chair  rules  it  out  of  order. 

MR.  SNOW : I presume  Mr.  Burke 

can  make  his  motion,  so  far  as  it  af- 
fects the  election  of  the  aldermen,  if  he 
desires. 

THE  CHAIRMAjn:  That  would  be 

the  proper  motion  before  the  meeting 
now.  Does  Mr.  Burke  desire  to  divide 
his  motion? 

MR.  BURKE:  I did  not  quite  under- 

stand the  original  motion,  or,  rather,  the 
motion  of  Mr.  McCormick;  but,  upon  the 
question  of  dividing  the  aldermen  is  what 
I intended  to  bring  before  the  Conven- 
tion; or,  rather,  dividing  the  election  of 
the  council  so  that  if  it  is — and  I take 
it  now  that  it  is — the  sense  of  this  Con- 
vention that  the  aldermen  be  elected  for 
four  years. 

This  charter  reaching  Springfield,  and 
if  it  passes  at  all  will  pass  in  time  for 
the  people  of  Chicago  to  vote  and  adopt 
it  this  year,  so  that  the  aldermen — next 
year,  I mean — so  that  the  aldermen  to  be 
elected  would  be  elected  in  the  year  of 
1908.  Their  term  of  office  would  vacate 


December  11 


260 


1906 


and  expire  in  two  years;  and  every  two 
years  thereafter,  the  term  of  office  to  be 
four  years,  so  that  the  entire  council 
would  not  be  vacated  after  four  years, 
and  the  work  of  the  council  in  the  pre- 
ceding months  prior  to  the  election  go 
for  naught. 

I feel  that  we  ought  to  maintain — I 
feel  that  we  ought  to  have  a sufficient 
number  in  the  council  who  are  familiar 
with  the  committee  work, — who  are  fa- 
miliar with  the  proceedings  of  the 
council, — so  that  every  two  years  we 
elect  half  the  council  for  four  years. 

MR.  JONES:  I rise  to  a point  of 

order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Jones. 

MR.  JONES:  The  point  is  that  Mr. 

Burke’s  amendment  is  out  of  order,  be- 
cause there  are  two  amendments  before 
the  house.  Mr.  McCormick’s  was  the 
original  order,  and  Mr.  Linehan  made 
an  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  order  to 

bring  this  matter  clearly  before  the 
house — in  order  that  the  house  may 
have  a clear  vote  upon  the  method  of 
electing  aldermen,  the  Chair  has  not 
ruled  that  any  of  these  amendments 
are  out  of  order.  One  amendment  of 
Mr.  Burke  has  been  ruled  out  of  order. 
Do  you  wish  to  reintroduce  the  first? 

MR.  BURKE:  The  first  amendment, 

the  one  I have  spoken  to? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  first 

amendment  be  re-read. 

The  Secretary  re-read  Mr.  Burke’s 
first  amendment. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  is  not 

that  the  amendment  which  the  Chair 
ruled  out  of  order  on  the  point  raised 
by  Mr.  Rosenthal? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  SNOW:  Isn’t  that  the  amend- 

ment which  the  Chair  ruled  out  of  or- 
der on  the  point  raised  by  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No.  The  amend- 

ment that  was  ruled  out  of  order  was 
one  which  fixed  the  term  at  two  years. 


This  follows  the  last  resolution  adopt- 
ed, but  fixes  the  time  and  method  of 
the  election  of  the  four-year  aldermen, 
and  therefore  is  proper. 

MR.  SNOW:  I desire  the  floor  just 

a moment. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I desire  to  raise  a 

point  of  order.  This  resolution  provides 
for  the  number  of  wards  in  the  City 
of  Chicago,  that  has  already  been  dis- 
posed of. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Precisely. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  provides  for  the 

length  of  the  term  of  office. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  has  already 
been  provided  for. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  My  point  of  order 

is 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  So  really  is  re- 

affirming work  that  the  Convention  has 
already  done. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  point  is,  that, 

if  we  vote  now  on  some  part  of  that 
resolution,  and  it  is  not  defeated,  we 
will  ostensibly  be  voting  “No”  on 
things  that  have  been  already  been 
adopted  by  this  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Then  the  gen- 

tleman’s motion  should  be  to  divide 
the  proposition.  If  the  Convention  de- 
sires the  proposition  divided,  it  will 
be  divided. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I am  afraid  we  are  getting  into  detail 
by  voting  on  that  proposition  of  Mr. 
Burke ’s. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I am  afraid  we 

are  getting  into  detail  by  voting  on 
that  proposition  submitted  by  Mr. 
Burke,  for  this  reason:  There  is  no 
knowing  when  this  charter  is  going  to 
be  submitted  to  the  people,  or  when 
it  is  going  to  be  adopted  by  the  people. 
The  very  earliest  that  it  could  be  pre- 
sented to  the  voters  of  Chicago  is  at 
the  spring  election  of  1908.  If  it  was 
then  adopted,  the  council  would  have 
to  provide  for  the  re-districting  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  into  70  wards,  and 


December  11 


261 


1906 


then  call  for  an  election.  All  these 
resolutions  will  have  to  be  re-drafted, 
and  we  are  trying  to  get  the  senti- 
ment of  this  Convention. 

I think  that  if  you  vote  on  the  pro- 
position as  to  whether  we  want  all  the 
aldermen  elected  at  one  time,  if  we 
adopt  that  proposition,  it  is  settled. 
If  it  is  voted  down,  then  we  will  have 
to  submit  some  other  question  as  to 
how  we  shall,  and  when  we  shall,  elect 
the  aldermen. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the 

uprpose  of  clearing  up  the  record,  I 
presume  Mr.  Burke  would  be  willing 
to  divide  his  motion  and  give  us  an 
opportunity  to  vote  squarely  on  the 
proposition  of  electing  half  of  the  al- 
dermen at  one  time,  and  half  of  the 
aldermen  at  another;  and  that  is  the 
only  question  at  issue  at  this  time. 

MR.  BURKE:  I have  no  objection 

whatever  to  being  advised  on  the 
question,  so  that  we  can  find  out 
whether  or  not  we  shall  elect  all  the 
aldermen  at  one  time,  or  whether  we 
shall  divide  the  time  and  elect  half, 
one  half  for  two  years,  and  the  other 
half  of  all  the  council  in  four  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  Mr.  Burke’s  amendment 
will  be  withdrawn  for  the  time  being, 
pending  a vote  upon  this  proposition, 
and,  until  that  vote  is  taken,  the  Chair 
will  recognize  no  further  substitutes 
until  the  primary  proposition  is  dis- 
posed of. 

MR.  BEEBE:  State  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Snow’s  mo- 
tion is,  that  all  the  aldermen  shall  be 
elected  at  the  same  time  the  mayor  is 
elected. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Might  I ask  to 

have  the  proposition  put  this  way,  as 
our  committee  still  has  a motion  before 
the  house,  that  all  the  aldermen  shall 
be  elected  at  one  time,  and  let  us  de- 
bate the  other  question,  then,  as  to 
whether  they  shall  be  elected  at  the 


same  time  the  mayor  is  elected,  or  a 
different  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  that  satisfac- 
tory, Mr.  Snow? 

MR.  SNOW:  I am  willing  to  accept 

that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  be- 

fore the  house  is  that  all  the  aldermen 
shall  be  elected  at  the  same  time.  As 
many  as  favor  that  motion  will  signify 
by  saying  “aye”;  opposed,  “nay.” 

MR,  SNOW:  Roll  call,  please. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Bennett,  Brown,  Burke,  Carey, 
Church,  Clettenberg  Dever,  Dixon,  G. 
W.,  Erickson,  Fisher,  Guerin,  Hill, 
Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Linehan, 
MacMillan,  McCormick,  McKinley, 
Merriam,  O ’Donnell,  Oehne,  Owens, 
Paullin,  Pendarvis.  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Swift,  Tay- 
lor, Yopicka,  Werno,  Young — 35. 

Nays — Beebe,  Rainey,  Smulski,  Wal- 
ker— 4. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  DEVER:  I find  it  difficult  now 

to  vote  and  express  my  opinion  as  to 
what  ought  to  be  done  about  this  mat- 
ter. For  instance,  if  I favor  the  mo- 
tion of  Alderman  Snow,  first  made,  that 
is,  that  all  of  the  aldermen  be  elected 
at  the  same  time  the  mayor  is  elected: 
if  this  vote,  however,  carries,  we  won’t 
be  able  to — or  if  it  is  defeated,  rather 
— if  I could  not  have  all  the  aldermen 
elected  at  the  same  time  the  mayor  is, 
I would  like  to  have  one-half  of  them 
elected  at  that  time.  And  I will  state 
my  reason  now:  We  all  know  that 

when  a mayoralty  campaign,  of  candi- 
dates for  mayor,  they  find  it  incum- 
bent upon  them  to  insist  upon  the 
nomination  of  good  men  for  aldermen. 
In  other  words,  it  becomes  a political 
necessity  for  them  in  their  campaigns 
to  appeal  to  the  people  for  votes;  and, 
my  experience  in  politics  has  taught 
me  that  the  mayors  of  this  city  take 
a lively  interest  when  they  are  can- 
didates themselves,  in  bringing  out  in 


December  11 


262 


1906 


the  various  wards  good  strong  candi- 
dates who  will  appeal  to  the  people, 
and  it  becomes  to  their  interest  to  do 
so.  For  that  reason,  I would  like  to 
vote  in  some  way  that  would  give,  if 
possible,  all  of  the  aldermen  election 
at  the  same  time  as  the  mayor;  and, 
if  not,  half  of  them.  I don’t  know 
just  how  to  do  that.  Will  you  state 
the  proposition  again? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary state  the  proposition  again. 

THE  SECRETARY:  That  all  the 

aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  one  and 
the  same  time. 

MR.  DEVER:  If  that  is  carried,  and 
the  motion  to  have  them  all  elected  at 
the  same  time  the  mayor  is,  I vote 
1 1 aye,  ’ ’ with  the  right  to  change  my 
mind. 

MR.  FISHER:  What  is  the  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  the  gentle- 

men will  attend  to  the  business  of  the 
Convention,  there  will  be  no  question 
about  what  is  being  done. 

MR.  FISHER:  I presume  I will 

have  a copy  of  that  lecture  in  the  next 
proceedings,  and  I think  it  ought  to  j 
be  framed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary state  the  question  again. 

THE  SECRETARY:  That  all  the  al- 
derman shall  be  elected  at  one  and 
the  same  time. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I desire  to  ex- 

plain my  vote.  As  long  as  you  have 
decided  that  there  shall  be  seventy 
wards,  and  one  alderman  to  a ward,  I 
think  it  would  be  very  unwise  to  di- 
vide the  election  of  aldermen,  because 
then  there  would  be  a possibility  for 
the  floating  population  of  the  wards 
going  from  one  ward  to  the  other.  I 
might  give  an  instance.  For  instance: 
In  the  first  ward,  they  would  come  one 
year  there,  and  one  term  the  biggest 
part  of  that  population  would  be  there, 
and  in  the  next  it  would  be  in  the 
Vighteenth  ward.  And  that  is  not  only 
true  of  those  wards  that  I have  men- 


tioned, but  of  other  wards,  and  pos- 
sibly some  of  the  residence  wards.  I 
don’t  care  whether  you  vote  for  all 
aldermen  at  the  same  time  that  you 
vote  for  mayor,  or  whether  you  vote 
at  two  years  before  or  after  that  time, 
but  I am  in  favor  of  all  the  aldermen 
being  voted  for  at  the  same  time  as 
long  as  there  are  seventy  wards,  and 
one  alderman  to  a ward.  I vote 
‘ 1 aye.  ’ ’ 

MR.  RAINEY:  This  resolution  pro- 

vided not  only  for  the  original  elec- 
tion, but  for  subsequent  elections? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  seems  to  me 

to  be  broad  enough  to  cover  that. 

MR.  RAINEY:  I vote  “no.” 

Mr.  Walker:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  vote  “no”  on  this  proposition, 
and  to  state  my  reasons.  I expected 
there  would  be  some  discussion  on  this 
proposition,  and  I am  surprised  that 
there  was  not.  It  is  my  opinion,  based 
upon  experience,  that  a body  of  this 
kind  should  be  so  constituted  as  to 
insure  a certain  continuity  of  policy 
for  the  people.  I believe  that  the 
j division  of  the  aldermanic  election, 
having  a portion  of  them  elected  for 
two  years  where  the  term  is  to  be  four 
years,  will  operate  also  on  the  admin- 
istration going  to  the  people  for  a cer- 
tain check.  Therefore  I vote  “no.” 
MR.  BURKE:  I desire  to  change 

my  vote  before  the  roll  call  is  an- 
nounced and  vote  “aye.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Snow’s 

motion  that  all  aldermen  shall  be 
elected  at  the  same  time,  the  ayes  are 
35  and  the  noes  4.  The  motion  is  car- 
ried. 

MR.  BURKE:  I desire  to  give  notice 
to  have  the  motion  reconsidered  at 
next  meeting  of  the  Convention. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I just  rise  for 

a question  of  information.  As  I un- 
derstand it,  it  is  not  necessary  to  give 
notice  to  reconsider  these  votes.  These 
votes  are  not  final;  they  can  be  recon- 
sidered at  any  time? 


December  11 


263 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  SNOW:  Now,  Mr.  Chairman, 

I desire  to  renew  my  motion  now  that 
the  aldermen  all  be  elected  at  the  same 
time  that  the  mayor  is  elected. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

heard  the  motion.  All  those  in  favor 
signify 

MR.  FISHER:  I move  you  that  we 

now  adjourn.  It  seems  to  me  that 
we  ought  to  consider  this  matter  a 
little  more  carefully  and  ascertain  just 
exactly  how  this  plan  of  organization 
is  coming  out.  I do  not  think  we 
should  now  vote  upon  it.  It  is  now 
five  minutes  to  ten  o’clock  and  we 
will  all  vote  much  more  intelligently 
if  we  see  just  exactly  what  action  we 
have  already  taken. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I want  to  give 

notice  that  I shall  move  to  reconsider 
the  vote  that  we  took  making  the 
mayor’s  term  four  years,  at  the  next 
meeting. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  gentlemen 

remain  in  order  until  the  Convention 
adjourns? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Before  the  Con- 

vention adjourns  I want  to  offer  a reso- 
lution and  ask  that  it  be  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  resolu- 

tion be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Ben- 
nett: Resolved,  that  the  present  laws 

relating  to  firemen’s  pensions  be  re- 
tained and  included  in  the  charter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  that  be 

printed. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  been  re- 
quested to  introduce  a certain  resolu- 
tion, and  that  resolution  is  lying  upon 
your  desk.  I do  not  want  to  be  under- 
stood at  this  time  as  being  either  in 
favor  of  or  against  that  resolution.  I 
think  it  should  come  before  this  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  whose  desk, 

did  you  say? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I passed  it  to 

the  Secretary’s  desk. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  When  will  the 

Convention  meet  again? 

MR.  SNOW:  It  certainly  seems  to 

me  that  we  might  as  well  finish  up  the 
one  small  matter  which  has  been  left 
open  here  tonight,  as  far  as  organiza- 
tion of  the  city  council  is  concerned. 
The  matter  has  been  very  thoroughly 
discussed,  and  it  is  a matter  that  is 
reached  by  my  resolution,  and  my  mo- 
tion has  been  discussed  in  general  de- 
bate. I think  the  members  of  this 
Convention  had  their  minds  made  up 
to  it,  and  if  we  devote  another  session 
to  its  discussion  we  will  simply  waste 
time  in  listening  to  the  same  debate 
and  the  same  discussion  that  we  have 
had  already.  It  certainly  seems  to  me 
that  we  might  act  on  this  matter  at 
this  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Snow 

suggests  that  this  last  matter  be  acted 
on  tonight;  his  motion  that  the  aider- 
men  shall  be  elected  at  the  same  time 
as  the  mayor.  Mr.  Fisher’s  motion  to 
adjourn  is  pending,  and  the  Chair 
would  ask  Mr.  Fisher  to  hold  that  mo- 
tion back  until  some  announcements 
can  be  made. 

MR.  FISHER:  I am  perfectly  will- 

ing to  do  that;  I think,  however,  the 
way  we  are  going,  we  have  had  a 
viva  voce  on  the  question  of  the 
mayor,  and  we  have  had  a long  dis- 
cussion, and  there  are  a great  many 
questions  raised,  and  the  whole  subject 
is  more  or  less  uncertain  in  the  minds 
of  the  members.  We  feel  that  we  want 
united  action,  and  I do  not  see  any 
object  on  earth  in  taking  a formal  vote 
on  Mr.  Snow’s  motion,  when  a motion 
to  reconsider  will  certainly  be  made 
on  the  whole  subject  matter. 

MR.  WALKER:  Is  the  motion  to 

adjourn  debatable? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Under  the  rules 

of  this  assembly,  yes.  The  Chair  is 
under  the  impression  that  perhaps,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  there  would  be 
motions  to  reconsider,  and  the  three 


December  11 


264 


1906 


motions  to  reconsider  for  which  notice 
has  been  given,  that  the  matter  is 
bound  to  be  reopened  at  the  next  meet- 
ing anyway. 

MR.  SNOW:  Under  the  circum- 

stances, then,  I am  willing  that  the 
matter  should  go  over,  and  I desire 
to  say  now  that  I shall  not  move  to 
reconsider  the  motion  to  adjourn.  I 
move  to  adjourn  until  Thursday  night 
at  seven-thirty. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  moment. 

The  resignation  of  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  is  in  the  hands 
of  the  Secretary.  The  Secretary  will 
read  it. 

Chicago,  Dec.  5,  1906. 
HON.  MILTON  J.  FOREMAN, 

City  Hall, 

City. 

Dear  Sir: — 

I herewith  tender  my  resignation  as 
a member  of  the  Charter  Convention, 
as  a pending  case  will  occupy  my  time 
to  such  an  extent  that  I will  be  unable, 
to  attend  any  day  sessions  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

I regret  the  circumstances  that  com- 
pel my  resignation,  as  I had  looked 
forward  with  pleasure  and  interest  to 
the  work  of  the  Convention. 

Extending  to  yourself  and  the  other 
members  of  the  Convention  my  thanks 


for,  and  hearty  appreciation  of  cour- 
tesies shown,— I am, 

Very  sincerely  yours, 

DANIEL  L.  CRUICE. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cruice  is 

engaged  at  a trial  which  takes  all  of 
his  time.  The  mayor,  who  appointed 
him,  has  been  apprised  of  his  resig- 
nation, and  he  will  probably  have  his 
successor  appointed  by  the  next  meet- 
ing of  the  Convention. 

The  Board  of  Local  Improvements 
meets  here  tomorrow  evening,  conse- 
quently our  meeting  for  that  night 
cannot  be  held  here. 

MR.  SNOW:  My  motion  is  that 

the  next  meeting  be  held  on  Thursday 
night  at  seven-thirty.  That  is  the 
next  meeting  after  the  one  we  should 
have  had  on  Wednesday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  a 

regular  meeting.  We  miss  one  meet- 
ing this  week,  but  it  is  the  last  time 
the  Board  of  Local  Improvements  will 
meet  here.  The  Convention  will  now 
stand  adjourned. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  I wish  to  have 

my  resolution  incorporated  in  the 
record. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  has  al- 

ready been  done. 

And  the  Convention  adjourned  to 
meet  Thursday,  December  13,  1906,  at 
7:30  o’clock  p.  m. 


Secretary. 


December  11 


265 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 


city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ate provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


Y.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 


December  11 


266 


1906 


Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  the  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 


Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 


VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  THE  CITY  COUNCIL  is  still 
pending: 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 


December  11 


267 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY  ME.  KOSENTHAL. 

As  an  amendment  to  Chapter  IV.  en- 
titled ELECTIONS.  By  adding  the 
following  proposition  numbered  6 : 

6.  The  only  elective  city  officers  (not 
including  aldermen  and  municipal 
judges)  shall  be  the  Mayor  and  City 
Treasurer.  The  City  Treasurer  shall  be 
ex-officio  city  collector. 


BY  ME.  BENNETT: 

XXII. 

5.  SECTION Nothing  in  this  act 

shall  be  construed  to  modify,  impair  or 
affect  or  to  confer  upon  the  city  coun- 
cil power  to  pass  any  ordinance  modi- 
fying, impairing  or  conflicting  with  the 
provisions  of  Section  18  of  an  act  en- 
titled “An  act  to  provide  for  the  an- 
nexation of  cities,  incorporated  towns 
and  villages  or  parts  of  same  to  cities, 
incorporated  towns  and  villages  ’ ’ ap- 
proved April  25th,  1889,  or  to  any  pro- 
vision of  any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  or  creat- 
ing or  defining  criminal  offenses  or  relat- 
ing to  the  prosecution  and  punishment 
thereof,  nor  shall  any  amendment  or 
addition  be  made  to  the  charter  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  except  by  the  General 
Assembly,  by  which  this  section,  or  any 
part  thereof  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
be  abrogated,  repealed  or  annulled. 


BY.  ME.  SHEPAED: 

Besolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 


of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary's  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary's 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  ME.  BENNETT: 

Eesolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen's  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSES  WEENO  AND  EOSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


December  11 


268 


1906 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

For  Week  Beginning  Monday,  December  10. 

SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53. 

SECTION  XVII—  Education,  at  page  56. 

PARAGRAPH  3.— Suffrage,  at  page  52. 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR. 

first  column : 

“speak”  instead  of  “come. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  101, 

second  column:  Line  22,  after  the  word 
“then”  add  “who  shall.” 


MR.  SHEDD:  On  page  128,  first 

column,  second  line,  strike  out  ‘ 1 in  a ” 
and  insert  therefor:  “eliminating  the.” 
Also,  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
‘ ‘ paper,  ’ ’ insert  ‘ ‘ but  retaining  the  par- 
ty column.” 

MR.  POST:  On  page  130,  second 

column,  fifth  line  from  bottom*  sub- 
stitute the  word  “constitutional”  for 
the  word  “satisfactory.” 


MR.  SHEPARD:  On  page  134,  first 

column,  last  paragraph,  fifth  line,  strike 
out  “that  is,  that  all  municipal  officers 
and  city  officers,  including  the  municipal 
court  judges  shall  be  elected  in  the 
spring”  and  insert  therefor:  “that  is, 
that  all  city  officers  shall  be  elected  in 
the  spring  at  one  and  the  same  election, 
except  the  municipal  court  judges.” 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  159, 

first  column,  next  to  last  line,  strike 
out  “it  along”  and  insert  “about  its 
passage.  ’ ’ 


MR.  WERNO:  On  page  161,  left 

hand  column,  line  25,  strike  out  the 
word  “has”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof 
the  word  “have.” 

Also  on  page  161,  right  hand  column, 
13th  line,  strike  out  the  words  “to 


give  ’ ’ and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  “who  gives.” 

MR.  LINEHAN:  On  page  162,  first 

column,  next  to  last  line,  strike  out 
word  “devoted”  and  insert  “di- 
vorced.” Also  same  column,  last  line, 
strike  out  word  “to”  and  insert 
“from.”  Also,  same  page,  second  col- 
umn, first  line,  strike  out  “we  are  pro- 
posing” and  insert  “a  proposal.” 


MR.  POWERS:  On  page  166,  sec- 

ond column,  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  lines, 
strike  out  “Well,  can’t  he  do  that 
without  the  consent  of  this  Conven- 
tion?” and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  “He 
cannot  do  that  without  the  consent  of 
this  Convention. 1 ’ 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  170, 

first  colmun,  fourth  line,  after  the  word 
“entrance”  insert  the  following:  “to 
the  service  protected  by  the  law.” 


MR,  PENDARYIS:  Page  179,  first 

column;  strike  out  entire  line,  and  in- 
sert in  lieu  thereof:  “that  fact  we 
put  into  the,”  also,  same  page,  same 
column,  in  fourth  line  from  bottom, 
insert  the  word  “meet”  for  “leave.” 


MR.  YOPICKA:  Page  214,  second 

column,  twelfth  line  of  paragraph, 
strike  out  words  “a  movement”  and 
insert  “an  improvement.” 


MR.  PENDARYIS:  Page  226,  second 
column,  line  24,  change  the  word  “po- 
sition” to  “provision”;  also,  same 
page,  same  column,  line  26,  change  the 
word  “of”  to  “by.” 


SHANAHAN : On  page  92, 

Line  13,  insert  word 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  13, 1906 


i 


(djirago  (Ihiirtrr  (Cnuurutinu 

Convened,  December  12, 1905 

Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Abst.  Secy 


feVx  cov. 


December  13 


271 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Thursday,  December  13,  1906 

7:30  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brosseau,  Brown,  Carey,  Church,  Clet- 
• tenberg,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
2*  Eckhart,  B.  A.,-  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Erick- 
0 son,  Fisher,  Graham,  Guerin,  Hunter, 
^ Jones,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  Lundberg, 
MacMillan,  McCormick,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Rainey,  Raymer, 
Robins,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Thompson,  Vo- 
picka,  Walker,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 50. 

Absent — Baker,  Burke,  Cole,  Ritter, 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eidmann,  Fitzpatrick, 
Gansbergen,  Haas,  Harrison,  Hill, 
Hoyne,  Lathrop,  Oehne,  Patterson, 
Post,  Powers,  Revell,  Rinaker,  Rosen- 
thal, Sethness,  Shedd,  Swift,  Wilson — 
24. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

Are  there  any  corrections  or  amend- 
ments to  the  minutes? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

have  inserted  in  the  record,  at  page 
253,  column  2,  anywhere  in  there,  in- 
serted the  following  paragraph,  which 
was  a part  of  Mr.  Fisher’s  speech  and 
left  out  wholly,  as  follows: 

“Mr.  Linehan,  to  speak  plainly,  is  in 
sympathy  with  the  present  mayor,  for 
this  reason:  He  is  willing  the  term  of 

office  of  mayor  should  be  four  years,  but 
objects  to  the  aldermanic  term  being 
lengthened.  I ask  him  if  he  would  be 
of  the  same  mind  if  he  were  opposed 
to  the  mayor,  but  were  in  sympathy 
with  the  City  Council  which  had  to 
seek  re-election  every  two  years?” 

I presume  I am  not  giving  the  exact 
words,  but  that  is  the  sense  of  it,  just 
as  I took  it  down,  as  close  as  possible. 

MR.  FISHER:  I must  object  to  the 

insertion  of  this  language  as  being  my 
exact  language,  because,  as  I recall  my 
language,  that  is  not  exactly  what  I 
stated.  I think  it  does  fairly  state  the 
sense  of  what  was  stated,  but  the  re- 
mark I made  was  that  Mr.  Linehan  was 


December  13 


272 


1906 


in  favor  of  the  policies  of  the  present 
mayor.  I don’t  know  whether  he  is 
in  favor  of  the  present  mayor  or  op- 
posed to  the.  present  mayor,  but  I do 
understand  he  is  in  favor  of  the  poli- 
cies of  the  present  mayor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN!  Are  there  any 
further  corrections  or  amendments?  If 
not,  the  record  will  stand  approved. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary please  read  this  communication? 

THE  SECRETARY: 

December  12,  1906. 

Hon.  Milton  J.  Foreman,  President, 
Chicago  Charter  Convention,  100 
Washington  Street,  Chicago: 

My  Dear  Alderman:  I have  this  day 

appointed  Mr.  Emil  W.  Ritter  as  a del- 
egate to  the  Chicago  Charter  Conven- 
tion, vice  Daniel  L.  Cruice,  resigned. 

Very  respectfully, 

E.  F.  Dunne, 

Mayor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  . Mr.  Ritter’s 
name  should  be  entered  in  the  records. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  should 

not  a committee  be  appointed  to  find 
Mr.  Ritter? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter 

pending  at  the  close  of  the  Convention 
the  other  night  was 

MR.  WERNO:  I would  like  to  move 

that  the  resolution  that  was  offered  at 
the  last  meeting,  on  page  267,  the  right- 
hand  column,  at  the  bottom  of  the  col- 
umn, the  resolution  that  appears  to 
have  been  offered  by  Werno  and  Rosen- 
thal, be  made  a special  order,  and  I 
would  like  to  have  a date  fixed,  and  if 
not,  I would  like  to  have  it  put  down 
as  a special  order  among  the  other  spe- 
cial orders. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  refer  to  the 
resolution  introduced  by  Mr. 

MR.  WERNO:  The  right-hand  col- 

umn, bottom  of  page  267;  that  is  the 
resolution  sent  in  by  the  United  So- 
cieties. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 
sugest  that  that  be  done  when  we 


I reach  the  part  of  the  proceedings  to 
which  that  particularly  refers.  I ap- 
prehend that  can  be  taken  up  then. 

MR.  WERNO:  We  take  up  the  pow- 
ers of  the  City  Council  to-night. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  take  them 

up  in  general. 

MR.  WERNO:  How? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  take  them 

up  in  general,  and  I would  suggest 
when  this  is  reached,  if  we  conclude  to 
do  that,  then  it  can  be  made  a special 
order,  if  the  Convention  desires  to  do 
so.  At  present  the  matter  before  the 
Convention  is  the  question  of  whether 
the  aldermen  s halCbo^ele c t e d at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor.  I believe  Al- 
derman Snow  introduced  the  resolution. 

MR.  SNOW:  I move  the  passage  of 

the  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no.  It  is  carried.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  powers  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil in  general. 

MR.  WERNO:  I think  this  is  the 

proper  time  to  speak  about  this  matter 
with  regard  to  having  it  made  a special 
order,  and  I move  that  this  be  made  a 
special  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  when? 

MR.  WERNO:  Well,  make  it  a spe- 

cial order  for  Saturday,  if  we  meet 
Saturday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  Is  there  a sec- 
ond to  it? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  What  is  that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Werno 
moves  to  make  that  a special  Order  for 
next  Saturday;  the  motion  introduced 
by  him  and  Mr.  Rosenthal,  which  is 
printed  in  the  lower  corner,  right  hand, 
of  page  267. 

MR.  FISHER:  Should  not  the  reso- 

lution offered  by  Mr.  Bennett,  on  the 
same  page,  be  taken  up  at  the  same 
time?  They  relate  to  different  phases 
of  the  same  general  question. 


December  13 


273 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Con- 

vention dispose  of  this  motion  first. 

MR.  JONES:  It  seems  to  me  the 

motion  made  by  Mr.  Werno  should  not 
prevail,  because  the  section  which  he 
and  Mr.  Rosenthal  have  presented  is 
an  alternative  to  take  the  place  of 
alternative  No.  1,  under  Section  7, 
which  is  the  subject  matter  we  are  to 
discuss  to-night.  Now,  I understand 
that  the  resolution  which  Mr.  Bennett 
proposes  relates  to  an  entirely  different 
matter,  and  it  is  the  power  of  the  City 
Council  to  suggest  amendments  to  this 
charter,  and,  as  I look  at  it,  Mr.  Ben- 
nett’s resolution  properly  comes  up 
when  we  consider  Section  22;  but  Mr. 
Werno ’s  resolution  should  properly 
come  up  to-night.  It  seems  to  me  if 
we  postpone  the  section  that  he  refers 
to  we  would  postpone  everything  with 
regard  to  home  rule,  which  we  are  to 
discuss  to-night. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  Mr.  Werno ’s  motion,  that 
the  consideration  of  his  resolution  be 
deferred  until  next  Saturday.  All  those 
in  favor  of  the  motion  signify  by  say- 
ing aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

A VOICE:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  roll  be 

called. 

MR.  WERNO:  I would  like  to  say 

a word  in  regard  to  this,  that,  in  my 
opinion,  I think  the  gentleman  is  mis- 
taken as  to  Mr.  Bennett’s  resolution. 
It  is  not  a question  of  whether  the  City 
Council  should  suggest  amendments  to 
the  charter  that  is  involved  there,  but 
that  refers  to  the  rights  of  the  City 
Council  to  change  the  law  as  it  now 
stands  in  some  of  the  districts  which 
are  annexed  to  the  City  of  Chicago,  in 
some  districts,  in  Hyde  Park,  and  other 
parts  of  the  city,  belonging  to  the  City 
of  Chicago,  they  had  laws  and  ordi- 
nances that  were  passed  by  those 
bodies  before  they  were  annexed,  they 
made  certain  districts  local  option,  or 
prohibition,  and  then  by  statute  a law 


was  passed  which  provides  that  those 
laws  cannot  be  changed  only  by  direct 
vote  of  the  people  residing  within 
those  districts;  and  that  is  what  I un- 
derstand Alderman  Bennett  refers  to; 
there  is  nothing  to  be  done  here  to 
change  the  state  law. 

I don’t  care  anything  about  that;  I 
am  not  particularly  interested  in 
changing  that  state  law  which  provides 
the  City  Council  shall  not  have  the  au- 
thority or  power  to  change  the  law  in 
those  districts.  But  I think  in  a sense  it 
does  refer  to  the  very  same  subject 
that  this  other  matter  does,  which  is 
contained  in  the  resolution  sent  in  by 
the  United  Societies.  Further,  I do 
not  think  a distinction  should  be  made 
here  at  this  time  in  regard  to  this  mat- 
ter, while  on  former  occasions,  when 
we  reached  certain  subjects,  a motion 
was  made  to  have  the  matter  made  a 
special  order,  and  no  objection  was 
raised  at  all,  and  they  were  made  spe- 
cial orders.  Now,  when  a motion  is 
made  to  make  this  matter,  which  I 
think  is  a very  important  one,  a spe- 
cial order,  why,  objection  is  raised, 
without  giving  any  reason  for  it  at  all. 
I think  we  should  be  consistent,  and 
when  we  make  one  matter  a special  or- 
der because  it  is  important,  I do  not 
know  any  reason  why  we  should  not 
make  another  important  matter  a spe- 
cial matter. 

MR.  BENNETT : The  amendment 

offered  by  me  raises  four  questions: 
First,  the  annexation  law  of  the  an- 
nexed towns.  There  is  also  contained 
a provision  which  provides  that  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois  relating 
to  the  sale  of  liquors  shall  not  be 
changed,  or  the  law  creating  and  de- 
fining criminal  offenses  or  relating  to 
the  prosecution  or  punishment  thereof; 
nor  shall  any  amendment  or  adoption 
be  made  to  the  charter  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  except  by  the  general  assem- 
bly, or  any  part  thereof  shall,  directly 
or  indirectly,  be  abrogated,  appealed 


December  13 


274 


1906 


or  annulled.  So  that  the  question 
which  is  presented  here  by  my  resolu- 
tion is  involved  when  the  other  matter 
is  taken  up,  and  I think  it  might  be 
well  to  take  up  the  whole  subject  mat- 
ter at  the  end,  when  we  come  to  22. 
For  my  part,  I can  see  no  objection  to 
Alderman  Werno ’s  matter  going  over 
until  we  reach  that  point.  I think  it 
would  be  well  to  let  the  whole  subject 
matter  go  over  until  then. 

MR.  FISHER:  Including  your  reso- 

lution? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Including  my  or- 

der. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  these 

two  resolutions  are  in  certain  parts  of 
them  the  direct  antithesis  of  each  other. 
You  cannot  adopt  one,  or  discuss  one, 
without  inevitably  discussing  or  adopt- 
ing the  provisions  of  the  other,  which 
may  be  in  precise  conflict — in  fact,  as 
the  resolutions  are  now  drawn,  they 
are  now  in  precise  conflict.  I think  we 
all  understand  what  the  issue  is.  As 
the  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Bennett — 
if  that  is  voted  in  the  present  form, 
the  question  of  the  maintenance  of  the 
present  law  in  regard  to  Sunday  clos- 
ing would  be  upheld  and  it  would  also 
protect  the  prohibition  districts  as  they 
now  exist.  Then,  another  matter:  The 

resolution  by  Alderman  Werno  and  Mr. 
Rosenthal  would  leave  the  subject  of 
Sunday  closing  to  be  decided  by  the 
City  Council  without  regard  to  the 
legislature. 

MR.  JONES:  In  reply  to  Mr.  Wer- 
no ’s  suggestion:  As  I understand  this 

resolution  proposed  by  Mr.  Werno  and 
Mr.  Rosenthal,  it  is  to  substitute  alter- 
native No.  1 of  Section  7.  Now,  al- 
ternative No,  1 of  Section  7 is  a mat- 
ter before  the  house,  and  if  this  means 
that  all  this  matter  regarding  home 
rule  is  to  be  deferred  until  later  on,  it 
seems  to  me  the  motion  should  be  voted 
down.  Alternative  No.  1 to  Section  7 
is  the  matter  now  before  the  house. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas  — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Carey, 
Crilly,  Dever,  Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Fisher, 
Graham,  Linehan,  McCormick,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Robins,  Yopicga,  Werno,  Zimmer — 19. 

Nays  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Clettenberg,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eck- 
hart, B.  A.;  Guerin,  Hunter,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lundberg,  MacMillan,  Paul- 
lin,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Shanahan,  Shep- 
ard, Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor, 
Walker,  White,  Wilkins — 25. 

(During  Roll  Call.) 

MR.  BENNETT:  What  is  the  ques- 

tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Werno 

moves  to  make  a special  order  for  Satur- 
day of  the  resolution  introduced  by  him 
and  Mr.  Rosenthal  which  is  printed  in 
the  lower  right  hand  corner  of  Page  267. 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  GUERIN : I desire  to  change 

my  vote  before  the  vote  is  announced. 
I vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Guerin 

changes  his  vote. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Guerin,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  defer  the  ayes  are  nineteen,  and  the 
noes  twenty-five.  The  motion  is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  powers  of  the  city  council. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  that  both  of  these  questions  be 
taken  up  when  we  reach  Section  22. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  doesn’t 

Alderman  Bennett  wish  to  divide  that 
matter? 

MR.  BENNETT:  I think  this  subject 

as  presented  by  Alderman  Werno  could 
all  be  deferred  and  taken  up  on  No.  22. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  in  favor 
of  the  motion,  aye.  Opposed,  no.  It  is 
so  ordered. 

The  motion  prevailed. 


December  13 


275 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  powers  of  the  City  Council. 

MR.  O ’DONNELL : I would  like  to 

have  an  understanding  with  the  Chair. 
I made  a motion  at  the  last  meeting; 
I gave  notice  to  move  to  reconsider  the 
vote  by  which  that  four-year  term  for 
alderman  was  passed.  I do  not  think 
I want  to  call  that  up  to-night.  I do  not 
want  to  interrupt  this  business.  I want 
to  reserve  the  right  to  call  it  up  at  some 
future  meeting. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  it  is  so 

understood. 

MR.  FISHER : Mr.  Chairman,  is  there 

a notice  pending  that  the  four-year  term 
of  mayor  is  also  to  come  up  at  some  time? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir;  both 

notices  are  pending.  Will  the  Secretary 
read  the  Section,  please? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Read  at  page 

52,  the  right  hand  column  of  the  page. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  we  will 

take  up  this  first  proposition. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  you  the  adoption  of  Section  1.  If 
I may  state  now  my  reasons  for  moving 
the  adoption  at  this  time  of  Section  1, 
I would  do  so  in  a very  few  words.  Sec- 
tion 1 provides  the  city  council  shall  have 
all  of  the  powers  not  conferred  upon  it 
by  law,  except  as  modified  by  this 
charter.  The  following  alternative  to 
No.  1 and  Section  1,  the  paragraph  1, 
following — paragraph  2,  rather,  follow- 
ing, proposes  to  add  to  these  powers  now 
vested  in  the  city  council  and  provided 
for  by  this  Section  1,  the  adoption  of 
which  I move.  Section  1 can  be  adopted 
and  disposed  of  and  we  can  add  to  that 
power  either  under  the  provisions  of  al- 
ternative 1,  as  indicated,  or  under  the 
provisions  of  Section  2,  as  indicated,  or 
under  any  other  motion  offered  or  to  be 
offered  by  the  Convention,  as  the  Con- 
vention sees  fit.  But  it  seems  to  me  that 
Section  1 can  now  be  adopted,  and  as  I 
am  advised  it  means  in  its  scope  it  may  be 
adopted  without  any  impairment  of  the 


discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  follow- 
ing provisions.  Therefore,  I move  its 
adoption. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I second  the  mo- 

tion. 

MR.  FISHER:  If  that  is  the  under- 

standing of  the  house? 

MR.  SHEPARD : Certainly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  that  Section  1 — 
that  No.  1,  Section  7,  be  adopted.  The 
matter  is  before  the  house  for  discus- 
sion. 

MR.  FISHER:  Question. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  what 

is  the  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is  the 
adoption  of  the  first  paragraph  of  Sec- 
tion 7 : ‘ ( The  powers  of  the  City  Council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.”  That 
is  an  opportunity  to  substitute  No.  1 if 
the  gentleman  sees  fit.  But  the  Chair- 
man will  assume  when  a member  makes 
a motion  to  adopt  some  particular  section 
if  the  Convention  wants  something  else 
substituted  it  will  do  it.  It  is  the  desire 
to  get  the  matter  before  the  Convention 
in  some  definite  form. 

As  many  as  favor  the  motion  will  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye.  Opposed,  no.  It 
is  so  ordered. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  to  alternative  No.  1? 

MR.  JONES:  I move  you  that  we 

adopt  paragraph  No.  2 in  lieu  of  altern- 
ative to  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  paragraph  No.  2? 

The  Secretary  read  the  paragraph. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I move,  as  an 

amendment,  that  we  shall  adopt  altern- 
atives to  1.  I move  that  as  an  amend- 
ment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I beg  your  par- 

don, sir;  I did  not  get  that. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I say,  I move  that 

we  amend  the  motion  of  Mr.  Jones  to 


December  13 


276 


1906 


read  that  we  shall  take  the  first  one  up, 
alternatives  to  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  move  that 

the  first  vote  be  taken  on  alternative  1? 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  that 

brings  the  first  alternative  to  No.  1 be- 
fore the  house  as  a substitute  motion  for 
Mr.  Jones’  motion. 

MR,  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Senator  Jones. 

MR.  JONES:  Is  the  subject  open  for 

discussion  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  JONES:  I have  had  consider- 

able difficulty  in  making  up  my  mind 
as  to  just  what  the  alternative  to  No.  1 
means,  and  just  what  is  meant  by  para- 
graph 2,  but  as  I construe  them,  they 
mean  two  different  things,  and  alterna- 
tive No.  1 gives  to  the  City  Council  much 
broader  powers  than  is  given  by  alterna- 
tive No.  2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : By  paragraph 

No.  2. 

MR,  JONES:  By  paragraph  No.  2. 

The  first  part  of  alternative  No.  1,  down 
to  the  word  “modify,”  as  I understand, 
is  the  equivalent  of  paragraph  1,  which 
we  have  just  adopted. 

The  first  part  reads : 1 1 The  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  City  Council  all  the  legis- 
lative powers  now  conferred  by  the  Gen- 
eral Cities  and  Villages  Act,  and  addi- 
tions thereto,  except  as  by  other  pro- 
visions of  this  charter  modify.  ’ ’ 

Now,  I understand  that  that  language 
which  I have  just  quoted,  means  exactly 
the  same  as  paragraph  1,  which  we  have 
already  adopted.  Therefore,  if  we  should 
adopt  alternatives  No.  1,  we  would  add 
to  the  present  powers  of  the  City  Council 
in  accordance  with  the  last  portion  of 
alternative  to  No.  1:  “And  in  general, 
but  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter,  all  powers  of  local  legislation 
which  can,  under  the  constitution,  be 
vested  in  the  municipality.  ’ ’ 

Now,  I understand  that  that  would  give 


the  City  Council  full  powers  as  to  legis- 
lation on  all  local  matters  which  might 
be  covered  by  future  general  laws  with 
respect  to  local  matters.  I believe  that 
that  power  is  broader  than  we  should 
ask  of  the  legislature, 

Now,  if  we  examine  paragraph  2,  the 
first  part  of  it,  as  I understand,  is  merely 
a general  statement  of  intention,  but  the 
important  part  is  the  last  part  of  the 
paragraph,  and  that  provides  that  the 
City  of  Chicago,  by  which  I understand 
the  legislative  department  of  the  city  is 
to  have  all  powers  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it,  subject  only 
to  the  constitution  of  the  state,  and  the 
charter,  which  is  the  city  constitution, 
and  to  the  general  laws  of  the  state 
which  are  now  in  existence  or  which  may 
hereafter  be  passed. 

Therefore,  the  difference  between  al- 
ternative 1 and  paragraph  2 is:  that  the 
powers  of  the  city  council  under  para- 
graph 2 would  be  subject  to  the  general 
laws  of  the  state,  while  under  alternative 
1,  they  would  be  subject  to  the  general 
laws  which  may  hereafter  be  passed. 

Now,  I believe  that  the  powers,  as  set 
fo^th  in  paragraph  2,  are  proper  and  ap- 
propriate, and  they  have  been  granted  to 
cities  in  many  city  charters  in  other 
states.  I believe  that  the  other  powers 
as  set  forth  in  alternative  1 are  too 
broad. 

As  I view  it,  there  are  four  classes  of 
laws  that  the  City  Council  should  be  sub- 
ject to:  First,  the  constitution  of  the 

state ; and,  second,  the  constitution  of 
the  city,  or  the  charter;  and,  the  third, 
the  general  law  now  in  existence  except 
as  specially  modified  by  the  charter;  and, 
fourth,  the  general  laws  hereafter  to  be 
passed  by  the  legislature. 

Now,  as  to  that  last  clause,  I under- 
stand that  under  paragraph  2 the  City 
Council  would  have  full  power  to  legis- 
late as  to  all  matters  not  covered  by 
general  laws  where  they  are  local  laws, 
until  the  legislature  sees  fit  to  pass  a 


December  13 


277 


1906 


general  law.  As  soon  as  the  legislature 
passes  a general  law  on  any  of  these 
subjects,  then  the  powers  of  the  City 
Council  would  be  limited  to  that  extent. 

Now,  I believe  that  that  is  proper. 
It  says,  that  those  powers  must  be  such 
as  can  be  constitutionally  delegated,  and 
the  courts  hold  that  the  legislature  can 
only  delegate  local  powers  or  powers  over 
local  matters  to  the  City  Council. 

I believe,  therefore,  that  paragraph  2 
should  be  passed,  because  that  extends 
, to  the  City  Council  beyond  what  it  now 
has  under  the  constitution  and  the  City 
and  Village  Act,  the  power  to  legislate 
concerning  all  matters  of  local  improve- 
ments which  are  not  covered  at  present  by 
any  general  law  of  the  state,  but  it  leaves 
in  the  legislature  power  at  any  time  to 
limit  the  powers  of  the  City  Council  with- 
out respect  to  matters  not  now  covered 
by  general  laws. 

I believe  that  by  giving  to  the  City 
Council  these  powers,  it  enables  the  City 
Council  to  legislate  on  new  matters,  as 
they  arise,  without  going  back  to  the 
legislature  for  a specific  grant  of  power. 
As  I understand  the  law  now,  the  only 
powers  which  the  city  legislature  can 
pass,  are  those  which  are  specifically  del- 
egated to  it  by  the  Cities  and  Villages  Act 
and  the  amendments  to  that,  and  every 
time  the  City  Council  wishes  to  legislate 
upon  some  new  matter  it  must  go  to  the 
legislature  and  get  a specific  law  passed 
empowering  it  to  so  act. 

Now,  under  paragraph  2,  the  City 
Council  is  to  have  absolute  power  to 
legislate  with  respect  to  local  matters 
where  there  is  no  general  law  of  the 
state  which  prevents,  and  where,  of 
course,  the  constitution  and  the  city 
charter  permit;  but  the  legislature  al- 
ways has  it  within  its  power  at  any 
time,  by  passing  a general  law,  to  take 
away  from  the  council  all  or  any  por- 
tion of  those  general  powers  which  they 
have,  been  exercising. 

I believe,  therefore,  that  we  should 


pass  paragraph  No.  2,  and  I believe  that 
we  should  not  pass  the  alternative  to  No. 
1,  because  it  fails  to  give  to  the  legisla- 
ture, or  to  reserve  to  the  legislature,  the 
power  at  any  time  by  passing  general 
laws  to  limit  the  powers  of  the  City 
Council. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  and 

gentlemen:  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are 

called  here  to  prepare  a new  charter  for 
the  City  of  Chicago,  and  the  main  object 
in  it  is  to  give  home  rule  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

Mr.  Jones  very  ably  stated  the  situa- 
tion as  to  alternative  to  No.  1 and  para- 
graph No.  2,  but  if  alternative  No.  1 
is  passed,  the  City  Council  and  the  mayor 
will  both  gain  more  power.  Then  they 
will  not  have  to  go  with  every  little  thing 
to  the  legislature  and  ask  them  to  pass 
some  law  which,  in  the  future,  might 
prove  derogatory  to  the  proper  manage- 
ment of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

I do  not  wish  to  go  deeply  into  the 
matter;  I will  .leave  that  to  the  lawyers 
in  this  Convention,  but  I believe  every 
delegate  came  here  prepared  to  give  more 
rights  to.  the  City  Council  and  the  mayor 
than  they  have  at  the  present  time.  Mr. 
Jones  and  the  other  gentlemen  must  not 
be  afraid  that  we  will  give  them  too 
many  rights.  The  way  the  delegates  are 
on  record  today,  it  seems  that  they  are 
afraid  to  square  the  issues,  and  decide 
the  issues  squarely. 

Now,  we  had  a motion  to  postpone  ac- 
tion on  this  article  until  next  Saturday, 
which  w'as  voted  down.  I believe  that 
the  resolution  which  was  offered  by  Mr. 
Werno  that  these  matters  ought  to  be 
taken  up  at  the  same  time  with  this  arti- 
cle ought  not  to  have  been  voted  down. 
I hope,  gentlemen,  that  you  will  vote  for 
alternative  1 in  preference  to  paragraph 
No.  2,  and  give  a little  more  power  to 
the  City  Council  in  the  future. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  the  difficulty 

that  has  arisen  here  is  due  to  a failure 
of  accurate  statement  in  regard  to  reso- 


December  13 


278 


1905 


lution  No.  2.  As  I understand  resolution 
No.  2,  it  should  have  been  introduced 
somewhat  in  this  way: 

1 1 That  the  charter  shall  provide  or 
shall  contain  the  provision  that  the  speci- 
fication of  particular  powers  shall  never 
be  construed  as  a limitation  upon  the 
general  powers/’  and  so  on. 

In  other  words,  the  author  of  resolu- 
tion No.  2 intended  to  have  incorporated 
in  the  charter  practically  that  substan- 
tial language,  that  exact  language.  So 
that  in  construing  the  charter,  the  ruling 
or  construction  would  be  laid  down,  viz., 
that  the  specifications  of  particular  pow- 
ers shall  not  be  construed  as  a limitation 
upon  the  general  powers  granted  by  this 
charter,  it  being  intended  to  grant  and 
bestow  upon  the  City  of  Chicago  all  the 
powers  of  municipal  government  which 
can  constitutionally  be  delegated  to  it 
by  the  legislature,  and  so  forth,  and  that 
it  is  not  really  an  alternative  to  No.  1, 
and  the  drafter  of  the  resolution  evi- 
dently did  not  so  intend  it.  It  seems 
to  me  we  are  in  confusion  on  account  of 
that. 

As  a matter  of  fact,  the  alternative 
to  No.  1 is  a different  thing  from  reso- 
lution No.  2.  No.  2 is  intended  merely 
to  lay  down  a rule  of  construction.  Now, 
alternative  to  No.  1,  is  as  stated  by  Sena- 
tor Jones  in  the  first  part,  a mere  dupli- 
cation in  different  language  of  resolu- 
tion No.  1,  or  at  least  the  Convention  has 
so  accepted  it;  so  that  the  only  language 
of  alternative  No.  1 that  remains,  is  that 
the  charter  shall  in  general  provide  that 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  charter, 
the  city  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  consti- 
tution, be  vested  in  a municipality.  And, 
I should  take  that  to  be  a mere  instruc- 
tion to  the  drafting  committee  or  person 
that  that  provision  in  the  charter  should 
be  so  drafted  that  the  city  should  be 
given  all  the  power  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the  legisla- 
ture, subject  to  the  provisions  of  the 


constitution,  and  to  those  things  upon 
which  we  specifically  agree  to  be  in- 
serted in  the  charter. 

If  I am  correct  in  that  interpretation 
of  the  alternative  to  No.  1,  it  raises  the 
broad  question  before  this  question,  as 
to  whether  or  not,  after  we  have  decided 
upon  the  particular  things  that  we  agree 
upon,  that  this  charter  shall  then  be  sub- 
ject to  subsequent  amendment  by  the 
City  Council,  in  the  manner  proposed  for 
amendments,  so  that  the  City  Council  and 
the  mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago  may 
act  upon  these  matters  without  going  to 
the  legislature  every  time  we  want  to  do 
anything.  And,  whether  that  is  the 
meaning  or  not,  at  some  time  or  place, — 
and  if  that  is  the  meaning,  this  is  the 
time  and  place  to  vote  upon  that  ques/ 
tion, — there  should  be  such  a vote. 

The  law  committee  was  asked  by  one 
of  the  committees  having  this  matter 
in  charge,  to  give  an  opinion  as  to 
whether  or  not  it  -would  be  possible  to 
put  a charter  into  the  few  lines  which 
should  simply  provide  that  the  City  of 
Chicago  should  have  power  to  pass  any 
legislation  whatever,  that  it  might  see 
fit,  with  regard  to  municipal  matters,  and 
the  law  committee  expressed  the  opinion 
that  such  a charter  so  limited  to  those 
few  lines,  would  not  be  legal,  that  it 
would  not  be  valid  under  the  constitution. 

Now,  however,  alternative  to  No.  1 
in  that  part  of  it  which  yet  remains  for 
discussion,  I should  take  it  would  mean 
simply  that  the  drafting  committee  is  in- 
structed that  they  shall  prepare  as  broad 
a provision  in  that  regard  as  the  consti- 
tution of  this  city  will  permit;  and,  if 
that  is  the  meaning  of  it,  I have  some- 
thing to  say  upon  that  proposition. 

I think  that  Mr.  Yopicka  has  struck 
the  keynote  of  the  question : The  whole 
proposition  is  whether  or  not  we  shall 
adopt  a charter  now  which  shall  set  out 
in  such  detail  as  we  may  wish,  the  form 
of  government  under  which  the  City  of 
Chicago  shall  proceed  to  do  business. 


December  13 


279 


1906 


after  that  charter  is  adopted,  leaving 
it  open  to  the  City  of  Chicago  thereafter 
to  make  such  changes  in  that  charter  as 
it  may  desire,  without  having  to  run  to 
the  state  legislature.  And  if  there  are 
any  particular  things  which  we  wish  to 
eliminate  from  that  power,  that  we  shall 
eliminate  them  in  the  charter. 

For  instance,  if  we  wish  to  insert  a 
provision  in  the  charter  with  regard  to 
the  limiting  of  revenue,  for  the  limit  of 
taxation,  we  shall  do  so.  If  we  wish 
to  insert  any  other  provisions  we  shall 
do  so,  and  we  shall  provide  that  those 
things  shall  not  be  generally  excepted 
by  the  legislature.  The  constitutional 
amendment  itself  provides  that  if  so 
changed,  by  the  legislature,  they  do  not 
become  law  in  the  City  of  Chicago,  un- 
less and  until  the  people  of  this  city 
adopt  them,  so  that  the  safeguard  is 
there. 

Now,  for  my  part,  I would  like  to  see 
this  charter  after  we  have  agreed  on  the 
thing  which  we  think  is  the  wise  instru- 
ment under  which  we  can  begin  to  do 
business  under  a new  charter,  I should 
like  to  see  it  contain  provisions  under 
which,  except  upon  those  particular  sub- 
jects we  wish  to  except,  that  this  city 
can  legislate  for  itself  and  control  its 
own  form  of  government.  I believe  that 
that  is  the  fundamental  proposition  we 
are  brought  here  to  consider,  that  the 
people  of  this  city  expect  us  to  draft 
a charter  that  will  be  as  nearly  broad 
as  that,  as  the  limitations  of  the  law 
will  permit,  and  I think”  that  the  people 
of  the  city  who  wish  that  are  wise.  There 
are  men  who  believe  that  the  collective 
wisdom  of  the  state  as  gathered  in  the 
legislative  assembly  at  Springfield,  is  I 
greater  than  the  collective  wisdom  that 
will  be  gathered  in  the  City  Council, 
supplemented  by  the  people  of  this  city. 

I say,  that  upon  the  matters  which  con- 
cern the  people  of  this  city,  they  are 
wrong.  If  this  state  only  contained  ! 

2,000,000  inhabitants,  and  contained  the  I 


2,000,000  inhabitants  who  lived  in  the 
City  of  Chicago,  the  wisdom  of  those  peo- 
ple would  not  be  any  greater  than  it  is 
today.  If  half  of  them  were  out  through 
the  rural  districts  and  they  were  asked 
to  pass  upon  legislation  relating  solely 
to  the  municipality,  the  collective  wisdom 
of  those  people  as  to  that  particular 
matter  would  be  less  than  it  would  be  if 
it  we^e  vested  entirely  in  the  people 
living  entirely  within  the  city.  Why 
should  gentlemen  believe  that  the  collec- 
tive wisdom  of  2,000,000  people  gathered 
within  the  city  limits  of  Chicago,  and 
voiced  by  their  representatives,  with 
proper  provisions  for  referendum,  is  no 
less  worthy  than  the  wisdom  of  2,000,000 
or  less  gathered  in  the  state  of  Montana, 
or  the  state  of  Rhode  Island,  or  any  other 
state  that  does  not  happen  to  embrace 

2,000,000  people. 

There  seems  to  be  some  sort  of  an  idea 
abroad  that  the  same  number  of  people, 
if  they  are  scattered  over  a territory  the 
size  of  Rhode  Island  or  Connecticut,  can 
legislate  with  regard  to  all  matters 
municipal  and  rural  with  entire  proprie- 
ty; but  that  if  they  happen  to  be  gath- 
ered in  any  city  as  they  are  in  Chicago, 
that  those  people  must  somehow  or  an- 
other be  safeguarded  by  an  assemblage 
composed  partly  of  their  representatives 
of  the  people,  wiio  live  hundreds  of  miles 
away  from  the  scene  of  action,  and  w’ho 
have  had  no  experience  with  the  problems 
that  confront  us,  and  have  r.o  lcnowiedgc 
of  them. 

Now,  for  my  part,  I do  not  believe 
in  that  for  a moment.  There  may  be 
some  things,  as,  for  instance,  with  re- 
gard to  the  taxation  or  revenue,  with  re- 
gard to  the  limit  of  municipal  indebted- 
ness where  the  people  in  this  state  and 
the  people  in  this  city  are  not  now  will- 
ing to  remove  those  constitutional  or 
statutory  safeguards  which  they  believe 
have  preserved  their  interests  in  the  past, 
and  preserve  them  now.  And  I believe 
upon  that  point  that  we  are  following 


December  13 


280 


1906 


the  dictates  of  wisdom  if  we  put  reason- 
able limitations  upon  them  and  seek  to 
avoid  a disputed  question  of  that  particu- 
lar character  upon  which  we  know  there 
would  be  immediate  issue  rise.  And,  I 
believe  that  if  we  preserved  those  limi- 
tations, if  we  except  those  things,  that 
all  other  matters  relating  to  municipal 
home  rule  should  be  vested  in  the  people, 
and  for  them  and  their  legally  elected 
representatives.  I believe  we  will  get 
wiser  action,  saner  action  in  that  way, 
and  I believe  that  we  will  get  what,  in 
the  long  run  is  the  more  conservative 
action,  because  wise  progressiveness  is 
always  in  the  long  run  more  conservative 
than  is  non-progressiveness. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  time  has 

expired,  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Section  1 has  been 

adopted  by  this  Convention,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, which  gives  to  the  City  of  Chicago 
all  the  rights  that  it  now  has  under  the 
law.  Paragraph  2,  moved  by  Senator 
Jones,  extends  that  right  with  some  spe- 
cified limitations.  The  alternative  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Vopicka  raises  the  bald 
proposition  of  no  limitation,  so  far  as 
legislative  authority  of  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  State  of  Illinois  is  con- 
cerned. 

You  might  as  well  strip  this  question 
now  of  all  verbiage  and  dressing  and 
misleading  phrases  and  get  down  to  the 
question  which  this  raises,  which  this 
proposition  raises  before  this  Convention, 
namely,  shall  the  legislature  of  this  state 
abrogate,  so  far  as  the  City  of  Chicago 
is  concerned,  in  favor  of  the  City  Council 
of  this  city,  shall  there  be  no  limita- 
tion upon  this  power  whatsoever?  That 
is  the  question  that  is  now  before  this 
Convention.  I,  for  one,  believe  in  a fair 
and  reasonable  limitation,  and  for  that 
reason  I oppose  the  motion  to  adopt  al- 
ternative 1.  This  reverses  the  adoption 
of  this  resolution,  reverses  our  scheme  of 
government,  the  scheme  of  government 
that  has  prevailed  throughout  the  history 


I of  this  country,  throughout  the  history 
of  every  one  of  its  states,  and  of  its 
municipalities  the  legislature  creates  the 
I municipality;  it  created  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago and  delegated  to  it  certain  powers. 
From  time  to  time  it  has  extended  these 
powers,  has  added  to  those  powers;  we 
now  seek  to  reverse  that  action  and  base 
in  the  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago all  of  the  power  vested  in  the  legis- 
lature of  the  state,  through  the  sovereign 
power  of  the  state  itself. 

MR.  FISHER  : Except  as  provided  in 

the  charter. 

MR*.  SHEPARD:  We  are  making  the 

charter  now. 

MR.  FISHER : I say,  excepting  as  to 

be  hereinafter  provided  in  the  charter. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Not  excepting  it, 

no. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  the  language. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Excepting  only  the 

limitations  reserved  upon  the  legislature 
itself  by  the  constitution  of  the  State  of 
of  Illinois. 

MR.  FISHER:  Oh,  no,  pardon  me, 

Mr.  Shepard,  that  is  hardly  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes,  but  where 

does  it  lead  to,  except  as  reserved  in  the 
charter. 

MR.  FISHER : Certainly. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Which  is  the  char- 

ter of  the  City  of  Chicago.  So  what 
is  to  be  in  the  charter  need  not  be 
put  in  this  general  delegation  of  power. 

MR.  FISHER:  May  I give  you  an 

illustration?  You  asked  the  question 
that  this  lead  to?  Just  as  you  prefer, 
I don ’t  care  to  answer  the  question 
unless  it  was  intended  to  be  answered. 
If  it  was  only  an  oratorical  question, 
I don’t  want  to  interrupt  you. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed,  Mr. 

Shepard. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Fisher’s  sug- 

gestion that  they  reserve  the  question 
of  taxation 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

i suggest  that  if  any  one  wishes  to  in- 


December  13 


281 


1906 


terrupt  the  speaker  that  he  please  call 
the  Chair’s  attention  to  it,  the  Chair’s 
attention  should  be  claimed  first,  so  that 
the  reporter  may  get  the  record  com- 
plete and  correct. 

ME.  SHEPARD : He  suggests  that 

the  power  of  taxation,  if  they  adopt  this, 
is  still  reserved  in  the  legislature.  I 
don’t  think  that  is  true;  that  omnibus 
resolution  would  also  go  to  the  City 
Council  except  only  as  the  constitution 
of  the  state  has  placed  limitations  upon 
the  General  Assembly  of  the  S.tate. 

We  are  here  trying  to  do  some  good,  to 
formulate  some  legislation  that  should 
be  for  the  permanent  benefit  of  the  City 
of  Chicago.  I believe  that  if  this  un- 
limited power  contemplated  by  this  reso- 
lution is  vested  in  the  City  of  Chicago  we 
will  do  more  harm,  if  that  is  enacted  into 
a law,  than  we  can  by  any  other  provi- 
sion that  we  can  recommend  to  the  legis- 
lature which  it  might  adopt.  Without 
limitation  we  would  have  that  irregulari- 
ty of  legislation  that  always  has  pre- 
vailed in  municipal  business,  and  I say 
that  without  any  reflection  at  all  upon 
the  municipal  bodies  existing  in  this 
state,  especially  without  any  reflection 
upon  the  City  Council.  But  the  conserva- 
tive, well  thought  out  legislation  that 
makes  for  the  permanent  good  of  a 
community  is  better  brought  out  under 
the  safe  and  fair  limitations  and  regu- 
lations than  that  legislation  that  is 
brought  about  generally  upon  the  mo- 
ment under  unlimited  authority.  Un- 
der the  adoption  of  our  first  section  and 
writh  such  additions  as  this  Convention 
may  see  fit  to  recommend  to  the  legis- 
lature we  can  give  to  the  City  Council 
everything  that  we  can  anticipate  that 
the  City  Council  requires  properly  to 
legislate  for  the  City  of  Chicago ; and 
we  can  close  the  door  to  the  demand  of 
uncertainty  and  place  upon  the  City 
Council  those  limitations  which  require 
the  test  of  thought  and  of  time  before 
propositions  are  enacted  into  a law. 


Gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me  that  we 
would  proceed  unwisely  for  the  bene- 
fit of  this  great  city  if  we  at  this  time, 
or  at  any  time,  place  within  the  City 
Council  the  unlimited,  unrestricted  legis- 
lative power  contemplated  by  Mr.  Yopic- 
ka ’s  motion. 

ME.  McGOORTY:  I think  if  the 

members  of  this  Convention  keep  clearly 
in  mind  -what  is  meant  by  the  words 
1 1 local  legislation  ’ ’ that  we  will  not 
have  much  difficulty  in  agreeing  upon 
this  proposition  of  giving  to  Chicago 
a proper  grant  of  general  powers,  which 
is  commonly  designated  as  home  rule. 

I don’t  think  any  one  will  contend  that 
the  legislature  even  has  the  right  upon 
the  limitations  imposed  upon  it  by  the 
constitution,  to  give  any  municipality  in 
this  state,  or  to  give  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago under  the  constitutional  amend- 
ment, the  right  to  legislate  upon  any 
matter  that  is  of  general  concern  to  the 
entire  state.  For  instance,  what  is 
known  broadly  ns  the  police  power,  any 
matter  relating  to  the  criminal  jurispru- 
dence of  this  state,  and  broadly  speaking, 
any  matter  affecting  the  policy  of  edu- 
cation in  the  state,  or  any  matter  af- 
fecting the  revenue,  or  any  other  subject 
in  which  the  state  as  a whole  had  an 
interest  of  general  concern ; but  this  is  ' 
dealing  with  the  sphere  of  administra- 
tive activity,  ^natters  of  local  concern, 
which  we  are  to  consider.  That  is  why 

1 agree  with  Mr.  Fisher  that  paragraphs 

2 and  3 — paragraph  3,  which  has  not 
been  read  yet,  are  merely  explanatory 
of  alternative  1.  Now,  we  know  that  in 
the  cities  of  the  old  world,  continental 
cities  where  they  do  not  oppose  home 
rule  so  far  as  the  city  is  concerned,  that 
such  cities  are  given  a free  hand  in  local 
affairs,  and  here  in  Chicago  the  city 
cannot  engage  in  any  municipal  activity 
except  as  now  expressly  delegated  to 
it  by  statute,  without  going  to  Spring- 
field;  and  the  purpose  of  this,  as  I take 
it,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  mem- 


December  13 


282 


1906 


bers  of  this  Convention,  is  to  place  the 
City  of  Chicago  in  a position  where  it 
will  have  a freer  hand  in  dealing  with 
matters  which  are  purely  local. 

But  to  satisfy  the  doubts  and  fears  of 
those  gentlemen  who  placed  the  broad 
interpretation  upon  this  alternative  to  1 
which  Mr.  Shepard  has,  Section  2 was 
added,  as  I remember  it,  and  that  is  that 
no  law  shall  be  passed  by  the  City  Coun- 
cil of  Chicago  and  by  the  mayor  which 
shall  conflict  with  any  general  law  of  the 
state  or  with  the  constitution,  or  the 
organic  law  of  Illinois. 

Now,  if  we  concede  that  the  City  of 
Chicago  should  have  the  right  in  local 
affairs,  and  safeguard  it — place  limita- 
tions upon  the  powers  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil, as  it  is  done  in  the  charter  of  Los 
Angeles  and  other  cities  that  enjoy  home 
rule  charters,  that  no  ordinance  shall 
become  a law  unless  the  matter — unless 
it  is  a matter  of  emergency  concerning 
the  public  health  and  public  safety,  that 
no  ordinance  providing  for  the  increase 
of  the  bonded  indebtedness,  or  of  the  ex- 
tension of  franchises  shall  be  adopted 
without  referendum,  and  that  all  laws 
except  emergency  matters  shall  not  be- 
come laws  until  at  least  thirty  days,  when 
any  number  of  citizens — five  or  ten  per 
cent — or  whatever  the  number  may  be, 
may  petition  and  ask  that  such  ordinance 
so  submitted  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
voters  at  the  general  election  for  its 
adoption  or  rejection  by  the  people — 
with  such  safeguards,  I have  no  doubt 
that  the  committee  which  drafted  this 
had  such  a provision  in  mind,  that  the 
City  Council  cannot  on  any  Monday  night 
pass  an  ordinance  which  becomes  a part 
of  the  organic  law,  or,  as  Mr.  Shepard 
says,  a part  of  the  constitution  of  this 
state;  but  when  those  matters  do  come 
up  before  the  council  meetings,  they 
would  only  be  current  ordinances,  or 
concerning  emergency  matters,  and  that 
by  an  overwhelming  vote,  as  paragraph 
3 provides,  a four-fifths  vote,  that  only 


such  ordinances  may  be  included  with- 
out a line  of  objection,  so  as  to  be  able 
by  sufficient  time,  to  give  the  public 
an  opportunity  to  examine  and  discuss 
them;  and  I believe  that  the  spirit  or 
intention  of  this  Convention  is  to  give 
Chicago  broader  powers;  and  I am  in 
favor  of  placing  a very  wise  limitation 
that  may  be  placed,  so  that  Chicago  shall 
not  exceed  those  powers ; but  I think 
that  Section  2,  and  Section  3,  which  fol- 
lows, and  that  an  amendment  which 
should  be  added,  which  will  provide  as 
I have  indicated,  that  no  ordinance  af- 
fecting the  future  of  the  city  like  the 
matter  relating  to  the  bonded  indebted- 
ness, or  the  granting  of  a franchise, 
should  be  granted  without  a referendum 
vote,  and  giving  the  right  to  the  people 
to  say  whether  or  not  any  ordinance 
should  be  submitted  to  referendum  or 
not ; that  with  those  additional  safe- 
guards we  can  well  embark  upon  the 
policy  which  has  been  so  successfully 
tried  by  quite  a number  of  American 
cities,  not  any  one  of  which  has  been 
under  the  necessity  of  changing  the  law, 
so  far  as  I know,  or  in  voting  against 
it,  so  far  as  I know,  commencing  with 
Kansas  City,  and  the  latest  cities  that 
have  adopted  it.  There  seems  to  be 
uniform  opinion  upon  reform  in  mu- 
nicipal problems  in  this  country,  by  do- 
ing away  with  the  thought  of  national 
politics,  that  politics  should  take  con- 
trol in  local  affairs,  and  that  municipali- 
ties should  be  allowed  to  work  out  their 
own  problems. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  I wish  to  ask 

the  gentleman  a question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Pendarvis 

claims  attention. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  I would  like  to 

ask  the  gentleman  if  he  believes  that 
the  policy  indicated  in  the  latter  part 
of  alternative  1 should  be  the  general 
state  policy  with  reference  to  municipal 
affairs? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  speak 


December  13 


I 


283 


1906 


up,  please?  I don't  believe  the  reporter 
could  get  your  question. 

ME.  McGOOETY : The  gentleman 

asks,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  last  Section 
1 should  be  the  general  state  policy 
with  reference  to  municipal  affairs.  Is 
that  the  question? 

ME.  PENDAEVIS:  Yes. 

ME.  McGOOETY:  It  can  be  disposed 
of  by  saying  that  it  cannot  be  done  un- 
der the  present  constitution;  that  such 
power  can  only  be  given  the  City  of 
Chicago  by  virtue  of  the  recent  consti- 
tutional amendment. 

ME.  PENDAEVIS:  I submit  that 

that  is  a technical  answer  to  my 
question.  My  question  is  whether  any 
municipality  in  the  state  should  have 
the  same  powers,  and  couldn't  it  be 
done  constitutionally.  If  so,  it  should 
be  done  in  the  City  of  Chicago. 

A MEMBEE:  That  would  be  impos- 

sible. 

ME.  McGOOETY:  I desire  to  say 

that  I have  always  stood  up  for  the 
policy  of  home  rule  in  municipalities. 
I believe  the  smallest  hamlet  in  Illi- 
nois should  not  be  required  to  go  to 
Springfield  for  a matter  which  is  pure- 
ly local;  for  a local  concern,  any  more 
than  the  city  of  two  million  people. 
That  answers  the  question. 

ME.  JONES:  I have  sent  up  a sub- 
stitute to  the  desk  which  I would  like 
to  have  read  as  a substtute  to  that 
which  is  before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  substitute. 

THE  SECEETAEY : By  Mr.  Jones: 

The  City  Council  shall  have  all  pow- 
ers of  local  legislation  which  can,  un- 
der the  constitution,  be  vested  in  a 
municipality;  subject  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  state,  the  provisions  of  the 
charter,  and  the  general  laws  of  the 
state. 

ME.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I offer 

that  substitute  for  the  reason  that 
there  seems  to  me  to  be  some  misun- 
derstanding here  as  to  the  meaning  of 


this  section  from  both  Mr.  Fisher  and 
Mr.  McGoorty.  There  is  some  misun- 
derstanding. Their  understanding  of 
paragraph  2 is  entirely  different  from 
mine.  Now,  the  substitute  that  I have 
presented  is  in  the  words  of  the  last 
part  of  alternative  1 now  before  the 
house  granting  that  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  are  under  the  con- 
stitutional law  be  vested  in  the  mu- 
nicipality, but  subject  to  the  consti- 
tution of  the  state  and  the  provisions 
of  this  charter,  and  of  the  general 
laws.  That  is  the  subject  of  the  pro- 
vision set  forth  in  paragraph  2. 

ME.  DEVEE:  I would  like  to  ask 

a question. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Eaise  your  voice. 

ME.  DEVEE:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

question.  I would  like  to  ask  what  he 
thinks  “subject  to  the  general  laws 
of  the  state"  to  mean  in  his  amend- 
ment. 

ME.  JONES:  I would  understand  it  to 
mean  that  any  powers  exercised  by  the 
City  Council  must  be  in  conformity 
with  the  requirements  of  the  state  con- 
stitution: It  must  not  be  in  conflict 

with  any  special  provision  of  the  legis- 
lature provided  anywhere  in  the  char- 
ter; it  must  not  conflict  with  any  now 
existing  general  law,  except  as  modi- 
fied by  some  special  provision  of  the 
charter;  and  it  must  not  conflict  with 
any  future  general  law  which  may 
hereafter  be  passed  by  the  legislature, 
within  the  powers  of  the  legislature. 

ME.  DEVEE:  May  I follow  that  up 

by  another  question?  Supposing,  for 
instance,  that  the  charter  has  in  it  a 
provision — powers  to  legislate  on  the 
subject  of  a general  law  which  it  now 
has  power  to  legislate  on? 

ME.  JONES:  T should  say  if  there 

is  a general  law  of  the  state  which  has 
application  throughout  the  state  and 
the  charter  makes  exception  with  re- 
spect to  the  general  law  that  the  gen- 
eral law  would  be  abrogated  as  far  as 
that  is  concerned.  But  there  are  a lot 


December  13 


284 


1906 


of  matters  this  charter  will  provide  for 
anyway,  and  under  this  resolution  I 
have  presented  all  those  matters  that 
are  local  matters  are  in  the  power  of 
the  City  Council  unless  the  legislature 
chooses  to  pass  some  general  law  lim- 
iting that  power. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Before  these 

amendments  are  voted  on  I would  like 
to  ask  this  question  of  some  of  the 
gentlemen  who  have  spoken  on  this 
subject:  What  are  the  objections  to 

enumerating  the  specific  .powers  that 
the  City  Council  desire  in  this  charter, 
be  they  one,  one  hundred,  or  two  hun- 
dred? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  spoken  once,  but  I wish  to  say 
that  I do  not  believe  it  is  in  the  power 
of  any  finite  mind  to  anticipate  any 
number  of  years  in  advance  the  wants 
of  a great  and  growing  city,  with  all 
the  changes  that  modern  progress  im- 
plies. And  that  is  why  the  express  ob- 
ligation of  powers  by  itseif  with  any 
other  specific  grounds  of  express  pow- 
ers is  objectionable.  It  is  a matter  of 
policy. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I move  as  an  amendment  to  the  pend- 
ing question  that  the  words,  “Any 
general  law  of  the  state,”  be  stricken 
out.  It  tends  to  confuse  you. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Louder,  Mr. 

0 ’Donnell. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Those  words 

tend  to  a great  deal  of  confusion.  As 

1 understand  it,  we  are  liberated  here 
by  our  constitutional  Convention  from 
the  general  laws  of  the  state  to  a 
great  extent,  and  Chicago  should  be 
locally  self  governed,  and  unhampered 
by  any  general  law.  Those  words  are 
confusing.  We  are  limited,  as  we 
should  be  limited,  by  the  constitution. 
I thiqk  if  those  words  are  eliminated, 
it  will  clear  the  atmosphere,  and  the 
drafters  of  this  charter — when  they  get 
around  to  draft  it,— will  draft  such  a 
charter  as  in  the  judgment  of  this  Con- 


vention will  determine  what  the  people 
of  Chicago  will  adopt,  and  that  we 
can  unite  on  here,  and  go  down  to  the 
legislature  at  Springfield  as  one  man  to 
request  and  demand  they  give  us  that 
charter.  Now,  if  we  eliminate  this  mat- 
ter of  the  general  laws  it  will  be  bet- 
ter. If  we  incumber  this  matter  with 
the  general  laws,  I do  not  know  how 
the  drafters  of  the  charter  will  ever 
begin  or  end  their  work. 

MR,  SHANAHAN:  Do  I understand 
it  is  the  desire  that  no  general  law 
heretofore  passed  by  the  state  legisla- 
ture shall  apply  to  Chicago? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I do  not  mean 

that;  I mean  to  say  this:  What  I want 

is  that  we  can  go  on  and  legislate  here 
by  preparing  a charter  with  the  full 
powers  granted  to  us  by  this  late  spec- 
ial amendment,  unhampered  by  any- 
thing save  the  constitution  of  the  state. 
And  when  we  fit  our  conditions  here, 
as  we  will,  in  the  charter  by  inserting 
such  laws  and  such  powers  here  as  will 
commend  itself  to  the  people  of  Chica- 
go and  to  the  legislature. 

MR,  SNOW:  I desire  to  say  just  a 

word  in  opposition  to  the  amendment — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A little  louder, 

Alderman. 

MR.  SNOW:  I desire  to  say  just  a 

word  in  opposition  to  the  amendment 
offered  by  Mr.  O’Donnell.  Personally 
I am  firmly  convinced  that  this  Con- 
vention now  has  reached  the  whole  crux 
of  the  matter  so  far  as  charter  legis- 
lation is  concerned. 

MR,  ROBINS:  May  we  have  the 

amendment  read  offered  by  Mr.  O’Don- 
nell. Some  of  us  didn’t  get  that  amend- 
ment. So  we  will  understand  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  of 

Mr.  O’Donnell  is  to  strike  out  the 
words:  “And  the  general  laws  of  the 
state,”  as  I understand  it. 

MR.  FISHER:  May  we  have  the 

original  read  so  we  can  all  hear  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 


December  13 


285 


1906 


MR.  FISHER:  We  would  like  to 

have  the  original  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  original. 

The  Secretary  read  as  hereinbefore. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell 

moves  to  strike  out  the  words:  “And 
the  general  laws  of  the  state,”  Sena- 
tor-Alderman Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  Now,  Mr.  Chairman, 

this  Convention  is  meeting  now  because 
of  the  fact  that  in  the  experience  of 
Chicago  we  have  learned  that  a char- 
ter drawn  with  specific  powers,  enum- 
erative  powers,  is  inadequate  to  care 
for  the  wants  and  interests  of  a rapid 
growing  community;  because  we  have 
learned  that  it  is  beyond  the  power 
of  any  men  to  foresee  in  the  future 
far  enough  to  grant  in  specific  grants 
all  the  powers  to  cover  questions  which 
may  arise  after  the  passage  of  this 
specific  charter.  For  that  reason  I am 
very  confirmed  in  the  opinion  that  it 
is  essential  that  this  Convention  shall 
adopt  a charter,  which,  in  addition  to 
the  enumerative  powers  which  the  city 
has,  shall  give  us  the  widest  possible 
latitude  of  legislation  upon  those  ques- 
tions which  are  purely  local  to  Chicago. 
But,  I am  equally  of  the  opinion  that 
we  cannot  adopt  such  a charter — 
should  not  adopt  such  a charter  as  will 
divorce  the  City  of  Chicago  from  the 
State  of  Illinois.  The  proposition  which 
Mr.  O’Donnell  offers  as  an  amendment 
to  Senator  Jones’  motion  in  effect  will 
be  to  create  another  state  inside  of  the 
State  of  Illinois.  Now,  I believe  that 
for  those  things  which  are  strictly  lo- 
cal, for  the  handling  of  questions  which 
belong  to  Chicago  alone,  that  we  should 
have  ample  powers;  but  that  series  of 
questions  which  are  the  same  in  Cairo 
as  they  are  in  Chicago,  the  power  of 
legislation  should  remain  in  the  State 
of  Illinois. 

I do  not  know  that  I make  myself 
entirely  clear  on  that  point,  but  what 
I am  trying  to  drive  at  is:  That  we 


should  have  a free  hand  in  the  conduct 
of  those  things  which  are  affecting  the 
people  of  Chicago  alone,  and  in  which 
the  balance  of  the  people  of  the  State., 
of  Illinois  are  not  interested;  but  that 
we  should  not  be  divorced  from  the 
state  upon  any  question  which  has  a 
general  application  to  us,  because  we 
are  citizens  of  the  commonwealth  of 
Illinois. 

MR.  DEVER:  The  criminal  law. 

MR,  SNOW:  The  criminal  law  for 

one;  if  possible,  the  banking  laws,  pos- 
sibly, and  as  we  may  limit  them  here 
in  Chicago  the  question  of  public  edu- 
cation; the  question  of  Sunday  laws,  if 
you  please.  The  question  of  prohi- 
bition as  it  has  been  granted  to  the 
people  of  Chicago  by  previous  legisla- 
tion. Any  of  those  questions  which  ap- 
ply to  all  of  the  people  because  we  be- 
long to  the  commonwealth  of  Illinois, 
and  which  do  not  particularly  concern 
us  because  we  are  citizens  of  Chicago. 
It  seems  to  me  that  that  distinction 
can  be  drawn,  and  certainly  that  it 
should  be  drawn. 

Aside  from  that,  I am  in  complete 
sympathy  personally  with  what  has 
been  said  by  Mr.  McGoorty,  because  I 
believe  that  this  Convention  exists  in 
order  that  the  strings  which  bind  Chi- 
cago in  the  management  of  its  own  af- 
fairs in  Springfield  should  be  loosened. 
I believe  that  the  people  of  Chicago 
are  competent  to  manage  their  own  af^ 
fairs.  I believe  they  should  manage 
their  local  affairs  by  a representative 
assembly  in  which  they  choose  every 
member,  instead  of  a representative 
assembly  in  which  they  choose  one- 
third  of  the  membership.  I can  see  no 
reason  why  the  people  of  this  city  are 
not  in  every  way  competent  to  care  for 
j those  affairs  which  affect  them  alone 
j without  the  assistance  of  members  of 
the  legislature  elected  from  communi- 
ties that  have  no  knowledge  of  the  con- 
1 ditions  that  prevail  here. 

Therefore,  with  the  exception  of  the 


December  13 


286 


1906 


amendment  which  has  been  offered  by- 
Mr.  O ’Donnell,  personally  I am  in 
complete  sympathy  with  the  desire  and 
the  demand  that  Chicago  shall  be  given 
home  rule  upon  all  matters  affecting 
her  alone. 

MR.  DEYER:  I would  like  to  dis- 

cuss this  question;  it  is  rather  a big 
question;  I would  rather  wait  and  give 
it  some  consideration,  however.  It 
seems  to  me  we  are  agreed  upon  gen- 
eral principles,  we  are  all  agreed  that 
Chicago  should  have  more  or  less  broad 
home  rule  government.  The  trouble 
with  us  occurs  on  the  application  of 
those  principles,  to  the  particular  sit- 
uation that  we  have  here.  Now,  what 
are  the  things  that  ought  to  be  re- 
served to  the  legislature  of  the  state? 
Alderman  Snow  says  the  banking  laws, 
the  insurance  laws,  the  criminal  laws, 
and  possibly  the  Sunday  closing  law, 
and  many  other  things  he  could  men- 
tion. But  in  the  discussion  of  this  ap- 
plication of  the  home  rule  principle  we 
are  apt  to  split,  if  we  split  at  all,  it 
seems  to  me  on  its  application.  It 
seems  to  me  that  that  is  the  question 
we  should  discuss  here  now.  That  is 
why  I thought  it  was  proper  for  me  to 
interrupt  Alderman  Snow.  It  is  an  ex- 
tremely difficult  question  to  apply  what 
has  been  claimed  for  the  home  rule 
principle.  We  understand  clearly,  we 
all  of  us  do,  that  we  are  in  favor  of  the 
home  rule  principle,  but  it  is  in  its 
application  to  the  affairs  of  the  people 
of  Chicago  that  we  have  difficulty  in 
agreeing  in  this  convention.  Now, 
spitting  on  the  sidewalk  is  an  unsani- 
tary act.  It  causes  as  much  damage  in 
Cairo  as  in  Chicago,  but  the  criminal 
law  does  not  prohibit  it;  but  the  city 
should  prohibit  it,  and  it  should  be 
made  a state  measure  as  much  as  a city 
measure.  So  with  the  selling  of  liquor 
on  Sunday,  and  after  hours.  It  is  as 
much  an  evil  to  do  that — if  it  is  an 
evil  at  all — in  Cairo  as  in  Chicago.  It 
is  in  the  application  of  this  thing  that 


we  shall,  have  trouble.  I hope  the  Con- 
vention instead  of  spending  all  of  the 
time  discussing  the  questions  which 
have  been  already  well  discussed  should 
apply  itself  to  this  proposition.  We 
do  not  doubt  for  a moment  that  we 
want  home  rule,  but  what  do  you  mean 
by  it;  how  shall  we  apply  it;  in  what 
class  of  cases  are  we  to  apply  it  to 
Chicago?  # 

MR.  THOMPSON:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  just  like  to  ask  one  question  of 
Alderman  Snow.  Now,  as  I understand 
it,  it  was  the  general  law  under  which 
a fraternal  society  was  a short  time 
ago  indicted  because  it  sold  beer  in 
their  club  rooms  on  a Sunday.  I would 
like  to  ask  the  alderman  if  this  amend- 
ment of  the  senator’s  was  carried 
would  that  still  mean  that  Chicago 
could  not  allow  a fraternal  organiza- 
tion to  sell  beer  or  liquor  in  its  club 
rooms  on  a Sunday. 

MR.  SNOW:  I assume  that  it  would, 
because  it  would  be  a violation  of  the 
criminal  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois. 

MR,  JONES:  May  I answer  Mr. 

Thompson’s  question  in  a little  differ- 
ent way?  If  we  provide  in  this  char- 
ter a special  provision  that  the  City 
Council  shall  have  power  over  Sunday 
closing,  and  the  legislature  consents  to 
that,  then  the  passage  of  the  resolu- 
tion which  I have  put  before  the  house 
would  not  interfere  with  the  City  Coun- 
cil handling  saloon  matters;  and,  as  I 
understand  it,  this  is  a matter  where 
the  City  Council  should  have  power 
over  licensing,  and  so  forth.  It  re- 
serves for  some  future  time — if  we  pass 
this  resolution  just  as  I have  stated, 
it  would  not  prevent  us  from  voting  in 
favor  of  putting  a clause  in  the  char- 
ter to  that  effect,  if  the  majority  of 
this  Convention  decide  that;  because  it 
says:  “Subject  to  the  special  pro- 

visions of  this  charter,  and  subject  to 
the  general  laws.”  Now,  if  a special 
provision  of  this  charter  altering  the 
general  laws — that  is,  if  a special  pro- 


December  13 


287 


1906 


vision  alters  this  general  law  as  to  the 
closing  of  saloons,  then  that  becomes  a 
provision  in  the  charter,  and  the  legis- 
lature cannot,  by  a general  law,  alter 
that  provision  in  the  charter,  as  I un- 
derstand it,  without  a referendum  to 
the  people,  and  a vote  of  the  people. 
As  I look  at  it  we  can  pass  this  resolu- 
tion to-night,  to-morrow  night.  Some 
other  time  we  can  pass  upon  this  ques- 
tion of  the  prohibition  laws  and  of  the 
saloon  licenses. 

ME.  MACMILLIAN:  May  I ask  a 

question? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Certainly. 

ME.  MACMILLAN:  In  the  last  line 

of  Section  1,  doesn't  that  practically 
cover  the  amendment,  namely:  “ Ex- 

cept as  modified  by  this  charter"? 

ME.  JONES:  I should  say  one  mod- 

ification of  this  charter  would  be  pro- 
duced by  my  amendment.  There  may 
be  further  modifications,  but  this  is  one, 
and  a very  essential  one. 

ME.  O'DONNELL:  My  intention  in 

offering  the  amendment  was  to  provide 
that  the  powers  of  the  City  Council 
should  be  enumerated  in  the  charter 
without  drafting  it  and  having  it  in 
mind  unless  it  is  forbidden  by  the  gen- 
eral law  of  the  state. 

ME.  LINEHAN:  Or  specific  powers. 

That  is  what  we  are  asking,  that  the 
powers  shall  be  specific. 

ME.  O’DONNELL:  That  is  my  in- 

tention. Enumerate  your  powers  in 
your  charter. 

ME.  JONES:  May  I reply  to  Mr. 

O'Donnell? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  1 believe  you 
spoke  on  the  subject  once.  Mr.  Mer- 
riam,  did  you  claim  the  Chairman's 
attention? 

ME.  MEEETAM:  I did,  sometime 

ago.  The  home  rule  proposition,  while 
it  does,  of  course,  present  some  com- 
plicated phases — probably  no  more  com- 
plicated than  the  existing  situation,  or 
than  the  situation  in  any  state  gov- 
erned as  we  are  by  a general  munici- 


pal corporation 's  act — the  home  rule 
proposition  is  essentially  so  clear  and 
simple  as  to  require  no  further  eluci- 
dation than  has  already  been  given  to 
it.  It  means,  very  plainly  and  simply, 
the  power  of  a locality  to  decide  and 
to  control  and  to  regulate  those  par- 
ticular matters  which  are  exclusively 
and  particularly  local  in  their  power, 
and  on  which  the  inhabitants  of  the 
particular  locality  are  likely,  when  it 
is  proposed,  to  be  informed  on,  and 
likely  to  act  upon  more  intelligently 
than  upon  those  which  do  not  come 
under  those  conditions,  and  from  those 
who  are  not  familiar  with  the  local 
environments  and  conditions. 

Some  gentlemen  seem  to  have  a mis- 
apprehension as  to  what  is  meant  by 
municipal  home  rule.  I have  heard 
gentlemen  state  that  by  municipal  home 
rule  they  understood — those  were  all 
opponents,  however — they  understood 
the  secession  of  the  city  from  the 
state;  absolutely  giving  over  to  the 
City  of  Chicago  powers  from  all  the 
rest  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  Nothing 
could  be  more  mistaken  or  false  than 
the  presumption  that  this  was  the  in- 
tention of  any  advocate  of  what  is 
commonly  called  municipal  home  rule. 
Under  any  system  of  home  rule — and 
there  are  at  least  six  states  and  at  least 
one  hundred  and  three  cities  where 
municipal  home  rule  is  permitted — un- 
der any  such  system  of  municipal  home 
rule  there  are  always  four  distinct 
classes  of  limitations  binding  the  pow- 
ers of  the  city. 

In  the  first  place,  those  limitations  in 
the  body  of  the  charter  itself,  as,  for 
example,  the  limitation  upon  the  tax 
rate,  the  limitation  upon  the  question 
that  large  franchises  should  be  granted, 
or  any  other  such  limitations  specifi- 
cally defined,  specifically  definite  in 
their  character  as  may  be  presented  in 
the  charter  itself. 

The  second  is,  there  are  always,  and 
there  always  must  be  limitations  that. 


December  13 


288 


1906 


are  found  in  the  general  laws  of  the 
state.  If  you  read  in  the  charter  di- 
gest of  the  home  rule  charters  of  six 
states,  you  will  find  in  each  and  every 
case,  without  exception,  it  is  provided 
the  charter  shall  be  subject  to  the  gen- 
eral laws  of  the  state,  in  fact,  nothing 
else  would  be  possible,  nothing  else 
would  be  constitutional.  The  state 
cannot  divest  itself  of  its  police  power; 
the  state  .cannot  divest  itself  of  its 
power  to  pass  criminal  statutes,  and  no 
matter,,  what  the  state  of  the  charter, 
or  what  the  state  of  the  legislature  may 
be,  what  the  state  legislature  may  say 
in  the  grant  of  power  that  states  the 
authority,  unless  some  exceptional 
change  be  made,  they  would  inevitably 
have  authority  to  pass  laws  of  the 
general  character,  of  uniform  applica- 
tion to  all  inhabitants  of  the  state 
alike.  That  is  necessary  in  every  city 
where  municipal  home  rule  obtains. 

Now,  in  the  next  place,  you  have  in 
every  city  wherein  municipal  home  rule 
is  found,  certain  constitutional  re- 
strictions and  limitations.  These  are 
necessary  and  fundamental;  they  are 
provided  for  in  the  constitutions  of  the 
state  to  protect  life  and  liberty  and 
the  property  of  the  individuals,  and 
the  city  has  nothing  to  do  with  them; 
they  are  the  organic  law  of  the  state, 
and  no  city  charter  has  ever  attempted 
to  take  away  or  interfere  with  those 
constitutional  rights  which  develop  in 
the  state  constitution,  and  if  it  were 
tried,  it  would  not  succeed,  and  not  a 
single  home  ruler  that  I have  ever 
heard  of  has  ever  advocated  any  such 
attempt,  and  it  would  not  succeed  if 
such  an  attempt  were  to  be  made. 

In  the  fourth  place,  and  this  is  real- 
ly the  most  serious  limitation  of  all  of 
the  powers  of  home  rule, — in  the  fourth 
place,  the  courts  always  reserve  the 
power  of  determining  what  is  and  what 
is  not  local,  what  is,  and  what  is  not 
a local  affair.  What  are  local  affairs? 
There  are  a great  many  matters  which 


may  be  said  to  be  on  the  border  line; 
a city  may  declare  a certain  thing  to 
pe  a municipal  affair — the  police  pow- 
er, for  instance,  and  the  state  may  de- 
clare that  it  is  not;  now,  which  de- 
cides? There  is  under  our  system  of 
government  a defined  tribunal  of  au- 
thority for  the  express  purpose  of  de- 
ciding such  matters,  and  that  is  the 
judiciary.  In  every  state  where  you 
can  find  municipal  home  rule,  there 
you  find  that  the  courts  were  always 
acting  as  guardians  of  the  rights  of  the 
citizens,  and  they  have  been  called 
upon  in  the  exercise  of  their  power  to 
declare  that'  laws  passed  by  certain 
cities  were  not  local  in  their  character, 
but  properly  state.  Numerous  institu- 
tions have  been  devised, — numerous 
cases  have  been  cited  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  the  courts  in  a great 
many  eases — in  almost  every  case,  on 
every  occasion,  have  always  decided 
what  is  local,  and  what  is  a state  af- 
fair. 

You  have  those  four  limitations  in 
an}'  system  of  home  rule.  First,  the 
limitations  of  the  charter;  second,  the 
limitations  of  the  general  laws  of  the 
state;  third,  the  limitations  of  the  con- 
stitution of  the  state,  and  fourth,  the 
overshadowing  power  of  the  judiciary 
in  exercising  under  our  system  the 
powei*  of  declaring  what  are  local  and 
what  are  state  affairs,  and  thus  safe- 
guarding the  rights  of  the  city  as  a 
whole  as  against  the  state. 

Some  gentlemen  have  remarked  that 
this  is  a novelty,  something  that  has 
not  been  tried  before  in  this  or  any 
other  country.  Quite  to  the  contrary, 
the  system  we  are  now  advocating  is 
the  novelty,  the  system  which  we  are 
now  advocating,  now  working  in  the 
cities  of  Boston  and  New  York,  have 
never  been  tried  anywhere  in  the  world, 
and  been  successful, — never  have  been 
successful  in  the  world  wherever  and 
whenever  tried,  and  I challenge  the 
gentleman  to  show  a single  instance 


December  13 


289 


1906 


or  produce  a single  case  in  which  it  has 
been  even  successful,  as  it  appears  now 
to  be  working  and  operating  in  Chi- 
cago and  Boston  and  New  York; 
there  is  not  one  instance  in  continental 
Europe  or  in  the  Islands  of  Great  Brit- 
ain, or  on  the  Continent  of  North  Amer- 
ica. 

The  system  has  invariably  proven  to 
be  a failure,  and  must  be  a failure; 
the  proposition  of  defining  and  specifi- 
cally enumerating  in  detail,  of  attempt- 
ing in  1872  to  define  what  the  City 
Council  of  Chicago  would  do  in  1906, 
is  impossible  and  preposterous.  That 
has  been  broken  down;  it  has  been 
broken  down  repeatedly,  and  it  will 
be  broken  down  if  it  be  tried  once 
more.  There  are  no  less  than  six  states 
in  which  there  are — in  each  and  every 
one  of  which  states  there  are  a cer- 
tain number  of  cities  having  a cer- 
tain population,  and  in  some  cases, 
they  are  given  the  power  to  frame  their 
home  rule  charters.  Missouri  has  prac- 
ticed that,  since  1875,  and  California 
followed  Missouri,  and  Washington,  and 
Colorado,  and  Oregon  and  Minnesota; 
these  states — in  these  the  cities  in 
which  there  are  over  100  cities  there 
now,  are  given  the  power  by  the  state 
law  and  by  the  state  constitution,  to 
frame  their  home  rule  charters.  Now, 
with  the  experience  of  these  states, 
running,  say,  in  Missouri,  for  thirty 
years,  and  in  California  and  the  other 
states  for  shorter  periods,  it  has  been 
successful.  Where  you  find  this  sub- 
ject matter  of  municipal  home  rule 
has  been  adopted  the  people  are  satis- 
fied with  that  aspect  of  their  govern- 
ment. If  you  go  to  California,  they 
may  claim  the  government  is  wrong, 
— that  the  government  is  rotten,  and 
if  that  is  true,  it  devolves  upon  the 
people  of  the  city,  it  is  their  own  fault, 
if,  as  they  claim,  their  government 
has  gone  bad;  the  wrong  is  not  with  i 
the  legislature;  so  they  say  they 
would  have  done  this  if  they  had  the  1 


power,  but  in  such  case  they  cannot 
shift  the  responsibility;  you  place  the 
responsibility  where  it  should  be 
placed,  on  the  people  who  are  imme- 
diately cognizant  of  the  facts  which 
may  be  acted  upon. 

Those  are  the  only  sound  principles 
upon  which  municipal  ownership  can 
successfully  be  operated.  That  is  not 
a theory,  it  is  not  a mere  novelty,  but 
it  is  the  result  of  systems  which  have 
proven  to  be  practical  systems,  and 
have  been  declared  to  be  practical  sys- 
tems wherever  tried. 

Now,  during  the  course  of  this  dis- 
cussion, it  has  been  suggested  that  it 
might  be  well  to  enumerate  and  partic- 
ularize as  to  the  special  powers  that 
were  wanted,  and  the  question  has  been 
asked,  why  not  write  them  then?  The 
reason  is  very  plain;  the  principle  has 
been  worked  out  through  municipal 
corporations,  and  in  the  attitude  of  the 
courts  towards  such  conditions,  that 
what  is  not  enumerated  is  excluded;  if 
you  enumerate  sixteen  different  kinds 
of  licenses,  and  you  come  to  the  sev- 
enteenth, you  didn't  have  at  that  time, 
in  1872,  we  will  say,  and  you  try  to 
get  the  seventeenth  sort  of  license,  and 
the  court  says,  “‘Why,  no,  you  never 
intended  to  draft  that  at  that  time, 
therefore  you  excluded  it,  you  left  out 
that  proposition,  therefore  we  cannot 
give  it  to  you."  That  is  the  principle 
that  the  courts  of  this  country  have 
uniformly  applied  in  the  consideration 
of  city  charters  and  grants  and  powers 
to  the  cities. 

MR.  FTSHER:  I would  like  to  ask 

a question.  To  bring  this  proposition 
down  to  a concrete  point,  if  wo  adopt 
■Senator  .Tones'  resolution,  and  the  res- 
olution No.  2 following  that,  would  we 
cover  the  point,  in  your  judgment,  Mr. 
Merriam,  or  do  they  conflict  with  each 
other? 

MR.  MERRTAM:  Senator  Jones’ 

motion  provides  for  amending  alter- 
native 1,  by  adding,  “And  the  gen- 


December  13 


290 


1906 


eral  laws  of  the  state.”  I am  agree- 
able to  that;  I think  it  should  be  read 
in  that  way,  read  into  the  charter  and 
the  general  law  of  the  state;  if  that 
was  omitted  there,  I think  it  should  be 
read  into  it. 

Mr.  O’Donnell’s  resolution  is  wholly 
foreign  to  the  spirit  of  municipal  home 
rule.  If  you  adopt  alternatives  to  one 
as  you  have  the  Jones’  amendment, 
and  then  adopt  proposition  2,  it  seems 
to  me  you  have  done  a good  deal 
towards  getting  municipal  home  rule. 

MR.  DEYER:  I would  like  to  ask 

a question:  I am  not  clear  on  this. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  you  will  yield 
to  a question? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Certainly. 

MR.  DEYER:  It  is  not  absolutely 

clear  to  me.  This  general  law,  as  it  is 
put,  prohibits  doing  a certain  thing  by 
the  City  Council.  Suppose  that  in  our 
new  charter  we  have  given  that  power 
to  the  City  Council,  what  then  would 
be  the  result  of  our  doing  it? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  If  the  general  law 

of  the  state,  that  is,  the  law  of  1872, 
I suppose  you  mean,  prohibits  a cer- 
tain thing  being  done  by  the  City 
Council? 

MR.  DEYER:  No,  I mean  as  a gen- 

eral law. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Your  law  of  1872, 

or  any  amendment  prohibits  any  City 
Council  from  doing  a certain  thing? 

MR.  DEYER:  Yes. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  And  this  charter 

authorizes  it? 

MR.  DEVER : Yes. 

MR,  MERRIAM:  They  can  do  it. 

MR.  DEVER:  They  can? 

MR.  MERRIAM : Yes. 

MR.  FISHER:  Under  the  Constitu- 

tional Amendment. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  The  amendment  of 

1904. 

MR.  DEVER:  One  other  question;  I 

would  like  to  ask  if  there  is  anything  in 
the  constitution  now,  including  the  re- 


cent amendment  and  draft  of  uniform 
legislation  that  would  interfere  with  the 
problem  of  validity  of  such  provision  in 
the  new  charter? 

MR.  MERRIAM : I don ’t  know  of 

any  such  provision. 

MR.  FISHER:  May  I not  ask  the 

Secretary  to  read  the  constitutional 
amendment,  then  we  will  know  what  is 
in  it?  It  is  in  the  digest.  I presume 
we  have  a copy  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  constitutional  amendment. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  constitu- 
tional amendment,  as  requested. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wish  to  take  the 

time  of  the  Convention  for  just  a state- 
ment. I was  resident  of  the  city  of  San 
Francisco  at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of 
a charter.  I hope  the  illustration  will 
clear  in  the  minds  of  some  of  us  what 
may  be  a local  and  municipal  affair, 
within  a thought  of  this  amendment,  and 
this  charter.  A certain  political  boss  in 
the  city  of  San  Francisco  found  that 
he  could  not  get  certain  privileges  from 
the  city  supervisors,  which  answers  the 
same  thing  in  San  Francisco  as  the  City 
Council  in  Chicago.  He  went  to  the 
legislature  and  found  certain  legislators 
willing  to  legislate  for  the  city  of  San 
Francisco,  and  he  arranged  that  the  sal- 
aries of  all  the  leading  officers  of  the 
police  department,  which,  by  the  way, 
was  democratic,  should  be  raised  several 
thousand  dollars  in  the  aggregate,  some- 
thing like  $60,000,  and  that  the  salaries 
of  the  men  in  the  fire  department — and 
that  happene'd  to  be  a republican  or- 
ganization, and  this  happened  to  be  a 
democratic  ward  boss — that  the  salaries 
of  those  men  should  be  cut.  That  law 
was  passed  by  the  general  legislature,  at 
Sacramento,  and  received  the  signature 
of  the  governor.  They  applied,  under 
the  classification  of  municipalities,  to  the 
municipality  of  San  Francisco.  The 
matter  was  taken  into  the  courts,  and  the 
courts  set  aside  the  legislation  on  the 


December  13 


291 


1906 


ground  that  legislation  of  this  sort  was 
within  the  prohibition  against  legislation 
upon  local  and  municipal  affairs  when 
there  was  a charter  existing  for  the 
city.  ' 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  thought  of  that 
decision  might  be  basis  of  some  generali- 
zation, I don’t  say  that  it  is  entirely 
clear — might  be  the  basis  of  some  gen- 
eralization, as  to  what  the  legislature  will 
be  prohibited  from  legislating  upon, 
while  it  has  full  power  to  legislate  upon 
those  general  concerns  that  will  apply 
to  Cook  County  or  any  other  county 
within  the  state. 

ME.  PENDARVIS:  I do  not  care  to 

discuss  this  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  at 
length,  but  only  to  make  one  statement 
as  it  appeals  to  me,  as  indicated  in  the 
question  that  I addressed  to  Mr.  Mc- 
Goorty.  It  strikes  me  that  while  we  are 
considering  this  matter  as  a local  ques- 
tion applicable  to  the  City  of  Chicago, 
we  are,  in  effect,  declaring  upon  a mat- 
ter of  state  policy,  and  I think  it  will 
so  appeal  to  the  members  of  the  General 
Assembly.  I understand  that  this  action 
can  only  apply  to  the  City  of  Chicago — 
I mean  on  the  question  of  the  constitu- 
tional amendment,  and  that  it  can  never 
apply  to  any  other  city  within  the  state 
until  similar  constitutional  amendments 
are  made;  nevertheless,  if  the  policy  that 
we  decide  upon  here  is  advocated  as  a 
good  municipal  policy,  it  necessarily 
means  that  it  becomes  a policy  of  state, 
which  should,  on  application,  be  made  to 
every  municipality.  I think  we  should 
consider  in  determining  upon  the  broad- 
ness of  the  grant  as  to  whether  or  not 
we  can  advocate  it  as  a desirable  state 
policy.  We  are  practically  going  on 
record  in  going  to  the  legislature  upon 
this  platform,  whatever  it  may  be,  as 
one  that  should  be  applied  to  all  mu- 
nicipalities within  the  state,  if  they  so 
desire. 

I think  the  consideration  of  that  ques- 
tion is  worthy  of  our  thought  in  voting 


upon  this  question,  and  that  whether  or 
not  we  can  convince  the  legislature  as  a 
whole  that  the  City  of  Chicago  should, 
as  Professor  Merriam  has  said,  like  the 
state  of  Missouri,  or  some  other  state, 
adopt  this  policy  as  a state  policy. 

MR.  ROBINS:  If  I may  be  per- 

mitted to  speak  of  the  rule  that  was 
adopted  by  the  state  of  California,  the 
rule  that  was  adopted  was  that  for  mu- 
nicipalities of  25,000  inhabitants,  there 
was  not  permitted  at  that  time  a special 
charter,  they  could  not  have  a special 
charter,  and  could  not  have  the  charac- 
teristics of  local  home  rule,  because  it 
was  not  considered  necessary  for  the  full 
development  of  good  government  in  those 
municipalities,  but  the  larger  municipali- 
ties presented  different  characteristics; 
they  could  not  be  taken  care  of  by  the 
legislature  intelligently;  and  for  thoge 
cities  special  charters  were  permitted. 

MR.  FISHER:  In  aswer  to  Mr.  Pen- 

darvis,  or,  rather,  to  the  question  which 
he  raises— because  I do  not  understand 
from  what  he  said  that  he  himself  took 
any  particular  position  upon  it,  I wish 
to  say  this:  so  far  as  I am  concerned, 
I can  see  no  reason  why  the  same  princi- 
ples of  local  home  rule  should  not  be  ap- 
plied to  all  the  cities  in  the  state  which 
apply  to  the  City  of  Chicago.  Of  course, 
they  have  not  reached  a stage  where  the 
present  law  hampers  or  restricts  them, 
and  they  may  not  be  particularly  anxious 
to  have  it,  they  evidently  have  not  been 
so  very  anxious,  because  tKSy"  have  not 
asked  for  a constitutional  amendment, 
and  I see  no  good  reason  why  the  prin- 
ciple should  not  apply  to  cities  under 
25,000 ; I can  see  why  the  limitation 
should  be  placed  on  cities  under  25,000; 
those  cities  with  that  population  may  be 
different  than  large  municipalities,  and 
still  possibly  with  cities  over  25j,000, 
there  might  be  some  different  rule  neces- 
sary. 

In  other  words,  for  illustration,  we 
have  in  this  hall  a number  of  gentle- 


December  13 


292 


1906 


men  representing  the  City  of  Chicago  in 
the  state  legislature;  let  us  suppose  in 
that  body  a matter  relating  peculiarly 
to  local  concerns  of  the  city  of  Peoria 
comes  up  in  the  state  legislature;  do  any 
of  those  gentlemen  really  think  that  they 
ought  to  settle  that  question  for  the  city 
of  Peoria?  Do  they  think  that  they 
could  settle  it  as  wisely  as  the  citizens 
of  Peoria  could  settle  it  for  themselves, 
under  wise  restrictions?  It  seems  to  me 
the  answer  is  absolutely  plain;  and  not 
only  that,  but  as  a practical  matter  the 
legislature  has  said  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago every  time  these  men  have  been 
there,  and  it  has  been  done  at  . every  ses- 
sion, "We  are  tired  of  having  the  City 
of  Chicago  bring  down  here  its  local  af- 
fairs for  us  to  thresh  out  in  detail.” 
They  have  said  that  over  and  over  again; 
they  have  said,  “We  cannot  take  all  our 
time  to  discussing  measures — your  meas- 
ures; we  will  give  you  this  one,  or  we 
will  give  you  four  or  five,  or  a half  a 
dozen  in  twenty  or  twenty-five  that  you 
have  here,  but  we  cannot  take  up  all  of 
the  rest  of  them  with  you,  and  you  have 
to  be  satisfied  with  so  much,  ’ ’ and  that 
is  the  answer  we  get,  not  only  as  to 
those  things  that  apply  to  what  some  peo- 
ple call  radical  measures,  but  that  is  the 
answer  to  things  which  people  call  con- 
servative measures.  A proposition  advo- 
cated by  the  Chicago  Real  Estate  Board, 
advocated  by  the  City  Council,  as  a body, 
with  practical  unanimity,  advocated  by 
such  clubs  as  the  Merchants’  Club,  the 
Commercial  Club,  with  reference  to  such 
subject  matters  as  municipal  appoint- 
ments, and  things  of  that  sort,  we  al- 
ways receive  the  same  answer;  you  can- 
not go  down  with  anything  that  does  not 
meet  with  the  same  consideration;  it  is 
not  merely  radical  legislation,  it  is  not 
merely  the  things  that  are  political  in 
their  character,  but  matters  that  are  of 
interest  to  the  great  mass  of  people, 
keeping  them  stirred  up — it  is  the  same 
with  each  and  every  proposition,  you  go 


down  there  and  it  is  the  same  thing, 
whether  it  is  as  simple  as  A,  B and  C, 
the  members  of  the  legislature  say  they 
will  not  give  all  of  their  time  to  exam- 
ining the  affairs  of  this  city;  I believe 
they  are  disinterested,  and  I think  that 
every  disinterested  member  of  the  legis- 
lature will  welcome  a chance  to  vote  on 
a proposition  which  gives  to  Chicago  the 
right  to  legislate  on  local  municipal  af- 
fairs, and  reserving  to  the  state  the  right 
to  regulate  all  those  things. 

I believe  in  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Jones’ 
amendment,  without  Mr.  O’Donnell’s 
amendment,  and  the  subsequent  adoption 
of  the  resolution  No.  2 — I believe  that 
those  things  will,  as  Professor  Merriam 
has  said,  start  us  in  a fair  way  to  get 
what  this  Convention  was  called  together 
to  get. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  be- 

fore the  house  is  the  adoption  of  Mr. 
O’Donnell’s  motion  to  strike  out  of  Mr. 
Jones’  motion  the  words,  “and  the  gen- 
eral laws  of  the  state.  ’ ’ 

MR,  O’DONNELL:  I ask  for  a roll 

call  upon  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — O ’Donnell — 1. 

Nays  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Beilfuss, 
Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Carey,  Church, 
Clettenberg,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; 
Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Erick- 
son, Fisher,  Graham,  Guerin,  Hunter, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  Lundberg, 
MacMillan,  McCormick,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  Owens,  Paullin,  Pen- 
darvis,  Rainey,  Raymer,  Robins,  Shana- 
han, Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Taylor,  Thompson,  Yopicka,  Walker, 
Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer 
—48. 

During  roll  call: 

MR.  DEVER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I in- 

tended to  vote  aye  but  I am  so  convinced 
now  by  the  arguments  I have  heard  that 
my  views  are  changed  and  I will  vote 


no. 


December  13  . 


293 


1906 


M$.  BEILFUSS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

wish  to  change  my  vote  from  aye  to  no. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  be  recorded  as  voting  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Aldermen  Beil- 

fuss  changes  his  vote  from  aye  to  no ; 
Mr.  Church  votes  no. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Beilfuss  no; 

Church  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr. 

O’Donnell’s  motion  to  strike  out,  the 
yeas  are  one,  the  nays  are  forty-eight, 
and  the  motion  is  lost.  The  next  ques- 
tion is  Mr.  Jones’  substitute,  which  the 
Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
hereinbefore  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  a 

sense  I think  Mr.  O ’Donnell  was  right 
in  his  motion  to  strike  out  the  general 
laws,  but  I did  not  vote  for  it  because  I 
believed  in  the  limitations  to  be  placed 
on  the  legislative  powers  of  the  General 
Assembly.  With  this  clause  in,  as  I 
take  it,  there  certainly  are  some  limita- 
tions upon  the  general  powers  of  the 
City  Council.  When  we  say  its  powers 
shall  be  subject  to  the  general  laws  of 
the  state  that  means,  as  I take  it,  all  of 
the  laws  of  the  state  or  all  of  the  laws 
to  be  enacted  hereafter  by  the  General 
Assembly. 

There  are  no  laws  that  I know  of  that 
the  General  Assembly  could  pass  but 
what  are  general  laws,  with  the  limita- 
tion only  that  they  shall  apply  generally 
upon  the  class — or  shall  be  limited  to  ap- 
ply upon  the  general  class  to  which  they 
refer.  But  we  are  stating  now  the  gen- 
eral proposition  to  be  referred  to  the 
drafters  of  this  proposed  law,  and  the 
intention  of  this  is  to  give  that  unlim- 
ited power  to  the  legislative  branch  of 
our  municipality  which,  in  my  judgment, 
it  is  unwise  to  give,  and  I ask  the  gentle- 


men of  this  Convention  to  pause  a mo- 
ment and  ask  themselves  what  power  the 
City  Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago  has 
not  had  in  the  past  or  obtained,  or  is 
now  obtaining  adequate  to  the  needs  of 
the  City  of  Chicago. 

Take  our  special  assessment  laws 
granted  to  the  city  under  the  general 
laws  of  the  state.  Has  any  one  suggested 
that  they  are  not  adequate  to  the  needs 
of  the  city;  yet  it  has  within  it  those 
safe  and  sane  limitations  that  require 
uniformity  and  equality  of  burdens. 

Take  our  school  laws;  has  any  one  agi- 
tated that  the  legislature  has  not  ade- 
quately provided  for  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago in  our  school  laws?  True,  w7e  an- 
ticipate adding  to  those  laws  in  this 
Convention,  but  the  legislature,  so  far 
as  we  know,  stands  ready  and  has  stood 
ready  to  meet  every  demand  made  by 
the  City  of  Chicago  for  a safe  and  rea- 
sonable law.  The  legislature  has  so  far 
as  I know,  met  the  demands  of  the  City 
of  Chicago. 

True,  it  has  met  them  conservatively, 
but  we  must  remember  that  there  has 
never  been  a united  demand.  We  have 
our  Mueller  bill,  we  have  other  measures 
granted  us  from  time  to  time  as  we  pre- 
sented those  demands  to  the  General  As- 
sembly. What  is  there  that  we  asked,  or 
that  we  need  under  this  unlimited  dele- 
gation to  the  City  Council?  What  specific 
thing  do  we  want  that  we  cannot  get 
without  this  unlimited  authority?  Not 
one  single  item  in  these  broad  discus- 
sions has  been  mentioned,  so  far  as  my 
recollection  goes. 

There  may  come  things  that  we  need 
but  we  can  get  them  as  they  arise;  as 
they  come  into  being.  Is  there  any- 
thing existing  now  that  we  cannot 
enumerate  in  this  charter?  None  has 
been  suggested  in  this  discussion. 

I contend,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentle- 
men, that  it  is  wiser  and  better  for  the 
City  of  Chicago  that  with  the  knowledge 
which  is  before  it  now,  to  set  down  in 


December  13 


294 


1906 


the  charter  the  powers  to  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council,  and  not  to  grant  to  the 
City  Council  that  unlimited  power,  be- 
cause forsooth,  some  time  in  the  future 
we  may  want  some  one  thing  that  we 
cannot  now  anticipate. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Jones’  resolu- 
tion as  a substitute  for  Mr.  Vopicka’s 
motion  to  substitute  the  first  alternative 
to  No.  1 for  No.  2,  and  the  Secretary 
will  read  the  resolution  and  proceed  to 
call  the  roll. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  before 

that  is  done  I would  like  to  ask  one 
question 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  As  I understand  Mr. 

Fisher  to  say  in  his  first  remark  that  it 
was  his  understanding  of  this  alternative 
that  in  case  it  was  adopted  it  would  en- 
able the  City  Council  to  add  to  or  take 
from  the  charter  as  framed  by  the  legis- 
lature at  this  time,  without  any  further 
reference  to  the  legislature  for  the  power 
to  do  that.  Is  that  a correct  statement? 

MR.  FISHER:  Not  without  the  limi- 

tations that  I put  on  it,  though,  Mr. 
Snow.  It  means  exactly  as  Professor 
Merriam  has  explained  in  detail.  I un- 
derstand that  the  drafters  of  this  char- 
ter, will,  as  he  has  stated,  draft  it  with 
those  provisions  of  exactly  the  kind  and 
character  he  has  enumerated.  This  is 
merely  a general  restriction  and  it  has  to 
do  with  local  municipal  affairs  and  that 
they  will  define  that  in  appropriate  lan- 
guage. We  are  now  discussing  a general 
resolution. 

MR.  SNOW : As  I understood  your 

statement  it  was  in  effect  that  if  this 
were  adopted  and  put  in  the  charter  after 
the  details  wTere  worked  out  in  accordance 
with  the  general  proposition  under  dis- 
cussion at  this  time  it  would  be  pos- 
sible for  the  City  Council  to  add  to  or 
take  from  the  charter  as  it  shall  finally 
be  granted  it,  without  reference  to  the 


state  legislature.  Now,  am  I correct  in 
that? 

MR.  FISHER : Within  the  powers 

which  the  charter  vests  in  the  city;  cer- 
tainly. 

MR.  SNOW : Within  the  powers 
which  the  charter  vests  in  the  city? 

MR.  FISHER:  Certainly. 

MR.  SNOW : Now,  under  that,  would 

it  be  possible  for  the  City  Council,  for  ex- 
ample, after  we  shall  accept  the  law  and 
find  in  the  revenue  clause  and  the  five 
per  cent  assessment  clause — would  it  be 
possible  for  the  City  Council  to  change 
that? 

MR.  FISHER : Under  no  circum- 
stances. 

MR.  SNOW : That  is  what  I was  try- 

ing to  get  at.  I wanted  to  understand 
that. 

MR.  FISHER : Absolutely.  I am  us- 

suming  that  we  will  agree  upon  limita- 
tions and  that  that  will  be  one  of  the 
things  the  city  cannot  change  unless  the 
legislature  authorizes  it  to  change  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  What  is  to  prevent 

it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  at  a time, 

please,  Mr.  Shepard.  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER  : That  the  charter  will 

enumerate  those  things  which  cannot  be 
changed.  That  says,  subject  to  the  limi- 
tations of  the  charter,  and  now  we  will 
pick  out  the  things  and  we  will  reverse 
the  process  mentioned  by  Mr.  Shanahan 
and  Mr.  Shepard. 

MR.  SNOW:  Then  your  original 

statement  must  have  been  rather  broader 
than  you  intended  it  to  be. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  certainly  was  not 

intended  to  be  as  broad  as  you  under- 
stood it. 

MR.  SNOW:  They  could  add  to,  but 

could  not  take  from,  under  the  restric- 
tions imposed  upon  them  by  the  charter. 

MR.  FISHER:  Absolutely  not. 

MR.  SNOW : That  is  my  understand- 

ing. 

MR,  FISHER:  I 


believe  in  putting 


December  13 


295 


1906 


in  certain  restrictions  and  Senator  Jones’ 
resolution  said,  it  shall  have  the  power, 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  charter, 
and  I assumed  that  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  among  other  things  will  say  that 
we  fix  a limit  and  that  this  limit  cannot 
be  changed  except  by  the  state;  that  we 
will  expressly  provide  that  limit  and  then 
it  will  be  subject  to  that  provision. 

MR.  SNOW : I was  anxious  to  see 

whether  you  had  the  same  idea  that  I 
had. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  at  a time, 

gentlemen.  Mr.  Shepard,  do  you  desire 
to  speak  again  on  the  subject? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I just  desire  to  ask 

Mr.  Fisher  a question:  What  is  there 
under  this — if  we  adopt  this  whole  reso- 
lution— what  is  there  that  the  City 
Council  cannot  change?  Is  there  any- 
thing? 

MR,  FISHER:  There  is.  I will  tell 

you  exactly,  it  is  subject  tp  the  provi- 
sions of  this  charter. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Of  this  resolution? 

MR.  FISHER:  It  is  subject  to  the 

provisions  of  this  charter. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  You  are  anticipat-  | 

ing  what  we  may  do  in  the  future  on 
some  limitations.  Supposing  we  do  not 
include  those  limitations. 

MR.  FISHER:  If  we  do  not  want  to 

limit  it,  then  it  will  not  be  in  the  char- 
ter. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Then  the  City 

Council,  under  this  rule,  could  change  the 
rate  of  taxation  and  of  assessments. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Shepard,  if  this 

Convention 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  the  house  will 

give  unanimous  consent  to  both  the  gen- 
tlemen to  rediscuss  the  question  they  can 
continue;  otherwise  Senator  Jones  has 
the  floor. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

should  like  to  reply  to  the  question  Mr. 
Shepard  and  Mr.  Snow  have  put. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  unani- 

mous consent? 


(Cries  of  “yes.”) 

MR.  JONES:  That  is  this:  That 

where  there  is  a limitation  placed  in  this 
charter— for  instance  the  five  per  cent 
limitation;  I understand  that  that  can- 
not be  changed  except  by  a referendum 
of  the  people  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

MR,  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  what  pur- 

pose does  Mr.  Fisher  rise? 

MR,  FISHER : I rise  to  address  the 

Chair  and  house.  I rose  before  be- 
cause I was  asked  to  answer  a specific 
question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  but  for 

what  purpose  do  you  rise? 

MR.  FISHER:  I would  like  to 

speak  to  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  spoken 

upon  this  question? 

MR,  FISHER:  Not  at  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  FISHER:  Now,  Mr.  Chairman, 

I shall  occupy  the  floor  for  one  moment; 
I merely  want  to  answer  Mr.  Shepard’s 
question.  We  are  going  to  adopt  the 
provision  that,  subject  to  such  limitations 
as  we  put  in  this  charter,  the  city  shall 
have  the  right  to  pass  local  legislation  on 
matters  of  local  municipal  concern  and 
then  we  are  going  to  pick  out  the  limi- 
tations we  want  to  put  in ; and  I am  as- 
suming we  are  going  to  #put  in  those 
particular  limitations  upon  which  I as- 
sume we  are  all  agreed.  We  cannot 
pick  them  out  now,  but  we  are  going  to 
pick  them  out  later.  Now,  if  this  was 
carried,  as  was  said  by  tfie  Chair  and  Mr. 
O’Donnell  and  in  some  of  the  resolutions 
which  have  been  deferred,  if  this  was 
carried,  it  has  been  explained  several 
times  that  that  action  is  to  be  taken. 
Now,  that  is  an  answer  to  the  first  part. 

Now,  second  part:  Mr.  Shepard  said 
ho  had  not  heard  anybody  pick  out  any 
particular  thing  that  the  city  wanted 
which  it  did  not  have. 

Now,  I don’t  want  to  take  up  all  the 


December  13 


296 


1906 


rest  of  the  time  of  this  Convention,  all 
the  rest  of  the  time  the  Convention  is 
going  to  sit  by  enumerating  them  all, 
but  it  has  been  said  over  and  over  again 
by  everybody  who  has  spoken  that  there 
■was  no  difference  of  opinion  among  us 
as  to  our  desire  to  get  power  to  legislate, 
and  therefore,  no  such  enumeration  was 
given.  We  can  enumerate  a list  here 
that  would  take  the  Secretary  from  now 
until  tomorrow  morning  to  read.  There 
are  all  sorts  of  things — the  very  ques- 
tion Professor  Merriam  has  referred  to, 
not  to  go  further,  the  question  of  li- 
cense is  one  of  them.  We  had  to  go  to 
the  last  session  of  the  legislature  and 
Work  for  a certain  proposition  we  did  not 
get  and  which  we  were  denied.  The  City 
Council  passed  an  amendment  to  the 
General  Cities  and  Villages  Act,  and  we 
went  down  to  the  legislature  and  got  it 
passed  in  a modified  form,  a part  of  it. 
I do  not  want  to  take  up  all  the  sec- 
tions they  did  not  pass,  but  there  were 
any  quantity  of  them.  At  the  last  ses- 
sion of  the  legislature  we  asked  for  some 
law  regarding  the  primaries  in  the  City 
of  Chicago,  and  we  did  not  get  any.  We 
got  a state  primary  law  and  the  City  of 
Chicago  was  eliminated,  and  we  haven’t 
got  any  direct  primary  law  in  the  City 
of  Chicago  and  it  is  simply  because  the 
members  of  the  legislature  did  not  have 
time,  or  were  otherwise  indisposed  to 
give  us  that  law. 

There  are  twTo  or  three  things,  and  I 
could  go  on  ad  infinitum.  We  all  know 
them.  They  were  not  enumerated  sim- 
ply because  nobody  thought  it  was  neces- 
sary to  mention  them. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I want  to  sug- 

gest this  point  now,  so  that  it  may  be 
a matter  of  record  here;  it  may  be  use- 
ful afterwards,  and  this  is  thus:  The 

constitutional  amendment  passed  by  the 
General  Assembly  and  adopted  by  the 
people  of  the  City  of  Chicago  has  lib- 
erated us  here  in  Chicago  from  the  gen- 
eral laws  in  this  state  and  said  that  what 


could  only  be  done  heretofore  by  general 
laws,  now  can  be  done  by  local  and 
special  laws  peculiar  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. By  the  adoption  of  this  resolu- 
tion as  it  is  now  before  this  body  we 
recognize  again  that  we  do  not  wrant  to 
take  advantage  of  the  local  and  special 
laws  that  we  can  enact  here  for  the  City 
of  Chicago,  but  that  the  legislature  must, 
under  the  constitutional  amendment  en- 
act them,  but  we  want  to  drift  ourselves 
back  again  over  the  general  laws  in  this 
state  that  exist  now  and  that  can  be  en- 
acted in  the  future.  That  is  all  I have 
to  say  on  the  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

we  have  heard  a great  deal  this  evening 
in  regard  to  what  the  City  of  Chicago 
has  been  asking  of  the  state  legislature, 
and  all  the  trouble  they  have  been  caus- 
ing the  state  legislature  and  how  kind 
the  state  legislature  has  always  been  to 
the  City  of  Chicago  when  the  request  had 
been  made.  We  have  had  the  constitu- 
tional amendment  as  adopted  in  1904 
read  at  this  meeting  this  evening,  and  in 
plain  language  it  simply  means  that  the 
state  legislature  hereafter  has  the  right 
to  grant,  special  legislation  for  the  City 
of  Chicago. 

Heretofore,  under  the  Constitution  of 
1870,  the  legislature  had  no  right  to 
grant  spesial  legislation;  the  legisla- 
tion had  to  be  general  and  apply  to 
all  parts  of  the  state.  The  advantages 
and  disadvantages  of  article  7 have  been 
threshed  out  here  this  evening  and  I will 
not  go  into  it  at  all. 

I am  merely  going  to  call  the  attention 
of  this  Convention  to  this  fact:  That  the 
passage  or  defeat  of  your  charter  will 
depend  upon  section  7,  and  I question 
whether  any  charter  will  stand  a ghost 
of  a show  in  the  Illinois  legislature  with 
section  7,  with  alternative  No.  1 included 
in  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  amend- 

ment— 


December  13 


297 


1906 


MR.  YOPICKA:  I wish  to  say  I ac- 

cept the  amendment  of  Senator  Jones. 

MR.  JONES:  Will  you  read  it,  Mr. 

Chairman  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  let  the 

Secretary  read  Mr.  Jones’  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Jones’  resolu- 
tion as  hereinbefore  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  adop- 

tion of  the  substitute  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Yeas  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Beilfuss, 
Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Carey,  Clet- 
tenberg,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; 
Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Fisher, 
Graham,  Guerin,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittle- 
man,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMillan, 
McCormick,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Rainey,  Raymer, 
Robins,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor, 
Thompson,  Yopicka,  Walker,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 43. 

Nays — Church,  Erickson,  O’Donnell, 
Shanahan,  Shepard— 5. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  the  motion 

to  adopt,  the  ayes  are  43,  and  the  noes 
are  5,  and  Mr.  Jones’  substitute  is 
adopted.  That  disposes  of  Mr.  Vopicka’s 
motion,  and  it  would  seem  to  dispose  of 
the  entire  chapter. 

MR.  JONES:  It  does  not  dispose  ol 

No.  2,  does  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir;  it  dis- 

poses of  No.  1 and  the  alternative  to 

No.  1,  I think,  Mr.  ; yes,  that  is 

correct. 

MR.  DIXON,  G.  W. : Doesn’t  it  dis 

pose  of  No.  2,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  disposes  or 

No.  2.  Mr.  Jones  moved  the  adoption 
of  No.  2 — the  record  is  here — and  Mr. 
Vopicka  moved  to  substitute  the  first  al- 
ternative to  No.  1 for  No.  2.  Then  Mr^ 
Jones  presented  a matter  which  was  re- 
ceived by  the  Chair,  the  Clerk  tells  me, 
which  Mr.  Jones  moved  as  a substitute 
for  both  resolutions.  That  is  what  the 
record  shows,  and  that  would  appear  to  I 


dispose  of  No.  1,  alternative  to  No.  1, 
and  No.  2. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

we  adopt  No.  2.  The  first  paragraph  of 
No.  2 is  simply  complementary,  (read- 
ing),  “the  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter,”  and  we  can, 
adopt  No.  2 as  supplementary  to  the 
matter  which  has  just  been  carried. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I move  we  adjourn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  have  to 

dispose  of  this  subject  first.  Senator 
Jones  moves  the  adoption  of  No.  2 as 
qualified  by  the  substitute  which  was 
just  adopted. 

MR.  DIXON,  G.  W.:  Will  Mr.  Jones 

please  explain,  then,  the  difference  be- 
tween No.  2 and  the  motion  we  have  just 
carried  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Jones. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  do  not 

think  there  is  very  much  difference;  the 
first  part  of  No.  2 says  that  the  spe- 
cification of  particular  powers  shall  never 
be  construed  as  a limitation  upon  the 
general  powers  granted  by  the  charter. 

I think  the  Court  might  hold  that  we 
have  already  indicated  .that,  but  it  seems 
to  me  by  passing  No.  2 we  remove  any 
question,  upon  that  point  and  it  cannot 
be  but  supplementary  to  the  motion 
which  has  just  been  carried. 

MR.  BENNETT : Mr.  Chairman,  we 

have  just  passed  No.  1,  which  gives  us 
certain  powers.  Then  we  have  passed  a 
certain  resolution  which  says  wre  have 
all  the  remaining  powers  which  the  legis- 
lature has  to  give  us.  Now,  I do  not 
think  wTe  need  any  more  to  make  it 
clear.  We  get  the  full  power. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  that  there  is  a point  still  uncov- 
ered in  regard  to  No.  2.  The  courts 
have,  as  Professor  Merriam  has  already 
pointed  out,  in  passing  upon  the  powers 
of  municipalities, strictly  construed  those 
powers,  and  any  power  not  given  ex- 


December  13 


298 


1906 


pressly  is  denied,  and  it  is  one  of  the  « 
things  to  which  Mr.  Wilson  called  our  at- 
tention in  the  committee  and  that  cer- 
tainly should  be  in  the  charter.  That 
in  construing  this  charter  the  enumera- 
tion of  particular  powers  shall  never  be 
construed  as  a limitation  upon  general 
powers. 

ME.  BENNETT:  That  would  be  so 

if  we  were  to  have  a complete  grant  of 
powers  to  do  as  we  pleased? 

MR.  FISHER  : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentlemen  in 

the  gallery  will  please  maintain  silence. 

MR.  FISHER : That  is  true.  We 

are  going  to  enumerate  certain  specific 
things,  so  that  as  a rule  of  construction 
it  is  entirely  proper,  and  not  only  proper, 
but  in  my  judgment  it  would  be  unsafe 
not  to  adopt  it.  It  is  entirely  proper  and 
it  might  be  necessary  for  safety  of  con- 
struction to  put  this  rule  of  construction 
into  the  charter.  It  is  a legal  proposition 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  should  receive 
attention. 

For  instance,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
state  has  held  that  the  legislature  has 
all  of  the  powers  not  prohibited  to  it  by 
the  constitution,  but  that  that  is  not  the 
rule  with  regard  .to  a municipality.  A 
municipality  has  no  powers  unless  they 
are  expressly  conferred,  and  we  should 
have  both  the  direct  meaning  of  the 
power  and  the  negative  of  the  power  that 
failure  to  enumerate  them  shall  not  be 
an  exclusion.  It  can  do  no  harm.  And 
when  we  get  into  court  it  will  do  a 
great  deal  of  good. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

should  like  to  withdraw  my  motion  and 
move  the  adoption  of  the  first  part 
of  No.  2,  reading  as  follows:  “The 

specification  of  particular  powers  shall 
never  be  construed  as  a limitation  upon 
the  general  powers  granted  by  the  char- 
ter. ’ ’ 

MR.  SNOW : Now,  Mr.  Chairman — 

THE  ( HAIRMAN:  Alderman  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  I am  very  firm  in  the 


conviction  as  expressed  by  Mr.  Fisher 
that  we  should  adopt  No.  2 if  for  no 
other  reason  than  that  it  would  be  an 
interpretation  of  No.  1,  if  the  matter 
gets  into  court.  But  I desire  to  offer 
as  a substitute  for  the  motion  made  by 
Senator  Jones  the  adoption  of  all  of 
No.  2 as  amended  by  the  amendment 
which  I now  offer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Alderman  Snow’s  amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Snow: 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter ; it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state ; and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

MR.  SNOW : Now,  Mr.  Chairman 

the  only  difference  between  Section  2 
as  printed,  and  Section  2 as  I offer  it 
there  is,  that  it  is  intended  to  clear 
up  what  difficulty  might  grow  out  of 
the  wording  of  the  printed  paragraph. 
In  the  printed  paragraph  it  says  it 
shall  exercise  such  powers  which  are 
not  expressly  prohibited  to  it  by  this 
charter  or  some  general  law  of  the 
state.  That  would  undoubtedly  be 
read  in,  “Not  prohibited  by  some  gen- 
eral law  of  the  state.”  Now,  I want 
it  to  appear  that  it  shall  have  such 
powers  as  are  not  prohibited  by  the 
charter  or  prohibited  by  the  constitu- 
tion, and  that  it  shall  not  exercise  pow- 
ers in  conflict  with  any  general  state 
law. 

* THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

Alderman  Snow’s  substitute  to  Aider- 
man  Jones’  motion.  Are  you  ready  for 
the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 


December  13 


299 


1906 


favor  will  signify  by  saying  aye;  op- 
posed no. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Brossean, 
Brown,  Church,  Clettenberg,  Crilly, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Erickson, 
Fisher,  Graham,  Guerin,  Hunter,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lundberg,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Cormick, MeGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  Owens,  Paullin,  Rainey,  Raymer, 
Robins,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Young — 
31. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Carey,  De- 
ver,  Linehan,  O’Donnell,  Shepard, 
Smulski,  Thompson,  Walker,  Werno, 
White— 12. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  DEVER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

not  clear  as  to  just  how  I ought  to  vote 
on  that.  Out  of  an  abundance  of  pre- 
caution and  feeling  that  the  Council 
ought  not  to  have  the  right  to  pass 
certain  laws  that  will  be  in  conflict 
with  certain  laws  that  now  exist,  I 
vote  no. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I can’t  vote 

either  way.  I am  against  the  amend- 
ment and  substitute  both. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Alderman 

Snow’s  substitute  to  Senator  Jones’ 
motion,  the  yeas  are  31,  and  the  nays 
12.  The  motion  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  concluding  chapter  of  the 
section.  Number  3. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  3 at  page  52. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  its 

adoption. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I move  that  we 

give  further  consideration  to  that 
question.  I think  the  paragraph  should 
be  amended,  and  that  we  should  give 
more  consideration  to  it  than  we  can 
at  this  late  hour. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  motion  is 

to  defer? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  To  postpone  con- 

sideration. When  is  the  next  meeting? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To-morrow  night. 

MR.  RAYMER:  There  must  be  Borne  i 

bJdJj  V 


misunderstanding  as  to  the  length  of 
time  we  were  to  spend  at  our  evening 
sessions.  My  recollection  is  that  the 
time  was  set  from  7:30  to  10:00.  Am 
I wrong  or  right  on  that? 

A VOICE:  9:30. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  does 

not  remember  any  set  time.  It  seems 
to  me  that  as  we  have  only  one  para- 
graph left  in  this  section,  it  occurs  to 
me  that  we  might  as  well  finish  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  7:30  to  10:00. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  7:30  to  10:00  is 

what  the  rule  says. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I want  to  call  the 

attention  of  the  convention  to  the  fact 
that  we  did  not  convene  this  evening 
till  about  ten  minutes  to  eight. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Correct,  sir. 

MR.  RAYMER:  If  we  are  to  follow 

the  rule  as  laid  down  in  this  conven- 
tion I think  we  should  get  here  on 
time  and  have  the  roll  call  at  7:30. 

MR.  FISHER:  I quite  approve  of 

that. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I do  not  think  this 
motion  should  be  approved  without 
some  consideration.  There  are  certain 
matters  in  this  ordinance  that  we 
should  not  pass  on  at  such  an  hour  hur- 
riedly, especially  such  matters  as  re- 
late to  orders,  and  which,  more  or  less, 
affect  the  administration  of  the  city 
affairs,  and  not  a passive  ordinance. 
This  is  a cumbrous  provision  and  it 
should  not  be  passed  in  its  present  con- 
dition. The  rules  of  the  council  now 
require  that  new  matter  presented  to 
the  Council  must  be  given  to  a commit- 
tee, unless  the  rules  are  suspended, 
and  as  far  as  I am  concerned  I think 
important  proposals  should  lay  over. 
Almost  invariably  it  has  to  lay  over 
under  the  present  rules  of  the  Coun- 
cil. This  charter,  however,  is  giving 
the  city  broad  powers  which  we  are 
now  attempting  to  restrict,  under  the 
proposition  for  the  passage  of  this  num- 
ber 2 as  printed. 


December  13 


300 


1906 


ME.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the 

reasons  Alderman  Bennett  has  stated, 
and  for  the  additional  reason  that  a 
provision  of  this  kind  rs  a limitation — 
THE  CHAIEMAN : Speak  louder, 

please. 

ME.  SNOW:  For  the  additional  rea- 

son that  a limitation  of  this  kind  is 
a limitation  of  the  power  of  a legisla- 
tive body  to  make  its  own  rules,  I 
shall  certainly  vote  against  the  passage 
of  this  ordinance.  Now,  if  we  argue, 
as  we  have  done  to-night,  that  we  wish 
to  have  a home  rule  charter,  and  then 
adopt  a provision  which  feays  the  legis- 
lative body  we  are  creating  shall  not 
be  allowed  to  make  its  own  rules,  and 
handle  its  own  resolutions,  it  strikes  me 
as  ridiculous.  As  a matter  of  fact,  a 
proposition  of  this  kind  should  come 
either  by  a vote  or  by  a rule,  and 
should  not  be  governed  by  a provision 
in  the  charter. 

ME.  FISHEE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Alderman  Snow, 

have  you — 

A MEMBEE:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

ask  what  the  motion  is? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  motion  was 

to  adopt  it. 

ME.  FISHEE:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems 
to  me  we  might  as  well  have  a direct 
vote  on  this.  I think  the  majority  of 
the  Convention,  at  any  rate,  will  be  op- 
posed to  putting  that  provision  in  the 
charter. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Will  the  gentle- 

men of  this  convention  wait  just  a mo- 
ment, and  we  will  be  through?  We 
will  have  a vote  in  a minute,  and  then 
adjourn. 

ME.  FISHEE:  Alderman  Snow  has 

raised  the  real  objection.  We  have  a 
rule  which  operates  now  in  the  Council 
that  it  requires  a two-thirds  majority. 
Well,  I believe  that  rule  should  be 
maintained.  I see  no  reason  to  change 
that.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  a matter  for 
the  City  Council  to  decide,  either  by 
vote  or  in  the  rules. 


ME.  McGOOETY : Mr.  Chairman, 

with  the  consent  of  my  seconder,  I 
withdraw  my  motion. 

ME.  SNOW : I make  a motion  to 

strike  out  section  3. 

ME.  McGOOETY:  I would  like  to 

alter  or  amend  section  3 as  it  now 
stands. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  By  Mr.  Mc- 

McGoorty:  Amend  paragraph  3 of  sec- 
tion 7 so  that  said  section  shall  read 
as  follows:  3.  No  ordinance,  order  or 
resolution  shall  be  passed  finally  on 
the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  in  mat- 
ters of  public  health,  or  public  safety, 
or  emergency,  and  except  by  a vote  of 
three-fourths  of  all  the  members  of  the 
city  council. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  With  the  with- 

drawal of  Mr.  McGoorty’s  amendment 
the  matter  stands  before  the  house  on 
Mr.  O’Donnell’s  motion  to  adopt.  To 
that  there  is  an  amendment,  and  the 
Secretary  will  read  it. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  By  Mr.  Dever: 

Amend  substitute  offered  by  striking 
out  the  words  11  order  and  resolution.” 
ME.  O’DONNELL:  I accept  the 

amendment. 

ME.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  strikes 
me  that  is  the  exact  language,  at  least, 
only  a little  different  language.  It  is 
imposing  a limitation  on  a body  which 
we  have  created,  and  which  we  are 
asking  large  powers  for,  by  making  this 
rule. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

ME.  McGOOETY:  Mr.  Chairman, 

one  objection  that  has  been  urged 
against  the  home  rule  charter  is  that 
a city  council  may  on  any  Monday 
flight  pass  some  law  which  will  be  of 
great  interest  and  perhaps  of  great  det- 
riment to  the  people  of  this  city.  And 
it  is  to  prevent  any  such  possibility, 
which  may  be  remote,  that  the  City 
Council  any  evening,  on  the  introduc- 
tion of  any  important  measure,  can 
p\ss  that  ordinance;  so  that  it  is  only 


December  13 


301 


1906 


following  other  city  charters  that  this 
is  a check  upon  the  City  Council  in  the 
interests  of  the  public,  that  there  shall 
be  no  ordinance  passed  unless  it  is  a 
niatter  of  emergency,  or  unless  it  is 
a matter  of  public  health  or  safety.  I 
think  it  is  a wise  limitation  on  the 
\ powprs  of  the  Council. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

constitution  of  the  State  of  Illinois 
provides  I believe,  that  the  legislature 
cannot  pass  a bill,  save  one  that  has 
been  read,  on  three  successive  - — or 
1 three  different  days;  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  there  should  be  some  very 
strong  provision  limiting  the  powers  of 
the  City  Council  in  passing  on  matters 
the  same  night  they  are  introduced. 

MR.  LINEHAN : • It  seems  to  me  if 
motions  are  sprung  on  the  City  Coun- 
cil that  there  is  already  a provision 
that  the  rules  can  be  suspended  for  the 
purpose  of  passing  on  special  matters. 
If  for  nothing  else  than  that  it  should 
be  passed  in  its  present  form. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  It  is  the  great 

strength  of  the  charter;  it  will  be 
looked  upon  as  a safety  valve  by  the 
people  of  the  city,  and  that  will  help 
your  charter  to  pass  through;  it  also 
i will  be  an  object  lesson  to  the  legisla- 
\ ture  if  there  is  such  a provision  in  the 
charter.  One  of  the  arguments  to  be 
/ advanced  against  the  charter  in  the 
legislature,  I predict,  will  be  that  un- 
i less  there  is  a provision  of  this  ehar- 
I acter,  that  the  City  Council  has  too 
much  power,  and  it  will  give  away  the 
city  in  one  night  session.  Consequent- 
ly I think  this  is  a wise  provision,  and 
I hope  it  will  be  put  in. 

MR.  SNOW:  I would  like  with  the 

consent  of  the  Convention,  although  I 
have  spoken  once,  to  make  one  state- 
ment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  I want  to  call  the  at- 

tention of  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  this  fact:  That  in  this  char- 


I ter,  as  we  are  adopting  it,  we  provider^ 
that  the  provisions  of  the  charter  are 
the  present  charter,  except  as  modi- 
fied, if  that  charter  shall  prevail.  And 
one  of  the  provisions  of  that  charter, 
which  will  not  be  modified  if  we  strike/' 
this  out  is,  that  no  report  of  a commit- 
tee shall  be  considered  on  the  night 
in  which  it  is  brought  in  if  two  meih- 
bers  of  the  council  object. 

Now  that  certainly  is  quite  as  dras- 
tic a rule  as  there  is  any  necessity  for 
in  any  legislative  body.  That  prevails, 
and  continues  to  prevail,  if  we  do  not 
pass  something  here  which  is  in  con- 
flict with  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  BENNETT:  I hope  the  mem- 

bers of  the  Convention  will  bear  in 
mind  the  fact  that  most  of  the  orders 
passed  on  the  evening  in  which  they 
are  presented  are  purely  administra- 
tive. Again  and  again  matters  requir- 
ing action  at  once  are  brought  up,  at 
the  council  meeting.  They  are  un- 
avoidable. If  a provision  is  inserted 
in  this  charter  of  this  kind  it  will  sim- 
ply tie  the  hands  of  the  council.  It 
has  occurred  again  and  again.  It  sim- 
ply won ’t  do.  I have  no  objection  to 
any  kind  of  alteration  of  the  rule  you 
may  adopt.  I do  not  think  it  will  al- 
ter the  charter  with  reference  to  or- 
dinances. 

MR.  DEVER:  In  my  experience  I 

have  never  yet  heard  of  an  order  be- 
ing introduced  in  one  night  and  passed 
that  night,  that  was  inimical  to  the 
best  interests  of  the  city.  The  only 
abuse  of  that  power  that  might  arise 
would  be  under  some  special  order,  and 
that  is  a very  limited  quantity  now. 
However,  it  is  extremely  rare  that  any- 
thing is  passed  that  has  any  importance 
at  all  on  the  night  it  is  introduced. 
Sometimes  very,  very  important  mat- 
ters are  called  up  for  attention  by  the 
Mayor,  -or  by  the  heads  of  the  various 
departments,  that  require  prompt  ac- 


December  13 


302 


1906 


tion  at  the  hands  of  the  council.  I 
think  I will  move  that  the  word  “ or- 
der’ ’ in  the  resolution  be  stricken  from 
number  3. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  that  con- 

curred in?  Upon  that  the  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll.  Read  the  section  and 
the  substitute. 

MR  McGOORTY:  I am  willing  to 

consent  to  Mr.  Dever’s  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  Aider- 

man  Dever’s  amendment? 

MR.  DEVER:  Strike  out  the  word 

1 1 Order ’ ; in  the  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  motion  and  substitute. 

(The  Secretary  read  accordingly.) 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is 

within  the  recollection  of  every  mem- 
ber of  this  body  who  has  served  in 
the  Council  that  the  Mayor  has  sub- 
mitted to  the  Council  on  many  occas- 
ions ordinances  which  he  has  asked  to 
have  passed  on  some  evening,  without 
reference  to  a committee.  I do  not 
think  that  this  rule  for  one  moment 
should  be  adopted.  The  resolution  of 
the  Council,  or,  rather,  the  rule  of  the 
Council  now,  it  seems  to  me,  places  all 
the  restrictions  upon  that  body  that  is 
necessary.  And  the  charter,  as  it  now 
exists,  provides  in  a way  for  the  pre- 
vention of  important  matters  being 
passed  the  same  night  that  they  are 
presented.  If  two  members  of  the 
Council  call  for  a committee,  that  set- 
tles the  matter.  It  cannot  be  passed  on 
the  same  night.  T do  not  think  that  we 
should  cumber  the  charter  with  any 
such  provision  as  you  are  attempting  to 
do  here  to-night.  You  are  tying  the 
hands  of  the  administration  in  doing 
so,  and  also  the  hands  of  the  Council, 
that  may  be  fatal  to  the  best  interests 
of  the  community. 

MR.  CHURCH:  The  way  the  amend- 

ment has  been  read,  it  seems  to  me  that 
it  is  absolutely  safe,  and  does  not  take 
any  authority  from  the  Council.  We 


should  recognize  the  bearing  of  the 
word  ‘ 1 emergency. , ’ It  is  left  to  the 
Council  to  decide  what  the  emergency 
is.  I think  it  should  be  passed. 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  word  emer- 

gency’^ always  requires  proof,  of  the 
emergency.  It  leaves  the  action  in 
doubt,  and  not  clear. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I ask  the  question. 

Does  that  prevent  the  Council  deciding 
whether  an  emergency  exists  or  not? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Mc- 

Goorty’s  motion  as  amended  by  Mr. 
Dever — if  there  is  no  further  discus- 
sion— 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we 

are  to  have  a serious  vote  on  this  mo- 
tion and  amendment  I think  some 
change  is  required.  I do  not  like  this 
three-fourths.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
rule  of  the  council  is  that  it  requires 
two-thirds;  and  two-thirds  is  plenty; 
and  that  is  all  the  gentlemen  will  ac- 
complish who  are  in  favor  of  it.  I move 
as  an  amendment,  if  it  be  permissible, 
in  the  rule,  that  the  three-fourths  be 
altered  to  two-thirds. 

MR.  SNOW : That  leaves  it  as  it 

is  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  one  minute. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  It  seeems  to  me 
that  it  makes  the  question  ridiculous. 
If  this  matter  is  of  sufficient  import- 
ance to  be  debated  on,  let  us  debate  on 
it;  or  else  it  is  a matter  of  so  litttle 
importance  that  it  does  not  deserve 
the  attention  that  it  has  already  re- 
ceived. We  have  had  several  opinions 
here,  as  to  how  this  matter  should 
finally  be  settled.  Let  us  postpone  it. 
To  my  mind  it  is  a matter  almost  im- 
material on  account  of  the  words  you 
put  into  it  relating  to  health,  public 
| safety,  and  emergencies,  because  any 
I ordinance  passed  with  words  like  that 
I in  the  charter  will  be  open  to  attack 
in  the  courts. 


December  13 


303 


1906 


ME.  SMULSKI:  I believe  that  if 

the  two  words  “ order  or  resolution ’ ’ 
be  left  out  of  the  original  proposition 
it  would  then  meet  with  the  approval 
of  the  convention.  It  would  be  exactly 
the  same  as  the  rule  of  the  council  now, 
and  I move  as  a substitute  that  the 
original  resolution  as  printed  omit  the 
words  “ order  or  resolution,’  ’ be 
adopted,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  to 
leave  the  three-fourths  in  there? 

MR.  SMULSKI:  No;  two-thirds. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Reject  the  three- 
fourths? 

MR.  SMULSKI:  I wish  to  have  it 

amended  to  two-thirds. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is:  “No 


ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally  on  the 
day  it  is  introduced  except  when  ap- 
proved by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council  ’ ’? 

MR.  SMULSKI:  That  is  my  substi- 

tute for  the  whole. 

MR.  SNOW:  There  is  no  objection 

to  that,  if  the  two-thirds  rule  is  left 
there,  because  you  leave  in  there  what 
is  now  the  rule  of  the  city  council./ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  Those  who  vote  aye. 
Those  opposed.  IHs  carried.  The  Con- 
vention now  stands  adioufned  till  7 :30 
Friday  night. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Friday,  December  14,  1906,  at 
7:30  o’clock  p.  m. 


Secretary. 


December  13 


304 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 


city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IY.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ate provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


V.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 


December  13 


305 


1906 


Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  the  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 


Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

YT.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 


taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen,  shall 
be  four  years. 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state;  and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


December  13 


306 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY  ME.  EOSENTHAL. 

As  an  amendment  to  Chapter  IV.  en- 
titled ELECTIONS.  By  adding  the 
following  proposition  numbered  6: 

6.  The  only  elective  city  officers  (not 
including  aldermen  and  municipal 
judges)  shall  be  the  Mayor  and  City 
Treasurer.  The  City  Treasurer  shall  be 
ex-officio  city  collector. 


BY  ME.  BENNETT: 

XXII. 

5.  SECTION Nothing  in  this  act 

shall  be  construed  to  modify,  impair  or 
affect  or  to  confer  upon  the  city  coun- 
cil power  to  pass  any  ordinance  modi- 
fying, impairing  or  conflicting  with  the 
provisions  of  Section  18  of  an  act  en- 
titled “An  act  to  provide  for  the  an- 
nexation of  cities,  incorporated  towns 
and  villages  or  parts  of  same  to  cities, 
incorporated  towns  and  villages  ’ ’ ap- 
proved April  25th,  1889,  or  to  any  pro- 
vision of  any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  or  creat- 
ing or  defining  criminal  offenses  or  relat- 
ing to  the  prosecution  and  punishment 
thereof,  nor  shall  any  amendment  or 
addition  be  made  to  the  charter  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  except  by  the  General 
Assembly,  by  which  this  section,  or  any 
part  thereof  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
be  abrogated,  repealed  or  annulled. 


BY.  ME.  SHEPAED: 

Eesolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 


of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  ME.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSES  WEENO  AND  EOSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  ch'aritable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


December  13 


307 


1906 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

For  Week  Beginning  Monday,  December  10. 
SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53. 

SECTION  XVII.— Education,  at  page  56. 

PARAGRAPH  3.— Suffrage,  at  page  52. 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  92, 

first  column : Line  13,  insert  word 

“ speak’ ’ instead  of  “come. ” 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  101, 

second  column:  Line  22,  after  the  word 
1 1 then  ’ ’ add  ‘ 1 who  shall. } ’ 


MR.  SHEDD:  On  page  128,  first 

column,  second  line,  strike  out  “in  a” 
and  insert  therefor : 1 1 eliminating  the.  * ’ 
Also,  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
“paper, ” insert  “but  retaining  the  par- 
ty column.  ’ ’ 


MR.  POST : On  page  130,  second 

column,  fifth  line  from  bottom,  sub- 
stitute the  word  “ constitutional’ ’ for 
the  word  “ satisfactory. 1 } 


MR.  SHEPARD:  On  page  134,  first 

column,  last  paragraph,  fifth  line,  strike 
out  “that  is,  that  all  municipal  officers 
and  city  officers,  including  the  municipal 
court  judges  shall  be  elected  in  the 
spring”  and  insert  therefor:  “that  is, 
that  all  city  officers  shall  be  elected  in 
the  spring  at  one  and  the  same  election, 
except  the  municipal  court  judges.” 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  159, 

first  column,  next  to  last  line,  strike 
out  “it  along”  and  insert  “about  its 
passage.  ’ f 


MR.  WERNO:  On  page  161,  left 

hand  column,  line  25,  strike  out  the 
word  “has”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof 
the  word  “have.” 

Also  on  page  161,  right  hand  column, 
13th  line,  strike  out  the  words  “to 


give”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  “who  gives.” 


MR.  LINEHAN:  On  page  162,  first 

column,  next  to  last  line,  strike  out 
word  “devoted”  and  insert  “di- 
vorced.” Also  same  column,  last  line, 
strike  out  word  “to”  and  insert 
“from.”  Also,  same  page,  second  col- 
umn, first  line,  strike  out  “we  are  pro- 
posing” and  insert  “a  proposal.” 


MR.  POWERS:  On  page  166,  sec- 

ond column,  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  lines, 
strike  out  “Well,  can’t  he  do  that 
without  the  consent  of  this  Conven- 
tion?” and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  “He 
cannot  do  that  without  the  consent  of 
this  Convention. 1 ’ 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  170, 

first  colmun,  fourth  line,  after  the  word 
“entrance”  insert  the  following:  “to 
the  service  protected  by  the  law.” 


MR.  PENDARYIS:  Page  179,  first 

column;  strike  out  .entire  line,  and  in- 
sert in  lieu  thereof:  “that  fact  we 
put  into  the,”  also,  same  page,  same 
column,  in  fourth  line  from  bottom, 
insert  the  word  “meet”  for  “leave.” 


MR.  VOPICKA:  Page  214,  second 

column,  twelfth  line  of  paragraph, 
strike  out  words  “a  movement”  and 
insert  “an  improvement.” 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  Page  226,  second 
column,  line  24,  change  the  word  “po- 
sition” to  “provision”;  also,  same 
page,  same  column,  line  26,  change  the 
word  “of”  to  “by.” 


December  13 


308 


1906 


MR,  VOPICKA:  On  page  226,  sec- 
ond column,  correct  as  follows:  “Mr. 

Chairman. — If  Mr.  Rosenthal  will  change 
his  amendment  to  read  $3,500  minimum 
and  $5,000  maximum,  you  will  get  men 
of  more  intelligence  to  seek  the  office; 
make  it  a minimum  salary  of  $3,500 
and  a maximum  of  $5,000,  and  not  more 
than  that.” 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

have  inserted  in  the  records  at  page 
253,  column  2,  anywhere  there,  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph,  which  was  a part  of 
Mr.  Fisher’s  speech,  and  was  left  out 
wholly,  as  follows : 

“ * * * Mr.  Linehan,  to  speak 
plainly,  is  in  sympathy  with  the  present 
mayor,  for  this  reason.  He  is  willing 


that  the  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
should  be  four  years,  but  objects  to  the 
aldermanic  term  being  lengthened.  I 
ask  him  if  he  would  be  of  the  same 
mind  if  he  were  opposed  to  the  mayor, 
but  was  in  sympathy  with  the  city  coun- 
cil, which  had  to  seek  re-election  every 
two  years.” 

MR.  FISHER:  I must  object  to  the 

insertion  of  this  language  as  being  my 
exact  language;  that  is  not  exactly  what 
I stated.  I think  it  does  fairly  state 
the  sense  of  what  was  stated,  but  the 
remark  which  I made  was  that  Mr.  Line- 
han was  in  favor  of  the  policies  of  the 
present  mayor.  I don ’t  know  whether 
he  is  in  favor  of  the  present  mayor  or 
opposed  to  the  present  mayor,  but  I 
do  understand  that  he  is  in  favor  of 
the  policies  of  the  present  mayor. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  14,  1906 


Cliinujii  (Iluu'trr  (fin  uuntt  inn 

Convened,  December  12,  190S 

Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  foreman chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin.  Asst.  Secy 


December  14 


311 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
Regular  Meeting,  Friday,  December  14,  1906 

7:30  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

Present — Foreman,  Chairman,  and  Ba- 
ker, Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Burke,  Carey,  Church,  Clettenberg,  De- 
ver,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eck- 
hart,  J.  W.,  Erickson,  Fisher,  Guerin, 
Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Line- 
han,  MacMillan,  McCormick,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O ’Donnell,  Oehne, 
Owens,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Powers,  Ray- 
mer,  Revell,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Shanahan, 
Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Taylor,  Vopicka, 
Walker,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young, 
Zimmer — 49. 

Absent — Badenoch,  Brosseau,  Cole, 
Crilly,  Ritter,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eidmann, 
Fitzpatrick,  Gansbergen,  Graham,  Haas, 
Harrison,  Hill,  Hunter,  Lundberg,  Pat- 
terson, Post,  Rainey,  Rosenthal,  Sethness, 
Shedd,  Sunny,  Swift,  Thompson,  Wilson 
—25. 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Quorum  present. 

Are  there  any  amendments  or  corrections 
to  the  minutes?  They  stand  approved 
as  the  records  of  the  last  meeting,  if 
there  are  none.  Are  there  any  commu- 
nications? 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Kittleman. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I received  the 

following  communication  through  the 
mail  today  for  the  Charter  Convention, 
signed  by  various  citizens,  and  I ask 
that  it  be  read  and  placed  on  file. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  resolution  without  the 
names. 

THE  SECRETARY:  To  Chicago  City 
Charter  Delegates  Assembled:  We,  the 

undersigned  citizens  of  Chicago,  do  most 
respectfully  request  that  your  honorable 
body  act  favorably  on  the  charter  sec- 
tion proposed  by  the  Chicago  Law  and 
Order  League,  thereby  giving  the  sup- 
port of  the  State  to  our  city  in  all  mat- 
ters relating  to  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  communica- 


December  14 


312 


1906 


tion,  without  the  names,  will  be  entered 
in  the  record. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I desire  to 

offer  the  following  resolution,  and  ask 
to  have  it  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  resolution? 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  B.  A. 

Eckhart.  No  city  officer  or  employee 
shall  directly  or  indirectly  ask  for,  de- 
mand or  accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for 
the  use  of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank, 
gratuitous  service  or  discrimination,  from 
any  person  or  corporation  holding  or 
using  any  franchise,  privilege  or  license 
granted  by  the  city.  But  this  prohibi- 
tion shall  not  extend  to  the  furnishing 
of  free  transportation  to  police  officers 
while  on  duty.  The  charter  shall  con- 
tain appropriate  provisions  for  the  en- 
forcement of  this  prohibition.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  will 

lay  over  until  the  proper  head  is  reached. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  That  might 

be  taken  up  when  we  reach  section  16, 
paragraph  7,  public  utilities. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  the  matter  will  be  taken  up 
when  we  reach  the  subject  of  public 
utilities. 

MR.  BROWN : I have  a resolution  to 

offer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Senator  Brown’s  resolution. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr. 

Brown:  Permission  shall  not  be  given 

to  any  person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruits, 
or  vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  { 
vehicle. 1 ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : That  matter  will 

be  taken  up  in  order ; are  there  any  other 
communications  or  resolutions? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  that  the 

late  charter  amendment  be  printed  in 
bold-faced  type  in  the  proceedings  of 
this  meeting,  so  that  every  member  of 
the  Convention  can  have  before  him  the 
full  constitutional  amendment  under 
which  we  are  attempting  to  draft  this 
charter  for  the  City  of  Chicago. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any  ob- 
jections to  this  resolution?  If  not,  all 
those  who  favor  it  will  signify  by  say- 
ing aye.  Those  opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  section  8,  powers  of  the  City 
Council  with  regard  to  officers. 

The  Secretary  read  page  53,  section 
VIII. 

MR.  BENNETT : We  have  already 

adopted  that  when  we  adopted  the  first 
section  of  the  last  paragraph. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  When  did  we 

adopt  that? 

MR.  BENNETT : ‘ ‘ The  powers  of  the 
City  Council  shall  be  as  now  prescribed 
by  law,  except  as  modified  by  this  char- 
ter. ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  had  better 

dispose  of  this  paragraph  first. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I move  that  it  be 

laid  on  the  table  as  having  been  already 
adopted.  N 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Any  discussion 

upon  this  question?  If  not,  all  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no.  It  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  number  two. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  2. 

MR.  RA YMER : Mr.  Chairman,  I have 
an  amendment  to  offer  as  a substitute 
to  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Ray- 

mer:  Substitute  the  following  for  No. 

^ of  Section  VIII:  The  office  of  City 

derk  shall  cease  to  be  a charter  office 
md  the  City  Council  shall  have  power 
by  ordinance  to  provide  for  the  method 
of  choosing  the  City  Clerk,  and  to  pro- 
vide for  the  duty  of  the  City  Clerk.  ’ ’ 
MR.  RAYMER : I move  its  adoption. 

V.THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  this  substitute  read.  The 
matter  is  before  the  house. 

A VOICE:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 


December  14 


313 


1906 


vor  of  adopting  the  substitute  signify 
by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no.  The 
substitute  is  adopted.  That  takes  the 
place  of  No.  2.  The  Secretary  will  now 
read  No.  3. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  3. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Rosenthal  offered 

a provision  which  is  printed  on  page 
152  of  the  record,  which  might  be  con- 
sidered at  this  time,  which  provides 
that  the  city  treasurer  shall  be  elected, 
and  shall  be  ex  officio  city  collector.  As 
I understand,  by  the  adoption  of  No.  2 
the  position  of  city  treasurer  shall  be 
an  elective  office. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  provides 

that  the  city  treasurer  be  elected  as  at 
present  elected. 

MR.  JONES:  The  additional  question 

raised  by  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  resolution  is 
that  of  making  the  city  treasurer  the 
city  collector.  I think  it  would  be  well 
to  pass  upon  that  at  this  time.  I,  there- 
fore, move  that  the  last  part  of  Mr.  Ro- 
senthal’s  resolution,  reading  “The  city 
treasurer  shall  be  ex  officio  city  col- 
lector,” be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  that  portion  of  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal’s resolution  relating  to  the  city 
treasurer. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  306,  left- 

hand  column,  top  of  the  page,  under 
resolution  offered  from  the  floor  of  the 
Convention,  but  not  acted  upon,  page 
306,  “By  Mr.  Rosenthal:  The  only 

elective  city  officers,  not  including  mu- 
nicipal judges,  shall  be  the  mayor,  the 
city  treasurer,  and  the  city  treasurer 
shall  be  ex  officio  city  collector.” 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I understand  only 

the  latter  part  of  that  resolution  is  be- 
fore the  convention? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes;  we  have  al- 
ready disposed  of  the  part  relating  to 
municipal  judges. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I have  just  one 

thought  in  this  connection,  and  that  is 
this,  that  the  officer  who  receives  I 
money  should  have  someone  to  whom  he  | 


should  report  and  turn  the  money  over. 
I have  thought  some  on  this  subject, 
and  my  personal  opinion  of  it  is  that 
the  office  of  the  city  treasurer  should 
be  retained,  and  also  the  office  of  the 
city  collector  for  that  reason.  Unless 
you  have  someone  to  whom  the  collect- 
ing officer  reports — as  it  is  now,  the  city 
collector  reports  to  the  city  treasurer 
as  to  all  the  funds  that  he  collects,  and 
in  that  way  the  comptroller  is  enabled 
to  keep  track  of  the  money  received. 
I think  it  would  be  a mistake  to  elim- 
inate one  of  these  offices. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Senator  Jones’  motion  to  adopt 
the  part  of  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  resolution 
which  makes  the  city  treasurer  ex 
officio  city  collector.  Are  you  ready  for 
the  question? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  In  the  absence 

of  Mr.  Rosenthal,  the  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Elections,  I might  say 
that  this  question  was  discussed  at  some 
length  in  that  committee.  The  first 
proposition  made,  I believe,  was  to  con- 
solidate the  office  of  the  city  treasurer 
and  comptroller;  but  the  opinion  seems 
to  prevail  that  those  two  offices  should 
be  kept  separate,  and  that  it  would  be 
much  preferable  if  you  were  going  to 
consolidate  the  offices  of  the  city  col- 
lector and  city  treasurer,  and  after  some 
extended  discussion  that  was  the  sense 
of  the  committee. 

There  is  no  apparent  reason  why  the 
city  collector  cannot  be  ex  officio  col- 
lector as  the  county  treasurer  is  ex- 
officio  collector,  and  thus  do  away  with 
one  office.  That  was  the  reason  for  the 
Committee  on  Elections,  making  the  re- 
port that  it  did,  and  Mr.  Rosenthal 
offering  the  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further  dis- 

cussion upon  the  motion  of  Senator 
Jones?  If  not,  all  those  in  favor  sig- 
nify  by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas— Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Brown,  Carey, 
Church,  Clettcnberg,  Eckhart,  B.  A., 


December  14 


314 


1906 


Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  Lineban,  Oehne,  Owens, 
Pendarvis,  Revell,  Robins,  Smulski, 
Taylor,  Yopicka,  Walker,  Young — 23. 

Nays — Baker,  Bennett,  Dever,  Guerin, 
MacMillan,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  O’Donnell,  Powers,  Raymer,  Rin- 
aker,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 19. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BENNETT:  What  is  the  ques- 

tion before  the  convention? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Will  the  Chair  state 
the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is: 

The  adoption  of  that  portion  of  Mr. 
Rosenthal ’s  resolution  which  makes  the 
city  treasurer  ex  officio  city  collector. 
Call  the  roll. 

MR.  GUERIN : The  gentleman  on 
my  right  has  caused  me  to  change  my 
vote.  As  I understand  it  here,  the  city 
collector  simply  turns  over  the  money 
to  himself.  There  is  no  check  on  him 
whatever,  or  on  the  city  treasurer. 
Therefore,  I vote  no.  I think  there 
ought  to  be  a check  there. 

MR.  WALKER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  change  my  vote  from  no  to  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Judge  Walker 

changes  his  vote  from  no  to  aye. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Walker,  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : On  the  motion 

to  make  the  city  treasurer  ex  officio 
city  collector,  the  yeas  are  23  and  the 
nays  19;  and  the  motion  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  3. 

MR.  WALKER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 
sire to  give  notice  that  I shall  intro- 
duce a motion  to  reconsider  on  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  will 

be  entered  of  record. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  53,  No.  3. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  what 

will  you  do  with  this? 

MR.  DEVER:  Will  you  read  the  last 
sentence — the  last  clause? 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  last  sentence. 

The  secretary  read  as  requested. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Under  the  charter 

as  it  now  stands  we  have  power  to  in- 
vestigate, but  we  have  not  the  power 
to  compel  the  attendance  of  witnesses. 

I therefore  move  the  adoption  of  Sec- 
tion 3.  It  is  apparently  surplusage, 
but  I move  its  adoption. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor signify  the  same  by  saying  aye; 
those  opposed,  no.  It  is  adopted,  and 
the  Secretary  will  read  No.  9. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  9. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  mo- 

tion, gentlemen? 

MR.  SHEPARD : I move  its  adoption. 

MR.  REVELL:  Will  somebody  ex- 

plain what  it  means,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  a section 

containing  the  usual  police  powers  as 
contained  in  charters  usually.  That  is 
how  I understand  it.  All  those  in  favor 
signify  in  the  usual  way;  opposed,  no. 
It  is  adopted. 

The  next  is  the  subject  of  revenue,  and  ' 
that  is  a matter  of  special  order. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Under  the  rule 

hitherto  adopted  by  this  Convention, 
Chapter  X on  Revenue  should  stand  over 
to  be  considered  at  a date  to  be  here- 
after fixed  by  the  Convention.  I sug- 
gest, therefore,  that  it  do  stand  over. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  it  will  stand  over,  as  a spe- 
cial order.  The  Secretary  will  read  No. 
11,  on  indebtedness. 

THE  SECRETARY  read  No.  XI,  as 
printed  in  the  proceedings  at  page  54. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I move  its  adop- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  and 

seconded.  Those  in  favor  say  aye;  those 
opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  XII,  Expenditures. 


December  14 


315 


1906 


The  Secretary  read  No.  XII,  as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  proceedings  at  page  54. 

M^R.  BENNETT:  I move  the  adop- 

tion of  the  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Those  in  favor 

of  the  motion  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  those  opposed,  no.  The  ayes  have 
it,  and  the  section  is  adopted.  The  Sec- 
retary will  read  No.  13. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  54,  No. 

XIII : Property. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  at  a time. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

is  a desirable  provision.  As  it  stands  to- 
day if  we  desire  to  have  an  engine  house 
or  an  engine  site  we  are  not  able  to  get 
it.  I move  the  adoption  of  paragraph 
1,  Section  13. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  Those  in  favor 
say  aye;  and  those  opposed,  no.  It  is 
adopted. 

MR.  WALKER : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  Alderman  Bennett  if 
that  doesn ’t  mean  they  can  condemn 
property  for  any  city  purpose? 

MR.  BENNETT:  To  my  mind  it 

does ; if  it  does  not,  I presume  that  is 
what  it  should  mean. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I presume  that 

is  the  intention  of  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  By  assuming  that, 

is  there  any  objection  to  adding  the 
word  “city”? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  suggest 

adding  the  word  “city,”  before  “pur- 
pose ”? 

MR.  FISHER : Can  it  exercise  powers 
of  taxation  for  any  other  purpose  than 
municipal  purposes?  I do  not  think 
they  can. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I move  you,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  the  word  “city”  be  add- 
ed just  preceding  the  word  “purpose.” 
The  city  now  has  the  right  to  levy  taxes 
for  other  than  city  purposes. 

MR.  FISHER:  What  purpose? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  For  library  pur- 

poses, for  one  thing;  and  for  school  pur- 
poses for  another. 


MR.  FISHER:  Why  should  we  have 

the  power — 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Wait  a minute. 

For  school  purposes,  and  for  others.  If 
we  continue  as  we  have  before,  there 
will  be  added  park  purposes  also. 

MR.  FISHER  : That  is  what  I sup- 

posed, Mr.  Chairman — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER : For  what  object  is  the 

distinction?  We  cannot  condemn  for 
park  purposes;  we  cannot  condemn  for 
library  purposes;  we  cannot  condemn  for 
school  purposes.  Now,  we  have  power  to 
condemn  for  two  already.  I do  not  see 
why  we  should  exclude  this? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  reason  that  I 

make  the  motion  at  this  time  is  that 
those  rights  are  reserved  under  the  pro- 
vision for  the  respective  purposes.  For 
instance:  In  school  purposes  the  power 

to  condemn  is  reserved  there,  and  can 
be  taken  up  any  time.  Then  the  drafter 
will  draw  a law  that  is  consistent  and 
precise.  This  leaves  it  open  for  any 
purpose.  Furthermore,  by  putting  in  the 
word  for  1 1 city  ’ ’ purposes  the  object  is 
that  school  purposes  is  not  a city  pur- 
pose and  it  cannot  be  made  a city  pur- 
pose. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I do 

not  like  to  get  into  a disagreement  with 
the  distinguished  counsel,  but  have  we 
not  in  the  first  section  already  adopted 
it?  We  have  provided  expressly  that  the 
School  Board — the  Board  of  Education — 
shall  be  a department  of  the  City  Gov- 
ernment. We  have  so  said.  We  under- 
stand that  is  a legal  constitution,  and 
that  it  is  what  it  is  now. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  No,  it  is  not  now. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  is  in  one  sense,  now. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  No,  not  in  a legal 

sense. 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  it  is  in  a legal 

sense,  with  one  exception. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I would  like  to  di- 

rect Mr.  Fisher ’s  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  Board  of  Education  of  the  city, 
so  far  as  it  has  to  do  with  educational 


December  14 


316 


1906 


matters,  is  an  agency  of  the  state;  fol- 
lowing the  precise  limitations  and  direc- 
tions of  the  constitution  of  the  state. 
When  the  City  Council  of  this  city  levies 
a tax  it  does  not  act  as  agent  of  the 
city;  or  in  its  corporate  capacity  as 
officers  of  the  city.  But  it  acts  as  an 
agent  of  the  state. 

ME.  FISHEE:  I think  Mr.  Shepard 

is  correct  in  that  statement.  What  hap- 
pens is,  when  you  buy  property  the 
Board  of  Education  presents  a request 
to  the  City  Council,  and  my  recollection 
is  it  has  to  be  acted  upon  by  the  City 
Council.  Now,  there  is  a resolution  pend- 
ing here — I do  not  say  it  will  be  adopt- 
ed— there  is  a resolution  pending  that 
the  Board  of  Education  shall,  under  this 
charter,  be  made  a department  of  the 
City  Government ; and  that  there  shall 
be  a superintendent  of  education  and . a 
superintendent  of  property— school  prop- 
erty; a manager  of  school  property. 
Now,  if  that  should  be  adopted,  and  we 
have  taken  the  power  to  condemn  for 
school  purposes  out  of  this  resolution, 
we  are  going  to  have  to  come  back  and 
do  all  that  over  again.  Now,  it  seems 
to  me  that — I do  not  understand  the 
distinction  which  is  attempted  to  be  cre- 
ated. The  city,  if  it  levies  taxes  as  a 
city,  ought  to  be  authorized  to  condemn 
property  for  the  purpose  for  which  it 
levies  taxes.  At  least,  so  it  seems  to  me. 
I would  like  to  understand  what  par- 
ticular function  of  municipal  govern- 
ment for  which  we  can  now  tax,  counsel 
does  not  now  wish  to  have  the  city 
vested  with  the  power  to  condemn  prop- 
erty. Certainly  if  we  are  going  to  have 
the  park  boards  consolidated  with  the 
city,  as  proposed,  we  want  to  condemn 
for  park  purposes,  and  the  city  will 
then  be  condemning  for  park  purposes, 
and  then  if  we  consolidate  the  Board 
of  Education  that  will  be  true  also  of 
them.  It  seems  to  me  there  is  an  at- 
tempt at  distinction  here  which  ought 
not  to  be  at  this  time. 

MB.  PENDAEVIS:  Mr.  Chairman. 


THE  CHAIEMAN : Mr.  Pendarvis. 

ME.  PENDAEVIS:  I would  like  to 

ask  a question  from  some  of  the  gen- 
tlemen, whether  it  is  contemplated  by 
this  provision  to  confer  any  broader  pow- 
ers than  were  given  in  the  charter  passed 
by  the  last  general  assembly  upon  this 
proposition? 

ME.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  say  with  reference  to  condemna- 
tion, that  we  have  not  the  power  to 
condemn  an  engine  site  or  a police  sta- 
tion site.  The  powers  are  limited  to 
paragraph  89  of  the  Cities  and  Villages 
Act,  and  while  we  have  power  by  con- 
demnation and  otherwise  to  extend  any 
street,  alley  or  highway,  etc.,  we  have 
no  power  to  condemn  sites  for  various 
buildings,  and  we  want  that  power  and 
we  ought  to  have  that  power. 

ME.  PENDAEVIS:  My  recollection 

is,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  there  was  a sec- 
tion in  the  charter  act  recommended 
by  the  charter  committee  on  state 
legislation  at  the  last  general  assem- 
bly, and  passed  by  that  body,  confer- 
ring upon  the  city  the  right  to  exer- 
cise the  power  of  eminent  domain;  and, 
if  I am  not  mistaken,  that  section  was 
left  in  the  act  as  passed,  and  is  now 
part  of  the  act  adopted  by  the  people. 

ME,  SHPEAED:  Mr.  Chairman,  if 

I may  be  permitted  to  rise  again  to  this 
question,  I desire  to  say  that  my  only 
purpose  is  to  get  into  this  section  a 
legal  proposition; 

Taking  up  Mr.  Fisher’s  idea,  I think 
undoubtedly  we  were  both  working  for 
the  same  end.  My  idea  is  to  give  the 
city  the  broadest  possible  power  in 
the  right  of  condemnation.  If  the  park 
is  consolidated  with  the  city,  it  un- 
doubtedly will  be  a part  of  the  city, 
and  the  library  the  same;  and  the  con- 
stitution of  the  state  excepts  the 
schools,  and  that  must  be  taken  up  un- 
der the  section  with  which  we  deal  with 
the  school  proposition.  We  will  have 
to  reserve  that  right  to  the  City  Coun- 
cil as  an  agency  of  the  state  to  con- 


December  14 


317 


1906 


demn  for  school  purposes  as  heretofore 
and  not  to  condemn  for  city  purposes, 
so  when  we  propose  to  make  this  read 
1 1 The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  city 
purpose  for  which  it  may  exercise  the 
power  of  taxation,”  we  give  it  its 
broadest  possible  power,  which  can  be 
conferred  under  the  constitution  of  the 
state;  and  there  is  no  use  of  stating 
therein  any  purpose,  any  more  than 
there  would  be  a use  for  our  saying  the 
City  Council  may  condemn  property  in 
Indiana,  because  it  cannot  do  that.  It 
cannot  condemn  property  for  any  pur- 
pose. We  cannot  give  it  that  power, 
and  the  legislature  cannot  confer  that 
power. 

By  adding  this  amendment,  “for  city 
purposes,”  we  give  it  its  broadest  pos- 
sible power,  and  the  drafter  of  our 
charter  will  straighten  out  these  tan- 
gles and  other  differences  that  exist 
between  Mr.  Fisher’s  view  or  my  own. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I do 

not  think 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Pendarvis. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
have  before  me  the  laws  that  were  in 
the  last  charter  act,  and  my  recollec- 
tion that  a clause  of  that  kind  was 
passed.  It  reads  as  follows: 

“The  city  may  exercise  the  right  of 
eminent  domain  by  condemnation  pro- 
ceedings in  conformity  with  the  pro- 
visions of  the  constitution  and  statute 
of  the  State  of  Illinois  for  the  acquire- 
ment of  property  useful,  advantageous 
or  desirable  for  municipal  purposes, 
and  the  procedure  in  such  cases  shall 
be  as  nearly  as  may  be  like  that  pro- 
vided for  in  an  act  entitled  ‘An  Act 
concerning  Local  Improvements,  ap- 
proved June  14,  1897,  in  force  July  1, 
1897,’  as  now  or  hereafter  from  time 
to  time  amended.” 

T am  reading  from  the  original  draft 
of  the  charter  act  that  was  sent  to  the 
legislature  by  the  City  Council  Commit- 
tee on  State  Legislation  and  adopted 


and  submitted  to  a vote  of  the  people, 
and  by  the  people  adopted. 

I move  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  sub- 
stitution of  the  section  just  read  for 
that  now  before  the  body. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  send  it 
up  here,  please,  so  that  the  Secretary 
may  read  it?  The  Secretary  will  read 
the  substitute. 

The  Secretary  re-read  the  section. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  substitute,  Mr.  Bennett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  if 

I understand  the  amendment  right,  it 
cuts  off  the  right  of  purchase  inde- 
pendent of  a condemnation,  and  this  is 
offered,  as  I understand  it,  as  an 
amendment  to  Section  1.  It  cuts  us  out 
from  the  right  of  purchase  by  advertise- 
ment, as  we  do  now.  Sometimes  we 
find  that  we  get  fair  prices  when  we 
advertise  for  property,  and  at  other 
times  we  are  not  able  to  acquire  the 
exact  property  we  want,  except  by  pay- 
ing excessive  costs. 

We  desire  the  right  to  condemn  such 
property,  and,  in  my  judgment,  the 
paragraph  printed  is  preferable  to  the 
one  submitted  by  Mr.  Pendarvis. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  The  question  is  upon 
Mr.  Pendarvis’  substitute.  As  many  as 
favor  it  will  signify  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  The  substitute  is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  next  ques- 

tion is  upon  Mr.  Shepard’s  amendment 
to  No.  1,  concerning  the  word  city.  Do 
I understand  that  correctly? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  this  is  a general 
power,  giving  to  the  city  the  general 
power  of  condemnation.  Any  word  you 
put  in  there  will  be  a word  used  in  the 
interpretation  of  that  power.  It  will 
operate  as  a limitation,  and  instead  of 
giving  as  broad  power  as  possible,  it 
will  necessarily  operate  as  a limitation. 
I do  not  know  that  it  will  be  neces- 
sarily objectionable,  but  T cannot  for 


December  14 


318 


1906 


the  life  of  me  see  that  it  should  be  at 
all  desirable,  and  if  it  should  happen 
that  there  should  be  some  purposes 
other  than  city  purposes  for  which  the 
power  of  condemnation  would  be,  de- 
sirable under  the  interpretation,  under 
a limited  interpretation  of  what  city 
or  municipal  might  be,  it  seems  to  me  it 
might  be  quite  advantageous.  I,  there- 
fore, vote  that  the  amendment  don’t 
prevail. 

ME.  HOYNE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hoyne. 

MR.  HO.YNE:  The  very  reason 

which  Mr.  Robins  gives  is  the  very  rea- 
son I am  in  favor  of  Mr.  Shepard’s 
motion.  We  want  something  specific. 
This  thing  of  having  everything  gen- 
eral does  not  limit  it,  and  that  is  what 
we  want  to  know.  If  we  are  going  to 
pass  something  here,  we  want  to  know 
what  it  is  to  cover.  And  Alderman  Ben- 
nett has  stated  distinctly  what  he  wants 
and  what  the  City  Council  wants;  they 
want  the  power  to  purchase,  and  that  is 
what  we  want  to  give  them.  And  we 
want  to  know  for  what  purpose  they  in- 
tend to  purchase.  For  that  reason,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I am  in  favor  of  Mr.  Shep- 
ard’s motion. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  we  are  still  keeping  away 
from  the  point.  The  whole  question  is 
whether  the  definition  of  the  purpose 
for  which  we  wish  the  city  vested  with 
the  power  of  eminent  domain  or  pur- 
chase is  that  it  shall  be  confined  sim- 
ply to  those  things  for  which  the  city 
has  the  power  of  taxation,  for  which  it 
can  levy  taxes.  If  so,  we  want  it  in 
the  original  form  and  not  with  Mr. 
Shepard’s  amendment. 

The  question  is,  if  the  city  has  the 
power  to  levy  taxes  for  a particular 
purpose,  whether  it  ought  not  to  have 
the  power  to  purchase  or  condemn  prop- 
erty for  that  purchase. 


MR.  HOYNE:  That  is  what  we  want. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  what  we  have 
in  one.  Now,  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion  is 
to  insert  the  words  “city  purposes,” 
for  which  it  shall  have  power  to  levy 
taxes,  and  as  Mr.  Robins  has  said,  when 
that  should  come  before  a court  the 
court  would  be  hunting  around  to  find 
out  why  they  put  in  the  word  “city.” 
That  they  must  have  thought  there  was 
some  purpose  for  which  the  city  should 
levy  a tax  that  was  not  a city  purpose. 
Now  that  is  just  the  reason  why  I am 
opposed  to  Mr.  Shepard’s  amendment, 
that  it  imports  some  language  in  there 
that  I cannot  see  what  the  meaning  of 
it  is,  but  which  in  the  consideration  by 
the  court  there  would  be  an  attempt  to 
give  to  it  some  meaning. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I think  the  trouble 

about  this  is,  if  I understand  it  right, 
if  this  charter  is  adopted  there  will  be 
a consolidation  of  the  parks,  of  the 
library  and  the  schools  and  the  city. 
All  of  these  bodies  will  be  a part  of  the 
city,  and  the  word  “city”  embraces 
the  whole  subject.  I do  not  think  there 
is  any  preference  as  to  which  form  the 
matter  should  take,  as  I see  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor Mr.  Shepard’s  amendment  will  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  The 
amendment  is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

now  upon  the  proposition  as  printed; 
as  many  as  favor  No.  1,  Section  XIII, 
will  signify  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  next  section. 

The  Secretary  read  Section  No.  2, 

MR.  BENNETT:  This  is  a desirable 

provision,  in  case  the  city  should  de- 
sire to  locate  the  Bridewell  outside  of 
the  city  limits,  or  desire  to  erect  a gar- 


December  14 


319 


1906 


bage  plant,  or  desire  to  erect  a home 
for  juvenile  offenders,  it  might  be  very 
desirable  to  go  out  where  we  could 
get  plenty  of  land.  I might  cite  other 
cases,  but  I think  that  is  sufficient.  I 
therefore  move  the  adoption  of  the 
section. 

ME.  O ’DONNELL : I second  the  mo- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion,  that  the  section  be  adopted. 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

MR,  WALKER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
would  like  to  ask  the  supporters,  and 
proposers  of  these  two  sections  if  they 
mean  that  the  word  “property”  covers 
all  kinds  of  property,  real,  personal 
and  mixed,  or  do  they  mean  to  apply 
the  right  of  condemnation  to  personal 
property  not  attached  to  real  estate? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
assume  that  if  it  was  necessary  for  us 
to  condemn  personal  property  to  get 
the  things  we  needed,  yes;  but  I would 
not  expect  such  a contingency  to  arise. 
If  we  wanted  a particular  piece  of 
land,  that  involved  the  question  of  cer- 
tain personal  property,  we  should  have 
the  right  to  have  the  land  for  the  price 
the  court  says  we  should  pay  for  it. 

MR.  FTSHER:  I want  to  call  the 

attention  of  the  Convention  to  one 
thing  only,  something  raised  by  Judge 
Walker's  statement:  We  now  have  cer- 
tain powers  with  regard  to  water;  I can 
conceive  of  a situation  where  we  might 
want  to  acquire  water  rights  without 
any  real  estate,  and  that  would  be  one 
of  those  things  that  might  not  be 
strictly  real  estate,  *and  yet  it  might  be 
condemned,  the  water  right. 

MR.  RINAKER:  I would  like  to 

ask  a question:  As  I read  Section  2,  the 
words  1 1 so  acquired,”  that  means  that 
it  can  be  by  purchase  or  condemnation, 
does  it  not? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I presume  so. 

MR.  RTNAKER:  And  I want  to  ask  if 
they  want  to  give  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago the  power,  for  example — of  course  | 


this  is  an  extreme  case — the  power  to 
condemn  a lot  in  the  choicest  part  of 
Evanston  for  the  purpose  of  locating 
the  Bridewell?  That  is  an  extreme 
case,  but  the  question  is  this:  Do  we 
want  a charter  passed  with  a section 
like  that?  Do  you  suppose  that  any 
country  would  allow  Chicago  the  right 
to  go  down  and  condemn  property  in 
their  respective  community  for  Chicago 
city  purposes? 

MR.  BENNETT:  When  I spoke 

about  garbage  and  the  Bridewell,  I as- 
sumed we  were  talking  among  our- 
selves. Of  course  we  will  be  politic 
when  we  go  to  Springfield.  This  is  one 
of  the  necessities  we  have  experienced 
in  the  past.  It  is  a very  desirable 
provision  in  this  charter,  in  my  judg- 
ment. It  is  certainly  desirable  to  put 
houses  of  correction  and  places  of  that 
sort  where  there  will  be  plenty  of  land 
around  them,  and  if  the  people  who  are 
to  be  affected  by  the  location  of  such 
institutions  suffer  any  damages,  they 
have  their  remedy,  and  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago I take  it  is  ready  to  pay  for  it 
if  it  is  necessary,  for  municipal  func- 
tions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready  for 
the  question? 

(Cries  of  “question.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor the  adoption  of  No.  2 of  Section 
13  will  signify  by  saying  aye.  Those 
opposed,  no.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll  on  that. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I think  it  might 

be  well  to  divide  No.  2;  I believe  there 
are  a great  many  members  of  this 
Convention  who  are  willing  to  give  the 
right  to  the  City  of  Chicago  to  go' 
out  and  purchase  any  property  it  may 
desire  outside  of  the  limits,  but  who 
are  not  willing  for  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago to  go  and  condemn  property  out- 
side of  the  city  limits  for  any  purposes 
whatever.  I move  that  it  be  divided. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  will  you 

divide  it? 


December  14 


320 


1906 


ME.  SHANAHAN:  Well,  the  city  may 
acquire  property  by  purchase  outside 
as  well  as  within  the  city  limits  for  any 
municipal  purpose. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  What  section  do 

you  refer  to? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Section  13, 

1 1 property.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Which  part? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  No.  2.  It  says, 

“The  city  may  so  acquire  property  out- 
side of  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  municipal  purposes.’ ’ That  means 
that  the  city  may  purchase  or  condemn 
outside  property.  I desire  to  move  that 
that  be  divided  so  as  to  read  that  the 
city  may  acquire  property  by  purchase 
outside  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  and  not 
have  the  right  to  condemn  outside  prop- 
erty. 

MR.  REYELL:  May  I ask  Mr. 

Shanahan  a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Just  a minute,  un- 
til I get  Mr.  Shanahan’s  motion.  The 
purport  of  your  amendment  is  that  the 
right  of  condemnation  shall  not  be 
vested  in  the  city  outside  of  city  lim- 
its? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : But  that  it  may 

purchase  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits? 

MR.  SHANAHAN : Yes,  sir. 

MR.  REVELL:  I merely  wish  to  ask 

Mr.  Shanahan  this  question:  Is  it  wise 
for  us  to  anticipate  too  far  ahead  as 
to  what  the  legislature  may  do  in 
regard  to  the  matter  referred  to  by 
Judge  Rinaker?  I believe  the  City  of 
Chicago  would  be  willing  to  have  the 
right  granted  to  it  to  go  outside  to 
condemn  property,  that  it  might  need 
for  its  own  purposes,  or  for  park  pur- 
poses. But  why  should  we  assume  here 
that  the  legislature  would  not  want  to 
grant  that  right  to  us?  If  we  have  to 
meet  that  point  why  not  meet  it  at 
the  legislature  and  let  them  eliminate 
it  rather  than  us? 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  I assume  that 

the  citizens  of  the  City  of  Chicago  do 
not  desire  to  give  to  the  citizens  of  Mo- 
line or  Springfield  or  Peoria  the  right 
to  go  into  the  City  of  Chicago  and 
condemn  its  property  for  any  municipal 
purposes  for  the  cities  of  Peoria,  Spring- 
field  or  Moline.  I think  we  should  be 
fair  in  these  matters. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I simply  de- 

sire to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  it  might 
be  necessary  if  the  consolidation  is  ef- 
fected, to  acquire  property  outside  of 
the  city  limits  of  Chicago  for  other  pur- 
poses than  mentioned  tonight,  for  the 
use  of  a Bridewell,  or  a small-pox  hos- 
pital, or  other  objectionable  purposes. 
It  might  be  necessary  in  the  near  future 
to  acquire  property  for  parks;  it  may 
be  necessary,  if  you  carry  out  the 
scheme  that  has  been  proposed  and  ad- 
vocated for  some  time  past  for  the 
outer  park  belt  to  have  the  right  to 
acquire  property  not  only  by  purchase, 
but  by  condemnation.  Now,  if  we 
can  secure  such  a right  and  power  as 
that  I think  it  would  be  very  desirable 
to  do  so. 

I cannot  conceive  how  any  one  of 
the  state  legislators  or  anyone  here  in 
this  Convention  can  possibly  imagine 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  would  go  to 
Evanston  and  select  the  choicest  block 
in  that  city  for  the  use  of  a Bridewell. 
I do  not  think  such  a thing  would  be 
possible,  and  it  appears  to  me  if  such 
a right  be  granted  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, as  this  paragraph  covers,  we 
ought  to  ask  for  it. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I think  we  can 

meet  this  objection  raised  by  Mr.  Shan- 
ahan and  I think  it  is  a good  objection, 
and  that  raised  by  Judge  Rinaker,  by 
the  insertion  in  this  paragraph  of  a 
phrase  about  to  the  following  effect, 
“that  the  city  may  acquire  property 
j for  these  purposes  in  other  localities 
outside  of  the  city  by  and  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  local  authorities  of  such 
I district  in  which  the  property  is  lo- 


December  14 


321 


1906 


cated  which  it  is  intended  the  city 
would  acquire.” 

A VOICE:  Oh,  no. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : That  is  exact- 

ly the  point  Mr.  Shanahan  has  raised, 
and  you  never  will  secure  the  passage 
of  this  section  by  the  legislature  un- 
less a safeguard  to  that  effect  is  made. 
For  example,  Alderman  Bennett  has 
called  attention  to  the  fact — and  it  is 
an  important  fact — that  shortly  the 
city  may  be  called  upon  to  enlarge  its 
House  of  Correction  facilities.  It  is 
necessary  that  a considerable  tract  of 
land  should  be  secured;  suppose  that  in 
that  particular  district  it  is  necessary 
to  secure  20  or  40  or  60  acres  of  land, 
and  that  it  should  be  found  necessary 
or  advisable  to  have  it  in  the  center  of 
Oak  Park;  do  you  think  the  Oak  Park 
authorities  for  one  moment  would  not 
be  justified  in  using  every  proper  meas- 
ure within  their  power  to  stop  that  pur- 
chase? Why,  certainly,  certainly  they 
would.  Suppose  that  the  city  should 
undertake  to  build  a pest  house — the  il- 
lustration of  Judge  Rinaker  is  not  an 
extreme  one  at  all,  it  is  a perfectly 
proper  illustration,  and  there  should  be 
a safeguard  in  here,  and  that  is  a per- 
fectly proper  one,  too. 

When  the  City  of  Chicago  is  dealing 
with  territory  within  its  own  limits 
that  is  one  proposition;  when  it  is 
dealing  with  property  or  territory  out- 
side of  its  own  limits,  that  is  an  en- 
tirely different  proposition.  We  do  not 
want  to  present  ourselves  to  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly  in  the  attitude  or  with 
a covering  of  that  kind  over  us;  we 
want  to  be  perfectly  fair  with  our 
neighbors;  and  there  are  gentlemen 
here,  members  of  this  Convention,  that 
live  in  suburban  districts,  to  whom  this 
matter  will  probably  come  very  close- 
ly home.  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be 
perfectly  fair  for  us  to  adopt  a provi- 
sion of  that  kind. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  In  answer  to 

Mr.  Eckhart  in  regard  to  the  outer 


park  proposition,  when  he  states  that 
the  City  of  Chicago  might  want  this 
power  to  condemn  certain  land  for  park 
purposes,  I desire  to  state  that  that  is 
for  a specific  purpose,  and  can  be  in- 
serted in  any  bill  that  is  presented  for 
that  purpose.  That  is  why  I took  the 
position  I did  yesterday  in  this  matter 
of  powers  of  the  council,  as  to  what 
the  powers  of  the  council  were  to  be, 
that  I was  opposed  to  the  broad  grant 
of  power  to  the  City  Council.  I am 
in  favor  of  a broad  grant  of  specific 
and  enumerative  powers,  not  a broad 
grant  of  general  powers.  As  Mr.  Mac- 
Millan has  well  said,  let  us  be  fair  to 
our  neighbors. 

In  regard  to  what  Mr.  Revell  said, 
let  us  send  it  down  to  the  legislature 
and  see  what  they  will  do  with  it. 
There  are  some  members  of  this  Con- 
vention who  are  not  in  favor  of  hold- 
ing the  bag  much  longer;  let  us  not 
dump  everything  off  on  the  legislature, 
that  is  not  fair.  Let  the  Charter  Con- 
vention of  Chicago  be  fair  with  the 
legislature,  as  well  as  being  fair  with 
Chicago. 

MR.  PAULLIN:  I am  very  greatly 

in  favor  of  the  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Shanahan,  as  supported  by  Mr.  Mac- 
Millan. By  virtue  of  the  office  I hold 
I have  been  made  a member  of  this 
Convention.  I am  a resident  of  Evans- 
ton, and  I can  say  to  this  Convention 
now  that  if  it  were , to  insert  in  the 
charter  that  you  could  condemn  prop- 
erty, that  you  could  take  property  by 
condemnation  outside  of  the  city  limits, 
there  would  be  a storm  in  this  state  and 
that  provision  would  not  pass  the  legis- 
lature. The  country  towns  of  this  coun- 
ty have  already  entered  a protest  to 
the  legislature  against  anything  of  that 
kind,  they  have  entered  a protest  with 
the  legislature  for  the  preservation  of 
the  counties.  The  country  towns  of 
this  county  have  been  in  favor  of  a 
Greater  Chicago  for  Chicago,  and  they 
stand  today  for  a Greater  Chicago  for 


December  14 


322 


1906 


Chicago.  But  if  you  attempt  to  insert 
a provision  giving  the  right  of  con- 
demnation in  the  country  towns,  or  any 
other  towns  outside  of  Chicago,  that 
provision  certainly  will  not  pass  the 
legislature  without  great  protest;  and 
I believe  the  suggestions  made  by  Mr. 
Shanahan,  and  I believe  seconded  by 
Mr.  MacMillan,  should  meet  with  the 
approval  of  this  Convention. 

MB.  FISHEB:  I confess  to  having 

some  uncertainty  about  this  matter.  I 
thought  Mr.  MacMillan ’s  point  was  well 
taken,  that  is,  that  that  power  should 
be  exercised  solely  with  the  consent  of 
the  authorities  of  any  city,  village  or 
incorporated  town;  now,  I don’t  know 
whether 

ME.  SHANAHAN : Whether  it  has 

a government,  whether  it  is  an  unor- 
ganized territory,  or  not? 

MB.  FISHEB:  Whether  it  is  unor- 

ganized territory  or  not,  I presume  the  I 
city  would  have  the  right  to  condemn 
without  consent  if  it  were  not  organ- 
ized, if  there  was  no  recognized  govern- 
ment. I find  on  looking  at  the  digest 
of  city  charters  that  we  have  secured 
extraordinary  powers,  unless  there  are 
some  limitations  contained  in  the  digest 
which  I have  not  found.  I find  on  page 
129  that  among  the  powers  the  State  of 
Illinois  gives  the  council  is  the  power  to 
establish  and  regulate  cemeteries  within 
and  without  the  city  limits,  and  ac- 
quire land  for  cemeteries  within  or  with- 
out the  city  limits.  It  don ’t  seem  to 
put  any  limitation  on  it  at  all. 

MB.  MacMILLAN:  We  would  prob- 

ably need  a cemetery  if  this  were  passed. 

MB.  SHANAHAN:  Well,  that  is  a 

specific  purpose,  is  it  not? 

MB.  FISHEB:  Yes. 

MB.  SHANAHAN:  Yes,  that  is  a 

specific  purpose. 

MB.  FISHEB:  I don’t  suppose  that 

there  is  much  more  objection  to  some  of 
these  proposed  things,  barring  the  pest- 
house,  than  this.  I find  on  page  138, 
that  the  city  may  go  beyond  its  territo- 


rial limits  for  the  purpose  of  supplying 
and  establishing  water  works,  and  may 
hold  and  acquire  property  for  that  pur- 
pose. Now,  that  may  be  a stream,  or  it 
may  be  a well,  it  don ’t  seem  to  put  any 
limit  on  it.  There  may  be  limits,  but 
they  are  not  in  this  digest  that  I can 
see.  Now,  if  those  provisions  in  the 
charter  are  without  limitation,  if  they 
were  passed  by  the  legislature,  that  would 
be  taking  away  the  power  which  they 
now  have  with  regard  to  cemeteries  and 
water  works,  if  the  amendment  is 
adopted. 

MB.  McCOBMICK:  It  appears  to  me 

that  the  suggestion  as  regards  city  pow- 
ers is  a better  one  than  the  suggestion 
offered  by  Mr.  MacMillan.  Mr.  Mac- 
Millan suggests  that  we  should  condemn 
whenever  local  authorities  allow  us  to. 
Now,  let  us  take  the  position  of  the  local 
authorities.  Say  that  a local  authority 
wants  to  condemn  seven  lots.  The  au- 
thority will  go  to  the  trustees  and  they 
will  say : ‘ ‘ We  don ’t  want  the  pro- 

perty condemned.  We  want  a fair  price; 
and  I want  this  and  that.  ’ ’ Are  you  go- 
ing to  the  trustees  to  say,  1 ‘ We  will  come 
in  and  take  that  old  property  any  way 
and  we  will  pay?”  Pardon  me  for 
drawing  on  some  of  my  own  personal 
experience.  I will  tell  you  a case  in 
point.  A country  telephone  company 
wanted  to  cross  the  drainage  canal.  It 
wanted  the  drainage  canal  to  do  some- 
thing in  regard  to  the  bank.  It  would 
not  do  it  the  way  it  wanted  it  to,  and 
we  had  to  make  the  best  of  it.  We  didn’t 
act  as  they  suggested,  and  matters 
dragged  along  until  the  people  who 
wanted  to  get  telephone  service  got  im- 
patient. What  did  they  do?  They 
looked  around  for  the  local  officer  who 
had  a little  grip  to  use  and  they  went 
to  the  road  commissioner.  The  sanitary 
district  canal  hasn ’t  any  dispute  with 
the  road  commissioners.  The  road  com- 
missioner came  in  and  got  the  telephone 
service  for  the  betterment  of  his  own 
constituents  as  against  the  Chicago  cor- 


December  14 


323 


1906 


poration.  So,  Mr.  MacMillan,  I think 
you  will  find  the  same  thing.  The  local 
officials  will  stand  by  their  constituency 
as  against  the  City  of  Chicago  who  merely 
wanted  property  in  that  town.  Especi- 
ally if  you  are  going  to  ask  permission 
to  put  a pest  house  out  in  the  country. 
I do  not  mean  to  say  that  you  would  not 
get  such  permission.  At  the  same  time 
in  the  case  of  parks  in  rightly  governed 
cities  the  city  should  have  the  power  to 
extend  its  government.  I make  the  sug- 
gestion, not  in  the  form  of  a motion,  that 
this  clause  either  be  deferred  or  referred 
to  a committee  to  enumerate  the  kind  of 
things  we  would  like  to  have  permission 
to  get  authority  for  out  in  the  country. 

ME.  YOUNG:  The  power  of  condem- 

nation is  one  of  the  most  disagreeable 
powers  of  the  government,  because  it 
takes  private  property  against  the  will 
of  the  owner,  even  when  exercised  under 
the  most  desirable  plan.  It  is  a dis- 
agreeable power,  and  it  is  an  extraordin- 
ary power,  and  therefore  should  be  lim- 
ited and  specific.  I do  not  think  this 
question  is  one  of  what  we  now  have 
power  to  do,  or  what  the  State  Legisla- 
ture will  allow  us  to  do.  It  seems  to 
me  it  is  rather  a question  of  justice  and 
fair  dealing  on  the  part  of  this  Conven- 
tion. For  any  proper  purpose,  not  to  be 
too  disagreeable  for  any  community  out- 
side the  city,  a specific  regulation  can 
be  provided  and,  as  Mr.  Shanahan  has 
said,  so  far  as  parks  are  concerned  that 
can  be  provided  for  under  that  section ; 
but  to  grant  this  unlimited  and  extra- 
ordinary power  without  respect  to  lim- 
ited territory  seems  to  me  to  be  not  only 
unfair  but  very  undesirable. 

MR.  BENNETT:  If  I may  be  par- 

doned for  speaking  again,  I would  like 
to  say  that  I think  we  are  unduly  exer- 
cised over  this  question.  In  this  work 
the  city  is  not  going  out  of  its  territory 
to  acquire  lands  where  there  are  no 
habitations.  Now,  if  we  attempted  to  go 
into  any  locality  which  is  built  up,  or 
into  any  municipality  and  establish  a 


nuisance,  such  a locality  has  now  both 
power  and  authority  to  stop  us.  We 
couldn ’t  do  it.  We  could  not  in  the  case 
of  Evanston ; we  could  not  go  into  any 
other  village  and  establish  a nuisance. 
This  matter  of  condemnation  is  purely  a 
matter  between  the  city — would  be,  under 
this  power — would  be  between  the  city 
and  the  individuals  who  had  the  land  we 
wanted  to  acquire.  If  the  individual  was 
willing  to  take  a fair  price,  undoubtedly 
the  city  wrould  be  willing  to  pay  it ; and 
if  he  was  not  willing  to  take  a fair  price, 
the  court  would  set  a fair  price.  The 
court  would  protect  him.  I cannot  see 
any  danger  to  our  neighbors,  and  I would 
be  the  last  one  to  put  any  nuisance  on 
them  in  this  provision. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Alderman  Bennett  has 

outlined  the  full  protection  that  exists 
for  any  community  against  any  other. 
Chicago — it  is  rather  inconceivable — but 
if  the  city  should  make  any  effort  to 
plant  a nuisance  in  any  community  that 
community  is  protected  by  the  laws  of 
the  state.  On  the  other  hand  we  know 
of  two  instances  that  have  occurred  simi- 
lar to  this.  A city  desired  to  have  a 
boy ’s  farm  away  from  the  immediate  sur- 
roundings of  the  city,  and  it  goes  oi/t 
into  what  is  at  the  time  of  the  location 
of  the  farm  a few  miles  from  the  city 
limits,  a small  area  of  uninhabited  dis- 
tricts, and  it  buys  a property  quite  ade- 
quate for  its  use  at  that  time  and  builds 
extensive  buildings.  It  then  wishes  to 
add  to  its  territory,  and  because  the  build- 
ings are  there  and  the  demands  of  the  city 
are  greater,  the  property  owner  demands 
a very  high  price;  so  high  that  the  city 
refuses  to  pay.  The  city  has  the  power 
to  decide  just  what  is  excessive  and  it 
will  not  buy.  And  the  legitimate  devel- 
opment of  that  particular  work  and  func- 
tion of  the  city  must  stop,  and  must  stop 
in  this  case  that  I am  referring  to  for  a 
period  of  three  years  until  a special  act 
of  the  Legislature  shall  procure  a con- 
demnation of  this  particular  property. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  some  adequate 


December  14 


324 


1906 


protection  can  be  devised — if  they  are  not 
already  protected,  by  general  laws  against 
nuisances  and  matters  of  that  sort.  And 
the  city  should  have  the  power  to  con- 
demn in  cases  where  an  unreasonable 
holder  demands  an  unreasonable  price. 
And  the  city  needs  a particular  extension 
to  carry  on  its  function  whatever  it  may 
be. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Fisher  read,  as 

I took  it,  a part  of  the  general  city  and 
village  act  of  1872.  That  was  a granting 
power  given  not  to  the  City  of  Chicago, 
but  to  all  of  the  cities  of  Illinois,  that 
are  to  be  ranked  as  municipalities  and 
not  as  villages.  Apparently,  however, 
what  Mr.  Fisher  read  would  indicate 
that  the  council  has  power  to  establish 
and  regulate  cemeteries.  Now,  that 
would  authorize  the  City  of  Moline  to 
establish  a cemetery  in  the  very  heart 
of  the  City  of  Chicago;  and  the  City  of 
Peoria  to  come  in  and  do  the  same  thing. 

MR.  MacMj-^LAN : May  I ask  a ques- 

tion? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Yes. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : Does  that  mean 

that  they  shall  acquire  property  for 
cemeteries  by  condemnation? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  It  is  a power. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : But  that  is  the 

crux  of  this  question.  It  is  not  to  ac- 
quire it,  but  it  is  to  acquire  it  by  con- 
demnation as  the  court  shall  declare. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Well,  it  is  cer- 

tainly true  in  regard  to  water  works.  In 
order  to  acquire  a city  water  works  site 
a city  may  go  beyond  its  territorial  lim- 
its and  take  and  condemn  property.  The 
City  of  Moline,  for  instance,  could  ac- 
quire city  property  within  the  City  of 
Chicago  for  city  water  works,  and  so 
could  the  City  of  Evanston  do  the  same 
thing. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : Would  water 

works  be  considered  by  the  community 
as  a nuisance  the  same  as  a pest  house 
or  a crematorium? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  It  might  be  that 

they  would  condemn  property  in  the 


heart  of  the  city.  I take  an  extraordin- 
ary case,  an  extreme  case. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I desire  to  say 

to  Professor  Merriam  that  this  is  a pro- 
vision for  a specific  purpose.  It  is  for 
water  works,  provided  it  be  for  a specific 
purpose  that  you  want  to  condemn  out- 
side property. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Shanahan ’s  substitute,  for 
wThich  Senator  Brown  has  a substitute. 
I think  that  Senator  Brown’s  substitute 
covers  the  same  as  Mr.  Shanahan’s  sub- 
stitute. The  Secretary  will  read  Mr. 
Shanahan’s  substitute  and  then  Senator 
Brown ’s. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Shanahan ’s 
substitute  as  hereinbefore  printed;  also 
— By* Mr.  Brown:  The  city  may  acquire 
property  outside  of  the  city,  or  purchase 
and  condemn  property  for  municipal  pur- 
poses within  the  city. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : I aceept  Senator 

Brown’s  substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Brown ’s  sub- 
stitute will  be  substituted  for  Mr.  Shana- 
han ’s  substitute.  Mr.  Eckhart  has  a sub- 
stitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Eckhart ’s  substitute. 

MR.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chairman,  I do 
not  propose  to  present  it  as  a substitute 
at  this  time.  I desire  to  offer  it  after 
action  has  been  taken  upon  Mr.  Brown’s 
substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart ’s 

resolution  is  temporarily  withdrawn. 

- MR.  PENDARVIS : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  that  there  ought  to  be  reserved  to 
the  city  a ’right  to  exercise  under  the  act 
of  eminent  domain  for  park  purposes 
just  outside  the  city  limits.  Now,  unless 
this  is  done,  Mr.  Chairman,  I think  we 
are  not  taking  a step  forward  in  our 
scheme  for  consolidation.  I feel  so 
strongly  upon  this  point  that  in  the  com- 
mittee on  the  relation  of  the  municipal- 
ity to  other  bodies  I took  the  position 
that  we  ought  not  to  make  the  park  sys- 
tem a branch  of  the  city  government,  for 


December  14 


325 


1906 


the  reason  that  the  time  was  at  hand 
when  our  park  system  should  extend  with- 
out the  city  as  well  as  within  the  city. 
I believe  we  are  carrying  the  idea  of 
consolidation  to  a very  little  extent,  and 
unless  we  protect  ourselves  now,  we  shall 
find  that  we  have  been  very  unwise.  Un- 
less we  provide  at  this  time,  if  it  is  the 
intention  of  this  Convention  to  adhere 
to  the  position  of  making  the  park  sys- 
tem a branch  of  the  city  government,  un- 
less we  provide  here  and  now  under  this 
section  that  the  . city  may  exercise  the 
right  of  eminent  domain  in  acquiring 
property  for  park  purposes  outside  of  the 
city,  we  will  not  have  taken  the  position 
that  we-  should  have  done  and  men  of 
good  judgment  and  foresight  for  the 
future  of  this  city  would  do.  I would 
therefore  suggest  that  this  clause  be  so 
amended  as  to  protect  the  owners  of 
the  city  in  that  regard.  Outside  of  that 
I am  in  sympathy  with  the  position  of 
Mr.  Shanahan  and  of  the  others  who  be- 
lieve that  the  power  of  eminent  domain 
should  be  confined,  and  I therefore  offer, 
Mr.  Chairman,  the  following  as  a sub- 
stitute for  all  matters  upon  number  two. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Pendarvis’  substitute. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Pendar- 

vis:  The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side of  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  but  may  not 
exercise  the  right  of  eminent  domain 
outside  the  city  limits,  except  for  park 
purposes. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER:  We  have  been  talking 

about  houses  of  correction  as  though 
they  were  the  illustration  that  was  most 
apt.  I find  on  page  140  of  the  Digest  of 
City  Charters  the  following: 

“The  council  has  power  to  establish 
and  erect  callabooses,  bridewells  and 
work-houses  for  the  reformation  and  con- 
finement of  vagrants,  idle  and  disorderly 
persons  convicted  of  violating  the  city 


ordinances ; to  make  rules  and  regulations 
for  the  government  of  such  institutions 
and  to  appoint  the  necessary  keepers  and 
assistants;  to  use  the  county  jail  for  the 
confinement  and  punishment  of  offenders, 
subject  to  conditions  imposed  by  law  and 
with  the  consent  of  the  county  board. 
The  city  may  purchase,  own  and  control 
not  exceeding  40  acres  of  land  (either 
within  or  without  the  corporate  limits, 
if  within  three  miles,  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  a house  of  correction  to  be 
used  for  the  confinement  and  punishment 
of  criminals  or  persons  sentenced  thereto 
under  the  provisions  of  the  laws  relating 
to  cities  or  any  state  law  or  city 
ordinance.  ’ ’ 

Then  it  goes  on : 

‘ 1 When  a house  of  correction  is  estab- 
lished outside  the  city  limits  the  munici- 
pal authorities  have  the  same  police  power 
over  the  territory  surrounding  it  as  they 
have  within  the  city.  ’ ’ 

So  I suppose  if  that  is  the  construction, 
we  could  go  into  the  City  of  Evanston, 
which  happens  to  adjoin  us  on  the  north 
and  therefore  be  within  the  three  mile 
limit,  and  we  could  acquire  40  acres  of 
land  and  put  our  vagrants,  criminals  and 
other  disorderly  persons  in  that  territory 
and  have  police  jurisdiction  over  it. 

MR.  YOUNG:  That  is  by  purchase 

and  not  by  condemnation,  but  this  pro- 
vides for  condemnation. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  whole  question 

would  not  depend  upon  the  power  of 
eminent  domain  which  is  given  to  the 
city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  FISHER:  Just  a moment,  and 

I will  finish  what  I.  ha\e  to  say.  The 
question,  it  seems  to  me,  does  not  depend 
on  the  distinction  of  the  power  of  emi- 
nent domain.  The  objection  that  has 
been  urged  to  this  is  not  the  exercise  of 
the  power  of  eminent  domain.  As  Mr. 
Robins  has  said,  the  question  of  the  exer- 
cise of  the  power  of  eminent  domain 
really  only  lies  between  the  individual 


December  14 


326 


1906 


and  the  city  ordinarily,  the  condemning 
party.  I apprehend  it  would  be  just  as 
objectionable  to  Mr.  Paulin  if  the  city 
bought  a piece  of  property  from  a person 
who  happened  to  be  in  hard  circumstan- 
ces and  was  willing  to  sell  it  in  the  center 
of  Evanston,  and  located  this  particular 
institution  for  the  care  of  the  inmates 
I have  just  mentioned,  as  it  would  be  if 
it  had  condemned  that  particular  man’s 
lot  or  land  or  house  or  whatever  it  was. 
The  objections  we  have  are  as  to  the  lo- 
cation of  the  particular  institution,  and 
not  the  exercise  of  the  power  of  eminent 
domain  to  put  it  there.  So  that  the 
question  seems  to  be  involving  consider- 
able difficulty,  and  it  does  occur  to  me 
that  it  would  be  appropriate  to  post- 
pone this  question  until  we  can  look  it 
up  a little  more  thoroughly  and  find  out 
what  the  provisions  of  the  existing 
statutes  are.  It  is  consuming  an  im- 
mense amount  of  time  for  its  consider- 
ation, compared  with  its  relative  im- 
portance. For  instance,  I do  not  know, 
but  my  recollection  is  that  the  power  of 
eminent  domain  is  pretty  broad  as  given 
to  the  city  under  the  General  Cities  and 
Villages  Act;  not  broad  enough  to  cover 
everything,  but  it  might  be  broad  enough 
to  cover  this  purpose.  It  seems  to  me 
we  are  raising  a question  here  which 
seemed  to  be  simple  in  the  beginning 
but  which  has  a multitude  of  questions 
in  it  on  which  we  ought  to  have  a little 
more  light. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  suggest  that  while  I may  not 
possibly  know  the  law,  that  if  we  bought 
the  piece  of  property  in  Evanston  for 
a bridewell,  that  would  be  a nuisance; 
but  if  we  had  a specific  right  to  con- 
demn it  that  law  might  take  the  right 
of  way  over  the  law  of  nuisance  and  we 
would  have  it  located  there. 

MR.  PAULLIN:  The  City  of  Evanston 
has  no  fear  of  the  City  of  Chicago  ever 
coming  to  that  city  and  buying  40  acres 
of  land,  because  we  really  believe  the 
City  of  Chicago  will  never  have  money  , 


enough  for  that  purpose.  But  this  is  a 
principle  and  the  City  of  Evanston  should 
not  be  used  so  much  in  vain.  This  same 
principle  applies  to  the  other  surrounding 
towns,  and  doubtless  you  will  leave 
Evanston  alone. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

like  to  speak  to  Mr.  Pendarvis’  amend- 
ment. He  limits  absolutely  the  power 
of  condemnation  for  park  purposes  only 
in  his  resolution.  I am  not  prepared  to 
go  that  far  with  Mr.  Pendarvis,  because 
there  might  be  desirable  purposes  for 
the  City  of  Chicago  that  will  not  be  ob- 
jectionable in  the  future  which  might 
arise,  and  I do  not  believe  in  cutting  off 
the  avenue  entirely  and  limiting  abso- 
lutely to  park  purposes.  But,  I do  not 
believe  in  giving  general  power  of  con- 
demnation. There  might  be  some  other 
specific  power  that  we  would  not  object 
to.  I would  prefer  to  see  the  actual  ques- 
tion decided  on  Mr.  Shanahan ’s  motion 
and  then  take  up  the  specific  instances  af- 
terwards. 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  it 

be  in  order  may  I move  this  substitute 
for  all  pending  substitutes? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  before 

the  house  Mr.  Bennett ’s  motion  to  adopt 
Mr.  Brown ’s  substitute  to  that  and  Mr. 
Pendarvis 1 substitute  to  Mr.  Brown ’s 
substitute,  and  Mr.  Revell  for  the  time 
being  is  out  of  order. 

MR.  REVELL:  I offer  it  as  an 

amendment  to  the  last  substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  Chair 

will  have  to  rule  for  the  time  being  that 
Mr.  Revell ’s  amendment  is  out  of  order. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  If  the  question 

is  coming  on  these  substitutes  I have  a 
little  one  there  that  I do  not  want  to 
get  lost  or  have  it  sent  to  the  house  of 
correction  or  some  place  else. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

reports  that  Mr.  MacMillan’s  substitute 
is  not  on  hand. 

THE  SECRETARY:  It  is  here,  but  it 
was  not  offered. 


December  14 


327 


1906 


MR.  MacMILLAN : I made  my  feeble 
remarks  on  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  it  is  here, 

but  it  was  not  offered. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I desire  to  move 

that  section  2 of  chapter  13  be  referred 
to  the  committee  on  rules,  procedure  and 
general  plans,  with  instructions  to  report 
back  to  this  Convention,  and  all  matters 
pertaining  thereto. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

opposed  to  that  motion.  Every  time  this 
Convention  gets  into  a tangle  somebody 
gets  up  and  says,  “Let  us  put  it  off. 
Don ’t  consider  it  now ; let  us  take  it  up 
some  other  time.  ’ 1 And  when  it  comes 
up  again  we  discuss  it  and  go  over  the 
whole  formula  again  without  reaching 
any  decision.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  can 
decide  this  point  tonight  without  refer- 
ring it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  MacMillan ’s  substitute, 
which  seems  to  have  been  lost  in  the 
shuffle  temporarily,  and  see  whether  it 
covers  the  ground  of  some  of  these  other 
substitutes. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute  as 
hereinbefore  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  the  first  vote  be  taken  upon 
Mr.  Brown ’s  substitute. 

MR.  McGOORTY : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  say  that  I second  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Merriam  to  postpone  or  refer  this 
matter  to  the  committee  on  general  plans. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  As  many  as 
favor  will  signify  by  saying  aye.  Op 
posed,  no. 

(The  viva  voce  vote  leaving  the  chair- 
man in  doubt  a roll  call  was  ordered  on 
the  motion  to  refer  the  section  to  the 
committee  on  rules.) 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Roll  call,  Mr.  Mc- 
Cormick. The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll.  ! 

Yeas — Beebe,  Burke,  Carey,  Church,  De  I 
ver,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Fisher, 
Guerin,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Mac  I 


Millan,  McCormick,  McGoorty,  Merriam, 
Oehne,  Owens,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Taylor, 
Yopicka,  Zimmer — 23. 

Nays— Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Hoyne,  Linehan,  McKinley,  O ’Donnell, 
Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Powers,  Raymer, 
Revell,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Snow,  Walker,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young — 21. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  recommit,  the  yeas  are  23  and  the 
noes  are  21,  and  the  motion  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  XIV. 

(The  Secretary  read  No.  XIV.) 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  the  adoption  of  paragraph  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  this  paragraph 
be  adopted.  As  many  as  favor  will  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  The 
ayes  have  it. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  paragraph  2. 

The  Secretary  read  paragraph  No.  2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Shepard. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

offer  an  amendment  to  section  2 of 
chapter  14. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  substitute. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Shep- 

ard : Amend  paragraph  2 of  section  14 
on  contracts  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“exceptions,”  in  line  4,  the  following: 
“arising  out  of  an  emergency  caused  by 
fire,  flood,  epidemics  or  other  unforseen 
casualty,  and  for  work,  material  or  sup- 
plies not  exceeding  in  any  one  instance 
a cost  of  $500.” 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

offer  this  amendment  for  the  reason  that, 
this  section  seeks  to  limit  the  letting  of 
contracts  by  the  City  Council  only  to 
lowest  responsible  bidders  after  public 
advertisement,  and  then  it  is  subject  to 
limitations.  That  means  by  general  or- 


December  14 


328 


1906 


dinanc-es.  Of  course  that  means  that  the 
City  Council  may  properly  limit  and 
safeguard  the  letting  of  public  con- 
tracts. Then  it  provides  “and  excep- 
tions, ’ ’ it  seems  to  me,  may  be  con- 
strued to  mean  that  the  City  Coun- 
cil may  except  everything  and  noth- 
ing may  be  left  to  the  low- 

est responsible  bidder  upon  public  ad- 
vertisement, or  rather,  that  no  public  ad- 
vertisement for  the  lowest  responsible 
bidder  need  be  had.  Now  I think  public 
contracts  should  be  left  to  the  lowest 
responsible  bidder  upon  due  advertise- 
ment, subject,  however,  to  reasonable 
regulations  and  discretions  vested  in  the 
City  Council  arising  out  of  emergencies 
and  I have  offered  this  amendment. 
Perhaps,  the  words  do  not  adequately 
cover  the  exception,  but  they  get  at  the 
idea,  and  are  substantially  the  excep- 
tions that  appear  in  other  charters  of 
other  municipalities,  viz. : The  City  Coun- 
cil may  except  those  contracts  from  pub- 
lic advertisement  and  to  the  lowest  re- 
sponsible bidder  where  emergency  arises 
caused  by  fire,  flood,  epidemics  or  other 
unforeseen  casualties,  or  for  work,  ma- 
terial or  supplies,  the  cost  of  which  in 
any  single  instance  shall  not  exceed  the 
sum  of  $500.  It  seems  to  me  that  these 
safeguards  should  be  put  in  the  charters, 
and  I move  the  adoption  of  this  amend- 
ment. 

INI  K.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  this  first  section  is  not 
as  clear  as  it  might  be.  It  says,  ‘ 1 Mu- 
nicipal services  may  be  performed  and 
municipal  works  carried  out  by  the  city 
directly  or  by  means  of  contract. ” Does 
not  this  section  cover  such  work  as  street 
building  and  sewer  building,  or  does  it 
not? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  supposed  to. 

MR.  McCORMICK : Then  this  second 

section  says,  ‘ ‘ Contracts  for  works  or 
supplies  shall  be  let  to  the  lowest  respon- 
sible bidder  after  public  advertisement, 
subject  to  limitations  and  exceptions  to 
be  established  by  general  ordinance.  ’ * 


Does  not  that  conflict  with  the  first  para- 
graph ? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

two  paragraphs  as  printed  seem  to  me  to 
be  in  opposition  one  to  the  other.  The 
purpose  of  the  first  paragraph,  as  I un- 
derstand it,  is  to  enable  the  city  to  do 
its  own  work  as  it  seems  fit.  The  prin- 
cipal reason  why  I supported  that  para- 
graph and  moved  its  adoption  was  that 
there  have  been  times  in  the  city’s  ex- 
perience and  there  will  be  times  when 
combinations  are  formed  and  prices  are 
put  up  to  a point  where  the  city  is  re- 
quired to  spend  much  more  money  than 
a particular  contract  would  require.  Or- 
dinarily I believe  in  the  contract  sys- 
tem, but  there  are  times  when  the  city 
should  be  free  to  combat  combinations 
and  protect  citizens  in  the  expenditure 
of  their  money.  In  Boston  they  have  a 
provision  which  permits  the  city  to  be- 
come a bidder  as  well  as  the  private 
contractor  upon  the  advertisement,  or 
after  the  bids  are  made.  The  city  may 
take  the  contract  at  a less  price  than 
the  contractor.  I deem  this  one  of  the 
important  features  of  the  charter,  and  I 
feel  that  the  exceptions  set  forth  by  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Shepard ’s  should  not 
prevail.  The  paragraph  as  originally 
printed  should  not  be  adopted  unless  it 
be  amended  so  far  as  to  make  it  clear 
that  it  is  not  in  opposition  to  paragraph 
one.  The  city  should  have  the  right  to 
do  this  work  however  it  sees  fit. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

reply  to  Mr.  Bennett  I will  say  that  I 
understood  bv  the  adoption  of  section 
one  the  city  had  a clear  right  to  do  the 
work  itself,  and  my  amendment  was  not 
intended  to  impair  that  right  in  any 
sense  of  the  word. 

MR.  BENNETT : Mr.  Chairman,  par- 

agraph two  reads  that,  1 1 Contracts  for 
work  or  supplies  shall  be  let  to  the 
lowest  responsible  bidder.”  It  has  been 
so  construed  and  the  law  committee  so 
understood  it  in  drafting  the  provisions, 
and  I have  no  objections  to  it,  but  as  it 


December  14 


329 


1906 


is  it  printed  it  is  clearly  in  conflict  with 
paragraph  one. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  idea  is 

that  the  paragraph  should  be  qualified 
by  the  first  paragraph,  and  that  would 
be  understood  as  being  the  attitude  of 
the  Convention.  The  question  is  upon 
Mr.  Shepard ’s  amendment. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, before  that  motion  is  put  I would 
like  to  ask  for  information,  whether 
that  is  qualified  so  that  the  city  may 
not  be  compelled  to  let  to  the  lowest 
responsible  bidder.  As  has  been  stated 
by  Mr.  Bennett  there  are  instances 
when  contractors  combine  or  form  com- 
binations and  the  city  pays  a high 
price  for  the  work  to  be  done,  and  if 
you  are  obliged  to  accept  the  lowest 
responsible  bidder  it  may  be  that  you 
are  obliged  to  pay  a great  deal  more 
for  the  work  than  you  ought  to  pay. 
Now  I understood  Mr.  Bennett  to  raise 
that  point,  and  do  I understand,  Mr. 
Shepard,  that  your  amendment  will  so 
qualify  the  section  that  that  will  not  be 
possible? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  May  I answer,  Mr. 

Chairman  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I do  not  under- 

stand it  that  way.  I understand  that 
by  the  adoption  of  section  1 the  City 
Council  may  in  the  purchase  of  labor, 
material  or  supplies,  or  in  the  construc- 
tion of  any  public  work,  may  do  it  it- 
self or  it  may  determine  to  do  it  by 
contract. 

Now,  Section  2,  the  way  I read  Sec- 
tion 2,  the  drafters  might  have  made 
that  a little  clearer.  The  way  I con- 
strue it  is,  when  the  City  Council  does 
determine  to  do  it  by  contract,  then  it 
shall  be  to  the  lowest  responsible  bid- 
der. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Well,  that 

is  the  point  that  I wish  to  understand. 
Assuming  that  the  City  of  Chicago  con- 
cludes to  advertise  a certain  piece  of 
work  to  be  let  by  contract,  and  it  may 


have  the  right  to  do  the  work  itself, 
but  it  concludes  to  advertise,  under  this 
provision  if  it  concludes  to  advertise, 
is  it  incumbent  upon  the  city  after  ad- 
vertising to  let  to  the  lowest  responsi- 
ble bidder,  although  there  have  been 
combinations  formed,  and  that  bid 
would  be  very,  very  much  too  high? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  my 

amendment  does  not  go  to  that  point 
at  all.  My  amendment  simply  places 
another  limitation  when  they  do  de- 
cide to  let  by  contract,  to  carry  that 
through.  I have  no  objection  at  all  to 
anything  Mr.  Eckhart  may  suggest  to 
make  it  plain,  that  they  may  advertise 
or  determine  to  advertise  for  bids  and 
then  may  determine  to  reject  all  bids. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  That  is  all 

I desire,  to  have  the  city  protected  in 
that  respect. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  ask  a question  along  this  line. 
It  says,  “ contracts  for  work  or  sup- 
plies shall  be  let  to  the  lowest  respon- 
sible bidder.  ’’  Is  not  that  covered  be- 
low  ■where  it  says,  “subject  to  limita- 
tions and  exceptions  to  be  established 
by  general  ordinance.  ” Does  not  that 
give  the  city  the  right  to  say  that  all 
bids  might  be  rejected?  That  might 
be  established  by  ordinance  as  I under- 
stand it. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr*.  Chairman, 

I do  not  think  Alderman  Zimmer  sees 
exactly  what  Alderman  Bennett  was 
saying. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I heard  it;  I didn’t 

see  it. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  It  is  perfectly 

easy  to  order  all  bids  rejected  if  there 
were  a combination  of  five  contractors 
who  controlled  that  industry,  but  they 
can  come  back  again  at  the  end  of  the 
next  sixty  days  just  as  well  combined 
as  before,  and  keep  it  up  until  public 
patience  is  tired  out,  and  they  have  to 
be  met.  Now,  the  point  that  Alderman 
Bennett  made  and  one  which  un- 
doubtedly appeals  to  every  man  who 


December  14 


330 


1906 


has  had  to  take  charge  of  public  work 
is  that  the  public  should  be  allowed 
to  do  work  by  day  labor,  so  if  contrac- 
tors will  not  bid  reasonable  and  do 
their  work  properly  the  city  can  step 
in  and  do  the  work  itself. 

Now,  as  I understand  it,  by  adopting 
No.  1 you  have  provided  for  that,  but 
in  order  to  make  the  matter  doubly  sure 
I will  suggest  the  following  amend- 
ment to  Section  2:  In  line  1,  before 

the  word  ‘ ‘ contracts  ’ ’ put  the  word 
“when”;  in  line  2,  after  the  word 
‘ 1 let ’ 7 put  the  words  ‘ ‘ they  shall 7 ’,  so 
that  it  shall  read: 

“When  contracts  for  work  or  sup- 
plies shall  be  let,  they  shall  be  let  to 
the  lowest  responsible  bidder,  after  pub- 
lic advertisement,  subject  to  limita- 
tions and  exceptions  to  be  established 
by  general  ordinance.” 

That  makes  it  very  clear  and  I move 
the  adoption  of  that  amendment. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I accept  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Does  Mr.  Shep- 

ard accept  that  amendment  to  his 
amendment? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  offer  an  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Revell’s 

substitute  will  be  read. 

MR.  REYELL:  It  is  an  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Revell ’s 

amendment  will  be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Revell: 

Provided,  that  any  person,  firm  or  cor- 
poration convicted  of  combining 
against  the  city  for  the  purpose  of  ad- 
vancing prices  or  who  shall  offer  a 

bribe  in  connection  with  the  work,  shall 
thereafter  be  eliminated  from  any  con- 
tract relations  with  the  city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  an 

amendment  to  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  all 

they  would  have  to  do  in  that  case 
would  be  to  change  their  name  and 
start  over  again.  I think  we  ought  to 
put  a little  punishment  in  it  if  we 


want  to  make  an  amendment  like  that 
at  all. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Raymer. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

strikes  me  that  this  amendment  is  hard- 
ly germane  to  the  question.  It  might 
, be  well  to  insert  a proposition  of  that 
kind  after  you  adopt  Section  2 as 
amended,  but  I do  not  hardly  feel  as 
if  the  amendment  offered  is  relative  to 
the  question  before  the  house. 

MR.  REVELL:  It  reads  all  right, 

doesn’t  it? 

MR.  RAYMER.:  It  reads  first  rate, 

Mr.  Revell. 

MR.  WHITE:  May  I ask,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, for  the  reading  again  of  Mr. 
Shepard’s  amendment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard’s 

amendment  as  amended  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Cormick will  be  read  by  the  Secretary. 

The  Secretary  read  as  directed. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  White. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I 

understand  the  purport  of  Mr.  Shep- 
ard’s motion  it  is  to  name  specifically 
the  possible  exceptions  under  which  the 
City  Council  can  do  certain  things. 

I merely  raise  the  question  whether  it 
would  be  wise  at  this  time  to  specifi- 
cally mention  for  all  future  time  just 
what  exception  the  City  Council  might 
make.  If  you  specify  those  it  can  make 
by  implication — I ask  the  lawyers  for 
information  on  this — by  implication 
you  prohibit  it  from  making  any  other 
exceptions  except  those  named. 

Tf  that  be  so  it  would  seem  to  me  to 
be  very  unwise  and  unreasonable  at 
this  time  to  fix  these  exceptions.  I 
should  personally  very  much  rather 
leave  this  to  the  wisdom  and  discretion 
of  the  City  CounciP  and  I should  prefer 
that  Mr.  Shepard ’s  amendment  should 
be  defeated,  leaving  the  thing  as  it  is 
subject  to  the  future  law  of  the  coun- 
cil, if  I understand  Mr.  Shepard’s  mo- 
tion. 


December  14 


331 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready  for 
the  question? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McGoorty. 

MR.  MeGOORTY:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
McCormick  again.  It  seems  to  me  to 
be  a repetition  of  the  first  clause  of 
No.  2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secretary 
read  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion  as  amended 
by  Mr.  McCormick. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Shepard  as 
amended  by  Mr.  McCormick  was  again 
read  by  the  Secretary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McCor- 

mick’s amendment  puts  the  word 
‘ * when  ’ ’ before  1 1 contracts,  ” as  I re- 
member it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  That  is  not  the 

way  I have  it  here. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  “ When  contracts 
for  work  or  supplies  shall  be  let  they 
shall  be  let  to  the  lowest  responsible 
bidder.  ’ ’ 

MR.  BENNETT:  Will  you  add,  Mr. 

Chairman — if  Mr.  McCormick  will  add 
to  that  “after  advertisement” 

THE  SECRETARY:  That  is  in 

there. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  That  is  in  there 

already,  is  it  not? 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  is  in  there,  is 

it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  in  there  al- 

ready. The  Secretary  will  read  the 
resolution  now. 

THE  SECRETARY:  As  amended 

several  times:  When  contracts  for 

work  or  supplies  shall  be  let,  they  shall 
be  let  to  the  lowest  responsible  bid- 
der, after  public  advertisement,  subject 
to  limitations  and  exceptions  arising 
out  of  an  emergency  caused  by  fire, 
flood,  epidemics,  or  other  unforseen 
casualties,  and  for  work,  material  or 
supplies  not  exceeding  in  any  one  in-  ' 
stance,  a cost  of  $.300. 

MR.  SNOW : Before  the  motion  is  I 

put  it  seems  to  me  that  we  are  going  a j 


little  strong.  Now,  what  is  the  prac- 
tical result  of'  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment  as  offered  by  Mr.  ShepardJ 
It  is  a notorious  matter  to  all  of  us 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  or  practically 
any  municipality,  because  of  this  series 
of  limitations  which  seems  to  be  gen- 
eral, is  not  able  to  go  into  the  public 
market  and  purchase  supplies  as  readily 
and  cheaply  in  the  long  run  as  can  a 
private  corporation.  Now,  the  reason 
for  that  is  that  there  is  a lack  of 
elasticity  in  the  business  methods  which 
may  be  practiced  when  such  limita- 
tions are  placed  upon  those  responsible 
for  the  transaction  of  that  business. 
You  all  know  perfectly  well  that  the 
market  prices  for  supplies  of  the  va- 
rious kinds  are  fluctuating  constantly. 
They  fluctuate  with  the  law  of  supply 
and  demand,  and  a limitation  which  for- 
bids, practically,  a municipality  to  take 
advantage  of  those  fluctuations  which 
take  place  in  prices  necessarily  en- 
hances the  price  of  the  goods  which 
are  to  be  bought  and  the  work  to  be 
done  by  that  corporation.  Now,  a 
private  corporation  which  is  authorized 
to  buy  supplies  is  in  a position  to  take 
advantage  of  the  lowest  market,  and 
certainly  a municipality  should  be  left 
with  the  opportunity  to  take  advantage 
of  such  market  conditions,  if  there  is 
a material  advantage  to  be  secured. 

It  may  be  said,  and  undoubtedly  lurk- 
ing behind  the  amendment  is  the  idea 
that  if  the  City  Council  is  given  a free 
hand  that  it  will  go  into  the  market  and 
buy  higher  than  it  would  by  advertise- 
ment. But  that  is  a condition  which 
will  not  exist  where  the  corrective  of 
public  sentiment  can  be  applied,  as  it 
<*an  be  applied  to  a public  body  of  this 
kind. 

Now,  the  greatest  difficulty  of  a mu- 
nicipality in  performing  its  work  is 
the  fact  that  there  is  a lack  of  busi- 
ness elasticity  in  the  methods  which  it 
may  bring  to  bear  in  a matter  of  this 
kind.  An  amendment  of  this  kind 


December  14 


332 


1906 


makes  it  more  difficult  for  the  mu- 
nicipality to  transact  ‘business  on  the 
same  plan  as  a private  corporation 
would  transact  its  business.  For  that 
reason  I believe  the  matter  should  be 
left,  with  the  general  requirements  that 
the  supplies  and  works  should  be  ad- 
vertised for,  to  a body  of  this  kind  in 
its  wisdom  being  allowed  to  take  ad- 
vantage of  a market  condition  which 
may  arise  at  any  time. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

cannot  we  have  the  matter  come  up 
separately.  I would  like  to  have  a vote 
on  the  resolution  as  amended  by  Mr. 
Shepard,  if  we  can;  or  else  have  a vote 
on  the  amendment  first,  and  if  it  failed, 
vote  on  it  without  it. 

THE-  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 

will  be  upon  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion  as 
amended  by  you,  Mr.  McCormick. 

MR.  BENNETT:  After  some  reflec- 

tion I am  of  the  opinion  that  section 
paragraph  2 has  no  place  in  this  charter. 
Under  the  present  charter  the  city  has 
a power  to  let  contracts,  and  there  is 
no  restriction  upon  the  council  as  to 
the  method  of  letting  contracts  under 
the  charter.  It  is  different  in  regard 
to  local  improvements,  as  it  should  be. 
But  following  out  the  power  granted, 
the  council  has  provided  an  ordinance 
which  reads,  if  I may  be  pardoned  for 
quoting  it  for  the  benefit  of  the  Con- 
vention:— “In  all  cases  of  bids  for  do- 
ing work  that  may  be  any  public  im- 
provement there  shall  be  sealed  bids 
directed  to  the  department,”  and  so 
forth;  providing  how  they  shall  be 
opened;  and  “contracts  shall  be  let 
after  advertisement  to  the  lowest  re- 
sponsible bidder.”  Now,  having  given 
the  city  the  power  of  doing  the  work  it- 
self, and  resting  the  balance  of  our 
needs  on  a provision  of  the  charter 
which  we  have  already  adopted,  I am 
inclined  to  believe  that  this  subject  is 
fully  covered,  and  if  you  attempt  now 
to  insert  paragraph  2 it  will  act  as  a 
limitation  rather  than  as  an  addition 


to  the  charter,  and  if  a motion  is  in 
order  I would  move  to  lay  the  whole 
subject  matter  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  I understand  that 

does  not  carry  my  motion;  that  can  be 
•acted  on  separately. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir.  As 

many  as  favor  the  motion  that  the 
whole  subject  lay  on  the  table  will  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye.  The  motion  is 
carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Revell’s 

motion  is  before  the  house.  The  Sec- 
retary will  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
hereinbefore  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  the  motion? 

MR.  REVELL:  I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  to 

adopt  is  before  the  house.  Any  discus- 
sion? If  not,  those  in  favor  of,  signify 
by  sajdng  aye. 

MR,  WALKER:  This  resolution,  I 

Understand,  bases  the  exclusion  of  a 
contractor  upon  a conviction,  does  it 
not? 

MR.  REVELL:  Yes. 

MR.  WALKER:  I presume  there 

would  not  be  very  much  objection  to 
incorporating  that  in  the  charter, 
though  I believe  it  would  be  worthless. 
There  is  a statute  now  that  covers  that, 
making  it  a criminal  offense  to  enter 
into  any  combination  to  seek  a public 
contract  of  any  municipality,  county  or 
state,  and  I do  not  believe  it  will 
strengthen  it  any  by  incorporating  that, 
though  possibly  there  is  no  objection 
to  its  being  incorporated  in  the  charter. 

MR.  JONES:  I would  like  to  ask,  is 

this  a matter  that  we  ought  to  con- 
sider now?  It  seems  to  me  this  is  a 
matter  of  detail  that  ought  not  to  find 
a place  in  the  charter,  which  is  prac- 
tically a city  constitution.  I therefore 
move  that  Mr.  Revell ’s  motion  be  laid 
upon  the  table. 


December  14 


333 


1906 


MR.  REVELL:  I consider  this  a 

very  important  matter,  and  a matter 
which  ought  to  go  into  the  charter.  If 
it  is  there  so  that  all  who  wish  may 
read  it  and  see  it,  it  will  be  an  encour- 
agement to  merchants,  and  manufactur- 
ers who  have  been  practically  eliminated 
from  the  possibility  of  getting  contracts 
from  large  public  bodies,  it  will  encour- 
age them  to  go  in  and  seek  the  con- 
viction of  persons  whom  they  know  to 
be  indulging  in  combinations  and  offer- 
ing bribes.  As  it  now  is  there  is  an 
indefinite  feature  about  it  that  a mer- 
chant does  not  care  to  tackle.  Let  it 
be  there  in  the  charter  plainly,  and 
I believe  you  will  find  merchants  who 
after  they  have  wasted  their  time  up- 
on invitation  of  a city  or  county  or 
state  in  preparing  plans  and  specifica- 
tions, find  that  no  trouble  whatever  has 
been  taken  and  no  consideration  what- 
ever has  been  given  to  these  firms.  I 
believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is  one  of 
the  things  which  hinders  public  bodies 
from  getting  the  character  of  work 
they  should  get — from  getting  this 
character  of  work  at  prices  which  are 
honest. 

I believe  if  you  adopt  some  such  feat- 
ure as  this  that  merchants  and  others 
who  figure  upon  public  contracts  will 
be  careful  about  entering  into  any  com- 
bination or  offering  a bribe  to  any 
public  officials.  It  certainly  cannot  do 
any  harm. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I do  not  arise  for 

the  purpose  of  opposing  the  spirit  of 
this  resolution,  but  to  call  the  attention 
of  the  Convention  to  Section  8 of  the 
present  Cities  and  Villages  \ct,  which 
we  have  already  adopted.  This  is  a 
provision  which  seeks  to  punish,  and 
very  broadly,  any  person  who  offers  a 
bribe  or  who  receives  one,  by  imprison- 
ment in  the  penitentiary,  and  by  a fine 
of  five  thousand  dollars.  That  subject, 
Mr.  Revell,  is  fully  covered  in  the 
Cities  and  Villages  Act  which  we  have  j 
adopted  as  a portion  of  this  charter.  I 


MR.  REVELL:  The  more  you  can 

show  this  up  the  better  it  would  be  for 
the  city. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Just  print  this 

section  and  scatter  it  broadcast.  It  is 
just  as  much  a law  as  it  ever  can  be 
made. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  only  thing  Mr. 

Revell  has  in  mind,  or  the  real  thing 
he  has  in  mind  is  something  which  this 
amendment  does  not  cover.  The  amend- 
ment as  it  is  offered  requires  convic- 
tion. If  a man  is  convicted  he  will  be 
sufficiently  taken  care  of,  under  the 
section  that  Alderman  Bennett  refers 
to.  There  is  considerable  feeling 
abroad,  I find  there  has  been  for  many 
years,  that  if  a man  has  reasonable  be- 
lief that  there  is  a combination  of 
bidders  existing,  and  that  a certain 
man ’s  previous  contract  has  not  been 
lived  up  to,  that  therefore  he  should 
be  excluded  from  bidding.  But  I don’t 
think  that  you  could  incorporate  that 
in  proper  language  in  the  city  charter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  Senator  Jones’  motion,  that  Mr. 
Revell ’s  resolution  be  laid  upon  the 
table?  All  those  in  favor  signify  by 
saying  aye.  Those  opposed,  no. 

MR.  REVELL:  A roll  call,  Mr. 

Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  the  motion  to 
lay  upon  the  table. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brown,  Burke,  Carey,  Church, 
Clettenberg,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.;  Fish- 
er, Guerin,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  McCormick,  McGoor- 
ty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  Owens,  Paul- 
lin,  Pendarvis,  Powers,  Raymer,  Rina- 
ker,  Robins,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smul- 
ski,  Snow,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Walker, 
Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zim- 
mer— 41. 

Nays — Revell — 1. 

During  roll  call: 

MR.  BENNETT:  I vote  aye  for  the 

reason  1 believe  the  subject  is  already 


December  14 


334 


1906 


covered  by  the  City  and  Village  Act, 
and  by  the  criminal  law  of  the  state. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed  with 

the  roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  lay  upon  the  table,  yeas  41, 
nays  1.  The  motion  is  carried.  The 
Secretary  will  read  No.  VI. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I would  like  to 

have  the  resolution  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  McCor- 
mick: The  city  shall  be  empowered  to 

acquire,  by  purchase  or  condemnation, 
land  for  the  purpose  of  building  sewers 
into  the  Drainage  Canal.  ” 

MR,  McCORMICK:  I want  that  be- 

low paragraph  2,  section  13. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  it  be  printed 
and  taken  up  when  that  section  is 
reached.  The  Secretary  will  read  No. 
15. 

The  Secretary  then  read  No.  XV,  as 
printed  in  the  proceedings  at  page  54. 

MR,  MERRIAM:  I move  that  that 

be  taken  up  for  consideration  with  par- 
agraph 10. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam 

moves  that  the  section  relating  to 
streets  and  public  places  be  taken  up 
with  the  Revenue  Section.  Is  there  a 
second  to  that  motion?  As  many  as 
favor  that  signify  by  saying  aye.  Those 
opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Section  16. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  55,  Pub- 

lic Utilities. 

MR.  SNOW:  This  is  a section  that 

wiT  probably  engage  us  in  as  much  de- 
bate as  any  section  in  the  charter,  and 
I move  you  that  it  be  made  a special  or- 
der and  set  among  the  special  orders, 
when  we  may  devote  a day,  if  neces- 
sary, discussing  it. 

MR.  WERNO:  Why  not  discuss  it 

now,  as  well  as  any  other  time?  I move 
that  that  motion  be  laid  on  the  table. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I would  like  to  ask 

as  a matter  of  information  when  some 


of  these  matters  that  we'  are  making 
special  orders  of  are  to  be  taken  up? 
It  seems  to  me  we  are  accomplishing 
nothing  by  making  special  orders  and 
not  setting  some  particular  time  in 
which  we  are  to  discuss  them,  or  take 
them  up  to  decide  them.  I think  when 
special  orders  are  made  we  should  set 
them  for  some  particular  time  when 
they  will  be  taken  up  and  considered. 

I move,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  sub- 
ject of  public  utilities  be  made  a spe- 
cial order  for  tomorrow  afternoon,  if 
there  is  to  be  a meeting  of  this  body  at 
that  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  the  Chair 

may  be  permitted,  I would  say  that  I 
see  no  reason  why  this  matter  should 
not  be  started  now  and  finished  tomor- 
row afternoon. 

MR,  CHURCH:  Well,  I am  willing 

to  withdraw  my  motion,  with  that  un- 
derstanding. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  have  forty 

minutes  time  yet  before  adjournment. 

MR.  SNOW:  The  reason  I made  my 

motion  is  there  is  practically  only  half 
an  hour  further  of  time  for  this  meet- 
ing of  this  body — as  a matter  of  fact, 
there  is  only  ten  minutes — the  arrange- 
ment was  10  o’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  mat- 

ter is  before  the  house.  What  will  you 
gentlemen  do  with  Section  16,  leave  it 
or  take  it  up  now? 

MR.  WERNO:  I move  that  para- 

graph 1,  of  16,  be  adopted. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I desire  to  renew 

the  motion  I made  a moment  ago  that 
this  matte*’  be  made  a special  order  for 
tomorrow  afternoon. 

MR,  WHITE:  I will  ask  if  there  is 

a special  order  for  tomorrow  afternoon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  spe- 

cial orders  of  revenue  and  education 
and  woman  suffrage,  there  should  be  a 
special  notice  sent  out  by  the  Secretary 
stating  the  time. 

MR.  WHITE:  I asked  if  there  was 


December  14 


335 


1906 


any  special  subject  assigned  for  tomor- 
row afternoon? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

question? 

_ MR.  WHITE:  If  there  was  a special 

order  for  tomorrow  afternoon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The ‘special  or- 

ders were  set  for  this  week,  but  the 
Convention  has  changed  its  work  on 
routine  matters.  It  might  be  well  for 
us  either  today  or  tomorrow  to  fix  cer- 
tain dates  for  the  consideration,  cer- 
tain dates  next  week,  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  subjects  of  revenue  and  edu- 
cation, after  disposing  of  this  matter. 

MR.  HOYNE:  Did  Mr.  Church  set  a 

date? 

MR.  CHURCH:  Yes,  tomorrow  af- 

ternoon. If  there  is  no  special  order 
for  that  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  spe- 

cial order. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Well,  I make  that 

motion,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  HOYNE:  Make  it  Monday. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  committee  on 

public  utilities  of  which  I was  a mem- 
ber have  presented  a report  on  this  sub- 
ject, with  absolute  unanimity,  but  I 
don ’t  know  whether  that  unanimity 
will  be  reflected  in  this  Convention. 
Of  course,  it  represents  a very  wide 
difference  of  opinion  and  points  of 
view,  but  it  may  be  we  might  get  to 
agree  upon  some  statement  of  public 
utilities  that  come  within  general  terms, 
to  be  agreed  upon.  I don’t  know 
whether  it  has  been  successful.  So  far 
as  setting  this  for  tomorrow  afternoon 
is  concerned,  so  far  as  I am  personally 
concerned  it  will  be  absolutely  impos- 
sible for  me  to  attend  at  that  time.  I ; 
think  there  are  a great  many  matters 
of  this  sort,  routine  matters  that  are 
coming  up.  But  I understood  this  mat- 
ter was  to  be  taken  up  this  evening, 
and  I had  to  choose  between  coming 
here  this  evening  and  coming  here  to- 
morrow, and  as  I cannot  be  here  tomor-  j 
row  afternoon  I decided  to  come  this 


evening,  that  is  the  reason  I am  here, 
and  one  of  the  reasons  for  my  coming 
this  evening  was  because  this  subject 
would  properly  come  up,  and  I am  par- 
ticularly interested  in  this.  I presume 
others  will  have  the  same- experience  on 
other  subjects.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  a 
mistake  to  meet  here  when  a particular 
subject  is  scheduled  to  come  up  and  set 
it  for  the  next  day.  We  are  all  here 
now,  and  most  of  us  that  are  here  now 
are  present,  and  we  may  be  absent  to- 
morrow. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I do  not  desire  ar- 

bitrarily to  fix  the  date  when  this  shall 
be  considered  as  tomorrow  afternoon, 
but  my  point  is  this,  that  if  we  are  go- 
ing to  make  special  orders  we  should 
when  we  make  them  set  a cretain 
time  when  they  shall  be  taken  up  and 
considered,  and  if  it  is  desirable  to  set 
this  for  Monday,  or  any  other  day,  I am 
willing  to  have  that  done;  but  I don’t 
think  it  should  be  postopned  indefinite- 
ly by  making  it  a special  order  and 
then  not  naming  a definite  time,  a 
definite  hour. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  matter 

ought  to  be  taken  up  immediately  for 
disposition,  because  we  are  getting 
down  to  the  end  of  our  work  where  the 
other  special  orders  will  interfere.  The 
question  is  whether  we  will  have  it  now 
or  tomorrow  afternoon. 

MR.  CHURCH:  If  it  is  desirous  to 

go  on  now,  I will  change  my  motion. 

MR.  JONES:  I move  that  we  start 

at  once  upon  the  consideration  of  Sec- 
tion 16. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  has 

been  made  and  seconded  that  we  start 
at  once  on  Section  16.  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye.  Those 
opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  1,  Section  16. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  1,  as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  proceedings  at  page  55. 


December  14 


336 


1906 


MR.  WERNO:  I move  the  adoption 

of  that  section. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I desire  to  second 

the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  has 

been  made  and  seconded.  The  matter  is 
before  the  house  for  discussion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor that  signify  by  saying  aye. 

A VOICE:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Burke,  Carey,  Clettenberg,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Fisher, 
Guerin,  .Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Line- 
han,  MacMillan,  McCormick,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Paullin,  Powers,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Snow, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  Walker,  Werno,  White, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 36. 

Nays — Brown,  Church,  Hoyne,  Pen- 
darvis,  Raymer,  Revell,  Shanahan,  Shep- 
ard, Smulski — 9. 

Absent  or  Not  Voting — Badenoch, 

Brosseau,  Cole,  Crilly,  Ritter,  Dixon,  T. 
J. ; Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Fitzpatrick,  Foreman,  Gansbergen,  Gra- 
ham, Haas  Harrison  Hill,  Hunter, 
Lundberg,  Oehne,  Patterson,  Post, 
Rainey,  Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shedd, 
Sunny,  Swift,  Thompson,  Wilson — 29. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

explain  my  vote.  If  by  this  section  it 
is  understood  we  are  voting  in  favor  of 
municipal  operation,  I certainly  want 
to  vote  no.  I am  in  favor  of  municipal 
ownership,  but  I am  not  in  favor  of 
municipal  operation.  I vote  no. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I desire  to  be  re- 

corded aye.  I was  absent  from  roll 
call. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I would  like  to 

have  the  absentees  called. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett  de- 

sires to  be  recorded  aye.  The  absentee 
roll  will  be  called. 

(During  absentee  roll  call:) 

MR.  HOYNE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

passed  this  because  I did  not  at  this 


time  want  to  vote  on  this  proposition* 
I do  not  think  it  is  fair  to  take  a vote 
upon  this  question  at  this  time  in  its 
present  condition.  I am  opposed  to  mu- 
nicipal ownership.  I do  not  believe  it 
is  a good  thing.  I do  not  think  the 
city  would  get  the  best  results  out  of 
it,  and  it  has  not  been  so  of  late.  In 
my  opinion  the  city  has  lost  $1,000,000 
a year  by  holding  up  and  using  this 
traction  question  as  if  it  were  a foot 
ball.  One  million  dollars  a year  the 
city  would  have  had  as  an  additional 
revenue  if  this  matter  had  been  settled. 
And  so  with  other  matters.  I do  not 
think  the  telephone  company  or  the 
electric  light  company  or  the  gas  com- 
pany— I believe  franchises  should  be  is- 
sued to  every  one  of  those  companies; 
twenty-year  franchises.  I would  like  to 
see  the  city  get  the  finances  it  de- 
serves. The  city  could  have  from  the 
gas  company,  if  it  were  voting  right 
and  just — the  people  should  have  ten 
cents  a thousand  from  the  gas  company 
and  that  would  give  them  many  thou- 
sand dollars  of  revenue  from  the  gas 
works.  Also  from  the  telephone  com- 
pany, and  the  electric  light  company. 
I say  the  city  is  losing  revenue  by  not 
giving  franchises.  You  never  knew  of 
a municipal  corporation  or  any  other 
city  or  government  corporation  that  got 
as  much  money  out  of  a property  or 
operated  it  as  economically  as  a private 
corporation,  and  for  that  reason,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I now  vote  no  on  this  propo- 
sition. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  That’s  an  abso- 

lute fact.  You  always  get  more  money 
out  of  it. 

MR.  SMULSKI:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

did  not  vote  on  this  question  before  be- 
cause I did  not  fully  understand  the 
question.  I did  not  wish  to  vote  on  it 
as  I did  not  understand  this  paragraph, 
and  therefore  I did  not  vote  for  it  with- 
out a full  knowledge  of  what  it  means. 
For  that  reason  I will  now  vote  no. 


December  14 


337 


1906 


ME.  EEYELL:  I ask  that  my  vote 

be  changed  to  “no.” 

ME.  LATHBOP : Is  it  too  late  to  give 

one’s  reasons  for  one’s  vote? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Do  you  desire  to 

change  your  vote? 

ME.  LATHBOP:  No,  but  I ask  for 

indulgence.  I wish  to  know  if  it  is  too 
late  now  to  give  one’s  reason  for  one’s 
vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  By  consent  of 

the  house.  You  may  proceed. 

MR.  LATHBOP:  I vote  for  this  sim- 
ply because  I believe  there  is  no  objec- 
tion to  the  city  having  a right  to  acquire 
property. 

MR.  FISHER:  Hear,  hear. 

MR.  LATHBOP:  But  I am  absolutely 
opposed  to  operation  by  the  municipali- 
ties. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  be  recorded  as  voting 
* * no.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Pendarvis 

votes  “no.” 

MR.  BURKE:  How  does  Mr.  Church 

vote  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Church? 

MR.  BURKE:  I would  like  to  know 

how  Mr.  Church  voted. 

MR.  CHURCH:  For  the  gentleman’s 

information  I would  like  to  say  that 
Mr.  Church  did  not  vote,  but  he  is  now 
desirous  as  being  recorded  as  voting 
“ no.  ” 

. THE  CHAIRMAN : Pendarvis  “ no.  ” 

Church  “no.” 

MR.  BROWN:  I desire  to  change  my 

vote  to  * ‘ no.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Brown  de- 

sires to  change  his  vote  to  * ‘ no.  ’ ’ 

THE  SECRETARY:  Brown,  “no.” 

MR.  RINAKEE:  Ordinarily  I do  not 

care  to  explain  any  vote  that  I am  mak- 
ing, but  with  the  consent  of  the  house 
I would  like  to  explain. 

(Cries  of  “Agreed.”) 

MR.  RINAKER:  I would  like  to  say 

that  I am  in  favor  of  the  principle  that 
the  city  has  a right  to  own ; and  I be- 


lieve that  is  the  position  I took  when  I 
voted  ‘aye.”  On  the  question  of  whether 
or  not  the  city  should  exercise  that  right, 
that  is  a question  of  policy,  in  my  judg- 
ment, which  would  be  discussed  whenever 
the  city  attempted  to  exercise  that 
right. 

MR.  FISHER:  That’s  right. 

MR.  LINEHAN : If  you  don ’t  hurry 

up,  Mr.  Secretary,  there  will  be  some 
more  of  them  changing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  the  motion 

to  adopt  the  yeas  are  36  and  the  nays  9. 
The  motion  is  carried.  No.  2. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  2 as  it  appears 
in  the  proceedings  at  page  55. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  moved  and 

seconded  that  section  2 be  adopted.  All 
those  in  favor  say  aye.  Opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  so  ordered. 

Number  three. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  3 as  it  appears 
in  the  proceedings  at  page  55. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  its  adoption. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  a 

little  explanation  of  that. 

MR.  WERNO : It  gives  control  of  the 

streets.  That  is,  when  it  gives  authority 
to  somebody  to  use  a portion  of  a street 
for  some  public  utility  it  does  not  give 
away  all  its  rights  in  the  street;  it  still 
has  control  of  the  street,  that’s  all. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I remember  an 

instance  which  is  very  much — or  should 
be  very  much  before  the  public  today. 
By  virtue  of  the  authority  conferred  upon 
it  the  gas  company  had  a tunnel  in 
Dearborn  street  under  the  river.  When 
the  time  came  for  the  construction  of  the 
Dearborn  street  bridge  the  city  claimed 
it  had  a prior  right,  and  the  gas  company 
claimed  its  right  was  prior  to  the  city. 
Without  going  into  negotiations  at  which 
| t was  not  present  and  would  not  like  to 
misrepresent,  the  Sanitary  District — this 
was  before  my  term  of  office — proceeded 
I to  build  Dearborn  street  bridge  at  a much 


December  14 


338 


1906 


greater  expense  than  would  be  necessary- 
had  the  gas  company  been  compelled  to 
take  care  of  itself.  An  ambiguity  of 
this  kind  should  not  remain  in  our  law. 
Either  the  company  has  a prior  right 
oyer  the  street  or  the  city  has  the  prior 
right,  and  that  should  be  settled  defi- 
nitely in  Chicago.  I therefore  second 
Alderman  Werno’s  motion. 

ME.  FISHER : Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  in  favor 
of  the  adoption  of  No.  3 will  signify  by 
saying  aye ; opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  so  ordered. 

Number  four.  The  Secretary  will  read 
No.  4. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  4,  as  it  appears 
in  the  proceedings  at  page  55. 

MR.  FISHER : Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

the  adoption  of  alternative  No.  4,  and  in 
doing  so  I wish  to  explain  what  I under- 
stand to  be  the  difference  between  that 
and  the  main  proposition.  Under  the 
main  proposition  if  in  the  grant  there 
was  expressed  that  a rate  of  fare  of  five 
cents  should  be  for  a certain  specified 
period  of  time  it  could  not  thereafter  be 
regulated.  If  thereafter  a change  was 
desired  it  could  not  be  affected.  If  a 
rate  were  fixed  at  a certain  sum,  that, 
thereafter,  could  not  be  regulated.  In 
other  words,  it  says  the  city  can  make 
regulations  and  those  regulations  shall 
continue  unless  otherwise  expressly  pro- 
vided in  the  grant.  So,  if  it  is  expressly 
provided  in  the  grant  you  cannot  regulate 
it.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  provisions 
of  the  alternative  are  wise  provisions, 
providing  that  the  city  shall  always  have 
the  power  to  make  reasonable  regula- 
tions ; providing,  however,  that  the  ques- 
tion of  the  reasonableness  of  any  such 
regulation  shall  always  be  determined 
with  due  regard  to  the  provisions  or 
limitation  of  the  graut  under  which  such 
public  utility  is  being  operated.  For 
instance,  if  the  grant  did  not  provide 
for  the  payment  of  property  at  the  end 
of  the  grant,  or  any  provision  to  take 


care  of  it,  or  if  the  grant  requires  that 
they  shall  perform  certain  extraordin- 
ary services  when  the  court  comes  to  pass 
upon  the  reasonableness  of  this  grant  it 
shall  take  into  consideration  all  the  terms 
and  conditions  and  shall  consider  the 
reasonableness  in  view  of  the  exact  or- 
dinance under  which  the  public  utility 
is  being  operated.  It  seems  to  me  this 
is  a wise  limitation  and  in  putting  into 
the  power  of  the  City  Council  the  power 
to  fix  public  fares  and  such  matters  it 
will  operate  for  the  benefit  of  the  city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  alternative  No.  4, 
substitute  No.  4.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question?  Those  in  favor  signify  by 
saying 

MR.  LATHROP:  I am  opposed  to 

that  provision,  Mr.  Chairman.  It  seems 
to  me  it  is  not  in  keeping  with  ordinary 
fair  business  dealings.  If  a city  makes 
a 69  year  lease  and  fixes  the  rate  of  rent 
it  would  be  obviously  unfair  at  any  time 
to  change  that  rent.  If  a grant  is  made 
I take  it  at  the  time  the  grant  was  made 
there  must  be  some  confidence  between 
the  power  of  making  the  grant  and 
the  company  or  the  corporation  accepting 
it.  The  terms  of  the  grant  are  agreed 
upon.  The  corporation,  it  may  be  at  a 
large  expenditure  of  money,  must  mutu- 
ally agree  on  the  conditions  of  that  grant. 
It  is  one  of  the  provisions  to  change  that, 
and  that,  to  my  mind,  is  decidedly  un- 
businesslike; and  it  strikes  me  as  unfair. 
1 am  therefore  opposed  to  the  proposi- 
tion. 

MR,  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I 

may  be  permitted  merely  to  answer  the 
point  which  has  just  been  made  by  Mr. 
Latlirop.  I would  say  in  answer  to  that, 
and  I think  it  is  a complete  answer,  that 
no  corporation  or  individual  or  associa- 
tion would  ever  take  a public  utilities 
grant  unless  they  like  the  terms  of  that 
graut;  it  will  indicate  that  they  agree 
with  its  provisions,  and  that  they  knew 
what  was  in  there.  It  is  like  the  re- 
valuation clause  in  land  matters.  It  is 


December  14 


339 


1906 


like  the  provisions  reserved  in  other  mat- 
ters. We  reserve  already,  and  it  is  con- 
ceded, under  the  police  power,  we  must 
reserve  under  our  provisions  power  re- 
quiring improvements  and  other  things. 
Now  there  is  a dispute  in  the  court  which 
is  not  yet  fully  settled,  whether  the 
right  to  regulate  fares  is  strictly  within 
the  police  powers  or  not.  Those  courts 
that  hold  that  there  is  a right  to'  regu- 
late fares  within  the  police  powers,  like 
the  right  to  regulate  service,  hold  that 
this  provision  is  in  the  grant  already. 
Those  courts  who  do  not  require  a con- 
struction of  this  kind  hold  to  the  con- 
trary. But  no  one  can  complain  of 
unfairness.  We  all  know  that  the  gas 
company  did  in  this  city  in  the  United 
States  court  set  up  a claim  because  in 
one  statute  it  was  fixed  that  $3  was  the 
price  of  gas,  and  they  had  a right  to 
maintain  that  rate,  and  any  concession 
given  below  that  was  in  the  nature  of 
gratuities  and  generosity  to  the  city.  Of 
course  the  court  knocked  it  out,  but  that 
was  their  contention.  Now  the  whole 
purpose  is  to  say  that  no  contention  of 
that  kind  shall  come  up  and  be  made; 
and  the  court  is  a safeguard  and  a pro- 
tection to  property  rights.  The  courts 
will  always  restrict  the  city  to  a reason- 
able regulation,  and  this  thing  expressly 
restricts  it.  I can  see  nothing  unfair  or 
unwise  in  it.  1 think  it  would  be  both 
unwise  and  unfair  to  the  city  if  this 
regulation  were  not  made. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Personally,  I am 

very  thankful  for  the  elucidation  of  the 
paragraph;  and  along  that  line  I would 
like  to  ask  a question.  We  have  adopted 
section  3,  which  provides  any  consent 
or  grant,  etc., — I presume  that  means 
any  consent  hereafter  granted.  This  is 
the  alternative  to  No.  4.  Such  consent, 
which  seems  to  relate  back  to  section  3. 
Now,  may  the  consent  heretofore  granted 
by  the  City  Council  on  these  conditions 
reserve  to  the  power  of  the  City  Council 
to  regrant? 

MR.  FISHER:  It  could  not  mean  any- 


thing else.  We  cannot  pass  expost  facto 
laws  if  we  wanted  to. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I suggest  that  such 

consent  as  thereafter  may  be  granted  be 
added  to  the  clause. 

MR.  FISHER:  I accept  that  sug- 

gestion. 

MR.  BURKE:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Shall  we  have  a 

roll  call? 

(Cries  of  “No. ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Fisher ’s  mo- 

tion to  substitute  No.  4 is  before  the 
house  for  a vote.  All  those  in  favor 
say  aye;  opposed,  no. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  As  amended. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  amended. 

All  those  in  favor  say  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no.  Motion  carried.  The  Sec- 
retary will  read  No.  5. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  5 as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  proceedings  at  page  55. 

MR.  WERNO:  I move  the  adoption 

of  that  paragraph. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  discussion? 

MR.  BURKE : Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  not,  all  those 

in  favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  The  motion  is  carried.  No.  6. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  6 as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  proceedings  at  page  55. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

the  adoption  of  that. 

MR.  SNOW : On  that  I desire  to  say 

a word.  I can  very  readily  understand 
the  reasons  which  have  induced  the 
committee  to  report  a provision  of  that 
kind,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  rea- 
sons on  the  other  side  are  as  strong  or 
stronger.  If  that  provision  is  adopted 
you  place  a power  in  the  hands  of  the 
City  Council  of  granting  a franchise  for 
a street  railway  upon  any  street  in  the 
City  of  Chicago  regardless  of  the  wishes 
of  the  persons  who  own  property  on  that 
street.  I have  in  mind  a case  affecting 
the  ward  which  I,  in  part,  represent.  The 
franchise  ordinance  which  is  now  being 
considered  by  the  committee  on  local 
transportation  providing  among  other 


December  14 


340 


1906 


things  that  the  building  of  a street  rail- 
way upon  a street  through  which  they 
have  no  right  at  the  present  time,  where 
no  ordinance  has  been  granted,  and  there 
has  been  a continual  effort  to  secure 
frontage  consents  continually,  and  con- 
tinual failure  to  get  them.  If  this  pro- 
vision is  inserted  in  the  charter  it  will 
make  it  possible  to  destroy  the  streets — 
any  street  in  Chicago,  regardless  of  the 
property  interests  involved  in  the  de- 
struction. Now  it  is  all  very  well  to  say 
that  the  general  good  requires  the  build- 
ing of  this  line  or  that  line,  but  I main- 
tain that  the  right  of  the  property 
owner  himself  should  be  considered,  and 
that  ’if  in  a particular  street  the  pro- 
perty frontages,  the  majority  of  them, 
do  not  desire  the  public  utility — a street 
railway,  if  you  please,  upon  that  street, 
that  they  should  be  able  to  protect  their 
property  by  refusing  to  give  that  con- 
sent. For  that  reason  I believe  this 
provision  should  be  stricken  out. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

rise  for  information.  I would  like  to 
hear  from  the  committee  that  presented 
this,  or  the  gentleman  who  was  advo- 
cating it.  If  I remember  correctly, 
some  years  ago  a bill  was  introduced  in 
the  Illinois  Legislature  along  these  lines 
and  after  it  had  passed  almost  unani- 
mously the  public  press  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  raised  a clamor  and  said  it  was 
the  worst  sandbagging  measure  that  ever 
went  through  the  Illinois  Legislature ; 
and  every  man  who  innocently  voted  for 
it  was  condemned  by  an  organization  af- 
terwards as  a blackmailer. 

MR.  FISHER : Mr.  Chairman,  I think 

there  is  a misapprehension  about  this 
section.  There  is  a difference  of  opinion 
upon  the  question  of  frontage  consents. 
However,  it  will  be  found  on  examina- 
tion that  the  frontage  consent  laws  of 
every  state  practically  have  been  adopted 
at  the  instance  of  the  existing  corpora- 
tions to  prevent  other  corporations  from 
entering  into  competition  with  them. 
That  is  the  history  of  the  gas  frontage 


consent  law  in  this  state  as  is  considered 
by  every  one  familiar  with  that  history. 
I think  that  is  the  measure  to  which 
Mr.  Shanahan  has  reference.  Maybe  I 
am  mistaken.  If  I am  right,  if  that  is 
what  he  has  in  mind,  the  gas  frontage 
consent  provision  was  a law  which  re- 
quired frontage  consents  before  any 
competing  gas  company  could  start  com- 
petition ; and  the  gas  company,  by  se- 
curing a certain  amount  of  property  in 
their  interest  in  every  block,  or  in  cer- 
tain blocks  in  a mile,  were  able  to  block 
the  erection  and  maintenance  and  oper- 
ation of  a competing  gas  company.  At 
least,  that  was  supposed  and  alleged  to 
be  the  purpose.  Now,  I make  that  state- 
ment on  general  information  without  any 
particular  information  at  all'.  However, 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  State  of  Il- 
linois in  two  decisions  has  held  that  the 
frontage  law  is  not  intended  for  the 
protection  of  the  individual  property 
owners  whose  property  abuts  on  a street, 
and  in  one  case  the  Supreme  Court  of 
this  state  condemned  as  a practical  be- 
trayal of  public  interests  a situation 
where  a property  owner  did  exercise  his 
right  of  consent  with  regard  to  his  own 
personal . financial  interests.  They  have 
condemned  and  prohibited  the  sale  or 
purchase  of  frontage  consents  for  that 
reason.  They  have  said  in  precise  lan- 
guage that  the  frontage  consent  law  is 
not  intended  and  should  never  be  per- 
verted to  the  use  of  the  abutting  property 
owner,  upon  the  question  as  to  whether 
or  not  a particular  thing  would  benefit 
or  injure  him.  That  its  purpose  is  to 
advise  the  municipal  authorities  as  to 
what  the  people  on  that  street  think  is 
wise  municipal  policy.  That  it  is  only 
enacted  to  get  an  expression  of  opinion. 
Now,  the  question  was  discussed  in  com- 
mittee, and  the  only  difference  of  opin- 
ion that  arose  was  as  to  whether  or  not 
there  should  be  certain  territory,  certain 
neighborhoods  in  a city  which  should 
be  exempt ; and  this  resolution  was 
adopted  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the 


December  14 


341 


1906 


City  Council  to  pick  out  any  neigh- 
borhood that  it  wanted  and  by  an  or- 
dinance to  provide  that  frontage  consents 
must  be  obtained  in  residence  neighbor- 
hoods. For  instance,  suppose  the  City 
of  Chicago,  in  the  development  of  the 
street  railroad  system,  should  want  to 
extend  the  system  for  a half  a dozen 
blocks,  and  that  either  in  the  hands  of 
the  city  or  of  a private  corporation,  and 
should  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
proper  development  of  the  street  railway 
system  required  the  location  of  tracks 
upon  a certain  number  of  blocks  in  a 
certain  street.  That  not  to  do  it  would 
dwarf  and  thwart  the  proper  develop- 
ment of  the  street  railway  system  in  the 
hands  of  a private  corporation,  let  us 
say,  and  the  property  owners  on  that 
street  combined  together  and  refused  to 
give  frontage  consents,  for  any  reason. 
They  could  effectually  block  the  whole 
enterprise.  I am  directly  interested  in 
this  proposition.  I happen  to  live  in  a 
neighborhood  which  is  as  good  an  illus- 
tration as  any.  I live  on  North  State 
street,  north  of  Division.  North  State 
street,  from  Division  street  north  to 
North  avenue,  a few  blocks,  has  been 
boulevarded;  south  of  that  it  has  not; 
where  I live  it  has  not  been,  boulevarded. 
Every  now  and  then  the  question  arises 
that  the  proper  development  of  the  street 
railway  system  on  the  north  side  would 
require  that  the  street  railway  on  North 
State  street  should  be  extended  a cer- 
tain number  of  blocks  north  so  that  they 
would  be  able  to  turn  west  at  that  point. 
It  has  been  at  various  times  contended 
that  there  should  be  a street  railway  on 
North  State  street  up  to  North  avenue, 
and  from  North  avenue  across,  instead 
of  stopping  at  Division  street.  That 
we  are  in  a congested  district,  and  that 
in  order  to  get  the  necessary  north  and 
south  avenues  there  should  be  another 
street.  Personally,  I should  regret  it 
extremely.  1 think  it  would  be  an  injury 
to  my  property,  but  if  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago in  the  development  of  that  system, 


should  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it 
was  absolutely  necessary  to  properly  de- 
velop the  street  railway  system,  that 
tracks  should  be  laid  on  that  street, 
the  question  is  a fair  question  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  property  owners  liv- 
ing there,  by  merely  withholding  frontage 
consents,  should  be  able  to  block  the 
proposition.  As  the  law  now  stands 
they  could.  Now,  the  whole  question  is 
in  that  shape.  So  it  is  with  regard  to 
the  downtown  streets.  If  the  City  of 
Chicago  wants  to  locate  any  street  rail- 
way upon  any  street  in  the  business  dis- 
trict or  elsewhere  it  must  get  frontage 
consents,  if  there  are  no  street  railways 
located  on  there  now.  Now,  the  question 
is,  should  we  have  a general  frontage 
law,  or  should  we  vest  in  the  City  Coun- 
cil of  the  City  of  Chicago  the  right  to 
fix  the  provisions  of  a frontage  consent 
regulation  which  should  apply  to  the 
City  of  Chicago.  That,  for  instance,  in 
certain  districts  or  on  certain  lines,  or 
where  there  are  certain  lines  outside  of 
a certain  limitation,  that  no  line  should 
be  located  nearer  an  existing  line  than 
a quarter  of  a mile,  without  obtaining 
the  frontage  consents  of  the  people  living 
on  the  street  where  the  line  was  to  be 
located,  and  so  on.  And  the  question 
is  not  free  from  doubt,  but  it  is  a fair 
question,  a perfectly  fair  question  as 
to  whether  or  not  the  interests  of  this 
city  and  of  the  property  owners  of  this 
city  as  a whole  are  not  better  preserved 
if  the  City  Council  is  vested  with  the 
privilege  of  passing  an  ordinance  of  that 
sort,  rather  than  to  have  a general  state 
law.  If  you  have  a general  state  law  it 
would  not  be  possible  or  wise  for  the 
Legislature  at  Springfield  to  say  that 
within  the  territory  bounded  by  Halsted 
street  on  the  west  and  a certain  street 
on  the  north,  and  another  on  the  south, 
and  Lake  Michigan,  that  frontage  con- 
sents are  not  necessary,  and  that  outside 
of  that  district  they  are;  and  yet  the 
City  of  Chicago  might  very  wisely  pass 
an  ordinance  of  that  character  or  of  some 


December  14 


342 


1906 


other  character  of  which  that  is  an  illus- 
tration, the  subject  being  left  entirely 
in  the  hands  of  the  City  Council.  Now, 
are  gentlemen  afraid,  really  seriously 
afraid,  that  if  the  City  Council  has  the 
right  to  pass  general  frontage  consent 
regulations,  that  anybody  whose  pro- 
perty really  ought  to  be  protected  is  go- 
ing to  have  it  taken  away  from  them. 
Personally  I have  no  such  fear.  I be- 
lieve the  City  Council  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  will  legislate  as  wisely  and  as 
conservatively  and  with  as  due  regard 
to  the  interests  of  the  property  owners 
as  the  State  Legislature  would,  and  that 
there  would  be  more  flexibility  in  the  law 
if  this  rule  w^as  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  question.  The  question  is 
on  the  adoption  of  No.  6. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Carey,  Dever,  Fisher, 
Linehan,  Owens,  Robins,  Taylor,  Yopicka, 
Walker,  Werno,  Zimmer — 14. 

Nays  — Baker,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Clettenberg, 
Eekhart,  J.  W.,  Guerin,  Hoyne,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Cormick, McKinley,  O’Donnell,  Powers, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Rinaker,  Shanahan, 
Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Young — 26. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  adopt  No.  6 of  Section  XYI.  the  yeas 
are  14,  and  the  nays  are  26,  and  the  mo- 
tion is  lost. 


MR.  McCORMICK : Mr.  Chairman, 

Mr.  Eekhart  has  a resolution  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  was 

about  to  call  it  up. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Eekhart 

said  he  was  perfectly  willing, — he  could 
not  stay  himself — to  have  it  go  over  till 
tomorrow. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  there  is  no  ob- 

jection it  will  take  that  course. 

MR.  SNOW : I desire  a point  of  in- 

formation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  SNOW : I desire  to  know  wheth- 

er, under  the  practice  of  the  Convention, 
it  will  be  possible  to  offer  additional  pro- 
positions at  a later  date  to  be  included 
in  this  draft  of  public  utilities. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I see  no  objec- 

tion to  it,  sir. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  1 move  that  wTe  now 

adjourn  until  2 o ’clock  tomorrow  after- 
noon. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  should 

it  not  be  understood  that  in  this  matter, 
as  in  all  others,  if  such  resolutions  are 
introduced  they  will  be  deferred  and 
published. 

MR.  SNOW:  Certainly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  the  Convention 
adjourn  until  2 o ’clock  tomorrow,  and 
it  is  so  ordered. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Saturday,  December  15,  1906,  at 
2 o ’clock  p.  m. 


December  14 


343 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 


The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IY.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ite  provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


December  14 


344 


1906 


V.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1 : a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  the  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  • elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
takep,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
sl}all  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 


be  four  years. 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state;  an4  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
,City- Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  .the 
city,  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  eonduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 


December  14 


345 


1906 


any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

Section  X and  alternative  stand  as  a 
special  order. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XI  r.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraphs,  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 


December  14,  1906,  have  been  re-re- 
ferred  to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XV.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  paragraphs  of  Section  XV  are  de- 
ferred to  be  considered  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city ’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to'  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 


December  14 


346 


1906 


The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  thafthe  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 


grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY  ME.  BENNETT: 

XXII. 

5.  SECTION Nothing  in  this  act 

shall  be  construed  to  modify,  impair  or 
affect  or  to  confer  upon  the  city  coun- 
cil power  to  pass  any  ordinance  modi- 
fying, impairing  or  conflicting  with  the 
provisions  of  Section  18  of  an  act  en- 
titled “An  act  to  provide  for  the  an- 
nexation of  cities,  incorporated  towns 
and  villages  or  parts  of  same  to  cities, 
incorporated  towns  and  villages”  ap- 
proved April  25th,  1889,  or  to  any  pro- 
vision of  any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  or  creat- 
ing or  defining  criminal  offenses  or  relat- 
ing to  tfle  prosecution  and  punishment 
thereof,  nor  shall  any  amendment  or 
addition  be  made  to  the  charter  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  except  by  the  General 
Assembly,  by  which  this  section,  or  any 
part  thereof  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
be  abrogated,  repealed  or  annulled. 


BY.  ME.  SHEPAED: 

Eesolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 


perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary's  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary's 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  ME.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen's  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSES  WEENO  AND  EOSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 


December  14 


347 


1906 


at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


BY  MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : 

No  city  officer  or  employee  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use  of 
another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratuitous 
service,  or  discrimination  from  any  per- 
son or  corporation  holding  or  using  any 


franchise,  privilege,  or  license  granted  by 
the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  extend  to 
the  furnishing  of  free  transportation  to 
police  officers  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


BY  MR,  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retain  any  goods,  fruits  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicle. 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

For  Week  Beginning  Monday,  December  10. 

SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53. 

SECTION  XY. — Streets  and  Public  Places,  at  page!  54. 

SECTION  XVII. — Education,  at  page  56. 

PARAGRAPH  3.— Suffrage,  at  page  52. 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  SHANAHAN : On  page  92, 

first  column : Line  13,  insert  word 

“ speak’ 9 instead  of  “come. ” 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  101, 

second  column:  Line  22,  after  the  word 
1 ‘ then ’ 9 add  “who  shall.” 


MR.  SHEDD:  On  page  128,  first 

column,  second  line,  strike  out  “in  a” 
and  insert  therefor : 1 1 eliminating  the. 9 9 
Also,  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
“paper,”  insert  “but  retaining  the  par- 
ty column.” 


MR.  POST:  On  page  130,  second 

column,  fifth  line  from  bottom,  sub- 
stitute the  word  “constitutional”  for 
the  word  “satisfactory.” 


MR.  SHEPARD:  On  page  134,  first 

column,  last  paragraph,  fifth  line,  strike 
out  “that  is,  that  all  municipal  officers 
and  city  officers,  including  the  municipal 
court  judges  shall  be  elected  in  the 
spring”  and  insert  therefor:  “that  is, 


that  all  city  officers  shall  be  elected  in 
the  spring  at  one  and  the  same  election, 
except  the  municipal  court  judges.” 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  159, 

first  column,  next  to  last  line,  strike 
out  “it  along”  and  insert  “about  its 
passage.  ’ 9 


MR.  WERNO:  On  page  161,  left 

hand  column,  line  25,  strike  out  the 
word  “has”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof 
the  word  “have.” 

Also  on  page  161,  right  hand  column, 
13th  line,  strike  out  the  words  “to 
give”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  “who  gives.” 


MR.  LINEHAN:  On  page  162,  first 

column,  next  to  last  line,  strike  out 
word  “devoted”  and  insert  “di- 
vorced.” Also  same  column,  last  line, 
strike  out  word  “to”  and  insert 
“from.”  Also,  same  page,  second  col- 
umn, first  line,  strike  out  “we  are  pro- 
posing” and  insert  “a  proposal.” 


December  14 


348 


1906 


ME.  POWERS:  On  page  166,  sec- 

ond column,  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  lines, 
strike  out  “Well,  can't  he  do  that 
without  the  consent  of  this  Conven- 
tion?" and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  “He 
cannot  do  that  without  the  consent  of 
this  Convention. ’ ’ 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  170, 

first  column,  fourth  line,  after  the  word 
“entrance"  insert  the  following:  “to 
the  service  protected  by  the  law." 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  Page  179,  first 

column;  strike  out  entire  line,  and  in- 
sert in  lieu  thereof:  “that  fact  we 
put  into  the,"  also,  same  page,  same 
column,  in  fourth  line  from  bottom, 
insert  the  word  “meet"  for  “leave." 


MR.  REYELL:  Page  179,  about  cen- 

ter of  the  last  column,  strike  our  the 
four  last  words. 


MR.  REYELL:  Page  181,  strike  out 

the  sentence  or  paragraph  commencing 
with  “It  seems  to  me  if  the  duty"  and 
ending  with  “that  will  at  least  let  them 
out  of  it,"  and  insert  the  following: 

“It  seems  to  me  that  as  between  an 
appointment  by  the  judge  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  and  an  appointment  by  the 
Chief  Justice  of  that  court,  which  latter 
might  be  influenced  by  the  County  Cen- 
tral Committee — as  suggested  by  Aider- 
man  Raymer — the  latter  would  be  pre- 
ferable, as  it  would  eliminate  the  other 
twenty-seven  or  twenty-eight  judges  of 
the  Municipal  Court  from  political  in- 
fluence. It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  the 
Chief  Justice  could  be  influenced  by 
anybody  or  anyone  toward  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  incompetent  man.  ’ ’ 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Page  214,  second 

column,  twelfth  line  of  paragraph, 
strike  out  words  “a  movement"  and 
insert  “an  improvement." 


sition"  to  “provision";  also,  same 
page,  same  column,  line  26,  change  the 
word  “of"  to  “by." 

MR.  YOPICKA:  On  page  226,  sec- 
ond column,  correct  as  follows:  “Mr. 

Chairman. — If  Mr.  Rosenthal  will  change 
his  amendment  to  read  $3,500  minimum 
and  $5,000  maximum,  you  will  get  men 
of  more  intelligence  to  seek  the  office; 
make  it  a minimum  salary  of  $3,500 
and  a maximum  of  $5,000,  and  not  more 
than  that." 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

have  inserted  in  the  records  at  page 
253,  column  2,  anywhere  there,  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph,  which  was  a part  of 
Mr.  Fisher’s  speech,  and  was  left  out 
wholly,  as  follows: 

“ * * * Mr.  Linehan,  to  speak 

plainly,  is  in  sympathy  with  the  present 
mayor,  for  this  reason.  He  is  willing 
that  the  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
should  be  four  years,  but  objects  to  the 
aldermanic  term  being  lengthened.  I 
ask  him  if  he  would  be  of  the  same 
mind  if  he  were  opposed  to  the  mayor, 
but  was  in  sympathy  with  the  city  coun- 
cil, which  had  to  seek  re-election  every 
two  years." 

MR.  FISHER:  I must  object  to  the 

insertion  of  this  language  as  being  my 
exact  language;  that  is  not  exactly  what 
I stated.  I think  it  does  fairly  state 
the  sense  of  what  was  stated,  but  the 
remark  which  I made  was  that  Mr.  Line- 
han was  in  favor  of  the  policies  of  the 
present  mayor.  I don ’t  know  whether 
he  is  in  favor  of  the  present  mayor  or 
opposed  to  the  present  mayor,  but  I 
do  understand  that  he  is  in  favor  of 
the  policies  of  the  present  mayor. 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  On  page  257, 

second  column,  line  3,  insert  the  word 
“ to  " in  place  of  1 1 on.  ’ ’ 

MR.  DEVER : On  page  299,  first  col- 

umn, fifth  line  of  the  remarks,  omit  the 
word  ‘ ‘ not.  ’ ’ Also,  after  the  word 
‘ ‘ certain,  ’ ’ add  * 1 general  state.  ’ 1 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  Page  226,  second 
column,  line  24,  change  the  word  “po- 


PROCEEDINGS OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

SATURDAY,  DECEMBER  15,  1906 


(Hhiratju  (Elmrtrr  (Eonurutiun 

Convened,  December  12,  i 905 
Headquarter* 

171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 

MilYon  J.  Foreman,  ....  Chairman 
Alexander  H.  Revell,  Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Abbt  Sec  y 


. 


December  15 


351 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Regular  Meeting,  Saturday,  December  15,  1906 

2:00  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  come  to  order  and  the  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
trBfeebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown, 
* Burke,  Carey,  Church,  Cole,  Crilly,  De- 
-^ver,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A., 
L Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Gansbergen, 
Guerin,  Hill,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMil- 
lan, McCormick,  McGoorty,  McKinley, 
Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Pendarvis, 
Rainey,  Raymer,  Revell,  Rinaker,  Rob- 
ins, Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shep- 
ard, Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Vo- 
picka,  Werno,  Young,  Zimmer — 49. 

Absent — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beilfuss, 
Clettenberg,  Ritter,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Erick- 
son, Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Graham,  Haa=, 
Harrison,  Hoyne,  Oehne,  Paullin,  Pat- 
terson, Post,  Powers,  Sethness,  Swift, 
Thompson,  Walker,  White,  Wilkins,  Wil- 
son— 25. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

Are  there  any  corrections  or  amend- 
ments to  the  minutes'?  If  not,  they 
stand  approved  as  the  minutes  of  the 
last  meeting. 

The  first  matter  before  the  Conven- 
tion is  the  resolution  introduced  by 
Mr.  Eckhart  at  the  last  meeting. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move  the 

adoption  of  the  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Eckhart ’s  resolution. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  347,  “By 
Mr.  B.  A.  Eckhart:  No  city  officer  or 

employe  shall  directly  or  indirectly  ask 
for,  demand  or  accept  for  his  own  use, 
or  for  the  use  of  another,  any  free 
pass,  frank,  gratuitous  service  or  dis- 
crimination from  any  person  or  corpo- 
ration holding  or  using  any  franchise, 
privilege  or  license  granted  by  the 
city.  But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  police  officers  while  on  duty. 
The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition.  ’ 1 


December  15 


352 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Eckhart 

moves  the  adoption  of  this  resolution. 
The  Chair  desires  to  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  in  some  city  ordinances 
firemen  are  also  exempt. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  Letter  carriers,  also, 

on  the  elevated  lines,  and  so  forth. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  the  resblution? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  to 

amend  it  by  inserting  the  word  “fire- 
men” after  “policemen,”  so  that  it 
shall  read:  “Policemen  and  firemen.” 

Have  you  any  objection  to  that,  Mr. 
Eckhart? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  No,  I have 

no  objection. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  that  satisfac- 

tory to  you,  Mr.  Eckhart? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Yes. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  If,  later  on,  the 

parks  become  a part  of  the  city,  would 
the  park  policemen  then,  under  those 
circumstances,  be  city  police  officers? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Yes,  certainly. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I think  they 

would  be  a part  of  the  city  government. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  They  would  be 

covered  by  that? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Yes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  to  add 

the  word  “gratuity,”  so  that  it  will 
read  1 1 free  pass,  frank,  gratuity  or 
gratuitous  service  or  discrimination.” 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

know  from  some  of  the  aldermen  who 
are  acquainted  with  the  situation  if 
there  are  not  certain  provisions  con- 
nected with  the  city  departments  where 
passes  are  issued?  I don’t  know  just 
exactly  what  the  situation  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  mean  city 

officers? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I know  some  fran- 

chises connected  with  railroads,  if  I 
mistake  not,  the  elevated,  some  elevated 
franchises  have  a provision  allowing 
officers  in  plain  clothes,  that  is,  such  as 
a detective  sergeant,  or  some  one  like 
that. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  I don’t 

know  anything  about  that.  The  ele- 
vated ordinance,  if  I mistake  not,  in- 
cludes policemen,  firemen  and  letter  car- 
riers. The  City  of  Chicago  itself  pays 
out  large  sums  .of  money  every  year  for 
car  fare  for  its  employes.  The  Secre- 
tary will  add  the  words  that  have  been 
suggested,  and  then  the  matter  will  be 
read  again. 

THE  SECRETARY:  After  “frank” 

add  1 ‘ gratuity.  ’ ’ Is  that  right,  Mr.  Ro- 
senthal? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  “Gratuity,” 

and  put  a comma  after  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  What  was  the 

other  amendment? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  “Firemen,” 

“policemen  and  firemen.” 

MR.  McGOORTY : I would  like  to 

offer  the  following  as  an  amendment, 
in  lieu  of  that 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Speak  a little 

louder,  Mr.  McGoorty. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  In  lieu  of  the 

words  “police  officers  and  firemen,”  as 
the  amendment  now  stands,  that  it  be 
“members  of  the  police  and  fire  de- 
partments. ’ ’ 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I accept  that 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  it  satisfac- 

tory to  you? 

MR,  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Yes,  sir; 

that  is  satisfactory. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “Members  of 

the  police  and  fire  departments.  ’ ’ 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  “No  city  officer 

or  employe  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
ask  for,  demand  or  accept  for  his  own 
use,  or  for  the  use  of  another,  any  free 
pass,  frank,  gratuity,  gratuitous  service 
or  discrimination  from  any  person  or 
corporation  holding  or  using  any  fran- 
chise, privilege  or  license  granted  by  the 
city,  but  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  furnishing  free  transportation 
to  members  of  the  police  and  fire  de- 
partments while  on  duty.  The  charter 


December  15 


353 


1 906 


shall  contain  appropriate  provisions  for 
the  enforcement  of  this  prohibition.” 

MR.  SNOW:  I have  no  intention  of 

opposing  the  resolution,  but  it  strikes 
me  very  decidedly  that  this  is  a pro- 
vision that  should  be  in  the  code,  and 
not  in  the  charter;  and  also  that  it  may 
work  some  difficulty  in  the  relations  be- 
tween the  city  and  the  street  car  com- 
panies. For  example,  where  the  city 
might  desire  to  provide  in  the  franchise 
that  certain  classes  of  its  own  employes 
who  are  compelled  to  travel  through  the 
city  will  be  carried  free.  I have  in 
mind  inspectors  from  the  Health  De- 
partment, and  inspectors  from  other  de- 
partments; various  classes  of  inspect- 
ors, whose  duties  require  that  they 
travel  over  the  city. 

And  again,  the  question  comes  up  as 
to  what  would  be  the  effect  of  a pro- 
vision of  this  kind  in  the  charter  upon 
the  deputy  bailiffs  of  the  municipal 
courts.  It  seems  to  me  we  may  be  limit- 
ing ourselves  more  than  we  intend  to. 
I think  this  really  is  a matter  for  the 
code,  rather  than  the  charter.  I sim- 
ply throw  this  out  as  a suggestion  to  the 
members  of  the  convention,  without  any 
desire  to  oppose  the  principle  that  is  in- 
volved here. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I believe  this 
— that  this  provision  ought  to  go  in  the 
charter.  For  five  or  six  years  the  ques- 
tion of  issuing  and  granting  special 
privileges  to  elective  and  appointive 
officers  has  been  agitating  this  country, 
so  that  the  national  government  has 
taken  steps  to  check  it.  We  are  all 
aware  of  the  fact  that  many  years  ago 
it  was  a mark  of  distinction  when  a 
man  could  pull  out  a pass  on  a railroad 
train,  or  at  any  other  place,  and  the 
practice  became  so  common  that  it  was 
considered  in  many  instances  to  be  in 
the  nature  of  a bribe.  We  know  that 
the  practice  was  so  common  that  the 
franchise  corporations  were  compelled 
to  issue  passes,  not  only  to  officials  and 
employes,  but  to  their  friends.  It  was 


frequently  carried  to  such  an  extreme 
that  if  they  refused  to  issue  passes  the 
officials  and  the  employes  sought  re- 
venge; so  that  the  evil  cut  both  ways. 

I think  that  we  are  to-day  practical- 
ly of  one  mind  upon  the  subject  of  the 
issuing  of  passes  to  officials  and  em- 
ployes of  a municipality  or  city  officers. 
The  practice  should  be  discontinued, 
and  the  only  effective  way  of  doing  that 
is  to  incorporate  the  provision  in  the 
charter,  and  not  leave  it  to  the  Common 
Council  to  determine,  or  depend  upon 
the  code  containing  such  provision. 

If  the  practice  is  one  that  is  not  justi- 
fied, then  there  should  be  no  objection 
to  having  it  embodied  in  the  charter. 
I think  it  ought  to  go  in. 

MR.  COLE:  After  about  ten  or 

eleven  years  of  more  or  less  activity  in 
local  affairs,  I have  come  to  the  con- 
clusion that  one  of  the  best  things  to 
be  done  for  the  City  of  Chicago  or 
the  United  States  would  be  to  eliminate 
the  word  “pass”  from  the  English  lan- 
guage; not  even  do  I except  firemen 
or  policemen  from  that  reservation.  I 
am  in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  reso- 
lution as  offered. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I would  like  to  ask 
Mr.  Eekhart  if  that  is  going  to  in- 
clude firemen  and  policemen,  or  except 
him,  should  it  not  also  except  the  dep- 
uty bailiff?  Under  the  municipal  court 
law  deputy  bailiffs  are  paid  wholly  by 
the  city,  and  their  expenses  for  car  fare 
are  liable  to  amount  to  25  or  5’0  cents 
per  day  in  the  discharge  of  city  duties. 
Now,  the  street  car  question  of  letting 
franchises  with  compensation  clauses 
like  that  enters  into  it  very  largely, 
and  if  policemen  are  to  be  included  in 
the  exception,  I suggest  the  propriety 
of  including  the  bailiffs,  or  leave  it 
for  the  City  Council  to  regulate  that  in 
some  manner  with  the  street  car  com- 
panies, so  that  the  city  won't  have  to 
pay  that  out  of  its  treasury. 

J think  the  same  rule  should  apply 


354 


1906 


^December  15 

to  the  deputy  bailiffs  that  would  ap- 
ply to  police  officers. 

MR.  COLE:  I would  like  to  ask  the 
gentleman  a question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right. 

MR.  COLE:  Is  it  not  a fact  that  fees 
are  collected  there?  Is  that  not  a fee 
court  ? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Oh,  yes;  it  is  self- 

sustaining  or  supposed  to  be. 

MR.  COLE:  It  is  supposed  to  be,  but 
it  is  not  self-sustaining.  They  earn 
fees  and  turn  them  into  the  treasurer; 
the  fees  of  the  bailiff’s  office  are  turned 
into  the  city  treasurer,  and  the  city 
must  pay  the  expense  of  maintenance 
of  the  bailiff’s  office.  The  only  differ- 
ence between  the  bailiff  and  the  others 
would  be  that  he  expends  this  car  fare 
in  the  discharge  of  his  duty,  whereas 
police  officers  or  firemen  might  be  sim- 
ply expending  it  going  to  and  from  their 
homes,  not  strictly  in  the  discharge  of 
their  duty. 

MR.  McGOORTY : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  it  would  be  an  unfortunate  prece- 
dent to  start  out  with  the  proposition 
that  the  officers  of  a court  should  be  un- 
der any  obligations  whatsoever  to  the 
public  service  corporations  of  this  city. 
I think  it  is  clearly  within  the  scope  of 
the  municipal  court  act  that  the  neces- 
sary mileage  of  officers  involved  by  the 
fulfillment  of  public  seryice  should  be 
paid  for  out  of  the  receipts  of  the  office; 
but  to  say  that  one  who  is  vested  with 
power  such  as  a deputy  bailiff  has,  that 
he  has  to  accept  favors  at  the  hands  of 
these  corporations  who  are  constantly 
appearing  in  our  courts,  would,  I think, 
be  unwise.  I hope  the  Convention  will 
not  seriously  consider  including  the 
bailiffs. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Would  it  be  in  fa- 
vor of  a bailiff  or  in  favor  of  the 
city? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I can  answer  that 
question  by  saying  that  taking  into 
consideration  human  nature,  the  indi- 
vidual accepting  the  pass — the  effect  of 


that  is  likely  to  make  him  feel  that  he 
has  to  give  something  in  return.  I 
think  that  he  should  be  entirely  free 
and  untrammeled,  and  feel  that  his  serv- 
ices are  wholly  due  to  the  court  of 
which  he  is  a part. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  the  grounds  on  which  Mr.  Shep- 
ard based  his  argument  was  that  it 
should  be  considered  in  the  nature  of  a 
compensation  that  is  to  be  fixed  by  the 
city,  and  will  not  be  regarded  as  a fa- 
vor extended  to  this  class  of  officers.  I 
think  there  is  more  reason,  a great  deal, 
why  the  bailiffs  of  the  municipal  court 
should  be  given  transportation  within 
the  city  than  there  is  why  the  firemen 
should.  I cannot  conceive  of  any  in- 
stance where  a fireman  would  have  to 
use  the  transportation  lines  of  this  city 
in  the  performance  of  his  duties.  There 
may  be  such  a case,  but  I cannot  con- 
ceive of  any.  I think  the  bailiffs  should 
be  included. 

MR.  JONES:  In  listening  to  the 

reading  of  this  resolution,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I understand  that  there  is  noth- 
ing in  this  resolution  which  should 
prevent  the  City  Council  in  grafting 
a franchise  to  a street  railway  company 
to  require  as  a part  of  the  consideration 
that  the  railroad  company  should  fur- 
nish transportation  to  certain  enumer- 
ated employes  of  the  city.  For  instance, 
if  it  was  a part  of  the  consideration  for 
which  the  railroad  company  was  given 
a franchise  by  the  city,  that  it  should 
furnish  transportation  for  certain  em- 
ployes of  the  Public  Works  Department 
working  upon  the  streets,  or  of  the 
Park  Department  working  upon  the 
streets  and  boulevards.  I would  under- 
stand that  would  not  be  a gratuitous 
service,  but  would  be  a service  for  which 
the  city  pays.  Now,  if  that  is  a cor- 
rect interpretation  of  the  resolution,  I 
should  favor  it;  but  if  it  is  not,  it 
seems  to  me  that  some  amendment 
should  be  offered  which  would  not  pro- 
hibit the  city  in  making  any  franchise 


December  15 


355 


1906 


contract  with  a public  service  corpora- 
tion from  accepting  as  a part  of  the 
payment  the  price  for  transportation 
services  for  city  employes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further  dis- 
cussion on  Mr.  Rosenthal's  proposition? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  This  discussion, 

I think,  well  illustrates  the  point  made 
by  Mr.  Snow  as  an  absolutely  correct 
one;  and  that  it  would  be  a great  mis- 
take for  us  to  attempt  to  incorporate  at 
this  time  in  the  charter  a provision 
about  which  we  are  not  certain.  I have, 
therefore,  drafted  a substitute  which  I 
would  like  to  send  to  the  desk.  I have 
not  gotten  it  all  written  out,  and  I 
will,  therefore,  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: The  City  Council  shall  have  full 

power  to  forbid  city  officers  and  em- 
ployes, or  any  of  the  same,  with  or 
without  exceptions,  directly  or  indi- 
rectly, asking  for,  demanding  or  ac- 
cepting, either  for  his  own  use  or  for 
the  use  of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank, 
gratuity,  gratuitous  service,  or  dis- 
crimination from  any  person  or  corpora- 
tion holding  or  using  any  franchise, 
privilege  or  license  granted  by  the  city, 
or  furnishing  any  supplies,  materials  or 
commodities  to  the  city,  and  to  pre- 
scribe punishment  for  the  violation  of 
any  such  provision  or  provisions. 

MR.  O'DONNELL:  Is  this  amend- 

ment before  the  house? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O'Donnell. 

MR.  O'DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
think  the  correct  principle  is  enun- 
ciated and  set  forth  in  the  original  reso- 
lution. I am  opposed  to  the  principle 
of  the  city  dickering  with  the  public 
franchise  corporations  on  the  pittance 
of  gratuitous  services  to  some  of  the 
city  employes. 

The  city  should  pay  the  fares  of  the 
employes  of  the  city  or  any  charge  that 
is  exacted  for  service  by  any  of  these 
corporations  just  as  well  as  the  hum- 
blest citizen.  I agree  with  Mr.  Cole  on 
that,  with  the  mental  reservation  that 


I think  every  city  employe  should  be 
•stricken  out,  because  the  thing  is  per- 
nicious. It  has  been  overdone.  It  has 
thwarted  the  enforcement  of  law  here 
for  many  years.  And  then  about  bail- 
iffs: I think  Mr.  Shepard — and  I agree 

with  Mr.  Shepard  generally — but  I 
think  he  should  consider  what  a terrible 
thing  it  would  be  to  give  the  bailiffs 
gratuitous  services  from  many  of  these 
public  franchise  corporations.  They  se- 
lect the  jurors.  They  go  after  the 
jurors;  they  summon  jurors.  They  have 
them  in  charge.  They  subpoena  wit- 
nesses. They  are  court  officers.  These 
corporations  have  their  quota  of  cases 
in  court.  We  want  to  keep  the  foun- 
tain springs  of  justice  free  from  pollu- 
tion. This  is  the  little  petty  graft  that 
has  been  going  on,  and  it  should  be 
stopped.  The  men  of  this  Convention 
should  speak  in  no  uncertain  terms  of 
it  now. 

I am  opposed  to  the  principle  of  hav- 
ing certain  of  the  street  car  franchise 
holders  saying  that  an  officer  shall  ride 
free.  Why,  the  principle  of  that  is 
wrong;  it  is  pernicious.  The  people 
do  not  want  this;  nor  such  a clause  as 
that  in  the  charter,  or  in  an  ordinance 
granted  to  any  such  corporation.  This 
is  the  sprat  to  catch  the  salmon.  It  has 
been  used  here  for  years.  Let  us  not 
be  mistaken  about  it  or  deluded  by  it. 

I am  in  favor  of  the  original  resolu- 
tion as  presented  by  Mr.  Eckhart,  with 
the  possible  exception  of  exempting  po- 
licemen and  firemen.  They  are  officials 
removed  in  so  many  degrees  from  any 
pernicious  activity,  although  the  police 
department  is  right  on  the  line.  The 
police  officer  is  the  first  law  officer;  the 
first  court;  and  if  he  is  a proper  man 
he  can  save  both  the  citizens  and  the 
public  a great  deal  of  time  and  trouble; 
and  he  can  insist  on  the  enforcement 
of  laws  that  may  take  a great  deal  of 
expenditure  of  money  to  enforce.  If  a 
policeman  is  a right  man,  lie  acts  as 
the  first  court  and  as  the  first  law  offi- 


December  15 


356 


1906 


cer,  and  it  is  his  duty  to  act  impar- 
tially. 

I am  opposed  to  the  substitute,  and  I 
am  in  favor  of  the  original  resolution 
as  offered  by  Mr.  Eekhart. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  substitute? 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
substitute  as  hereinbefore  printed. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I would 
like  to  ask  Mr.  Rosenthal  a question 
on  this  motion.  Is  it  the  spirit  of  that 
amendment  that  the  City  Council  should 
have  the  power  to  decide  whether  or 
not  it  should  prohibit  the  acceptance 
and  use  of  parties  and  gratuities,  etc.? 

MR.  RQSENTHAL:  The  object  of 

that  is  to  leave  this  matter  to  the  City 
Council.  So  far  as  my  motion  is  con- 
cerned, it  leaves  it  to  the  City  Council, 
where  it  properly  belongs,  unless  we 
pass  a general  law.  We  can  spend  the 
whole  afternoon  to-day,  Mr.  Jones,  it 
seems  to  me,  if  we  were  to  consider 
what  exceptions  we  ought  to  make,  and 
in  what  cases  we  should  make  excep- 
tions, if  we  considered  the  different  de- 
partments of  the  city  administration. 
All  of  that  can  well  be  left  to  the  City 
Council  to  pass  on. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

opposed  to  leaving  this  matter  to  the 
City  Council.  I believe  that  it  is  a 
fact  that  all  the  men  in  the  City  Coun- 
cil have  accepted  these  gratuitous 
services,  and  I do  not  believe  that  we 
should  continue  to  leave  this  within  the 
power  of  the  City  Council  to  prohibit 
the  taking  of  passes  or  to  permit  them 
as  they  please.  The  people  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  are  expressing  their  views 
through  the  charter,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  charter  should  contain  an 
instruction  to  the  City  Council  as  to 
the  views  of  the  people  upon  this  point. 
Now,  I see  no  reason  why  the  resolution 
should  not  pass,  even  without  any  refer- 
ence to  policemen  and  firemen;  because 
the  passage  of  the  resolution  in  the 
broad  form  will  not  prevent  the  city 


at  any  time  from  making  a contract 
with  any  franchise  corporation  for  such 
services  as  it  may  find  necessary  in 
connection  with  any  particular  class  of 
employes. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I believe  that  the  City  Council 
has  the  power  now  to  prohibit,  and  I 
do  not  believe  the  City  Council  has 
ever  exercised  that  power.  If  it  has,  I 
am  not  aware  of  it. 

MR.  BENNETT:  There  is  such  an 

ordinance  on  the  books  now. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Is  it  in 

force? 

MR.  BENNETT:  That  I cannot  say. 

We  do  not  execute  the  laws. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Now,  I be- 

lieve, Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  have  the 
right  to  express  our  views  upon  this 
subject  in  emphatic  language,  so  that 
it  cannot  be  disregarded  and  so  that  it 
will  be  mandatory,  and  for  that  rea- 
son I am  of  the  opinion  that  it  ought 
to  go  into  the  charter  and  not  be  left 
with  the  City  Council.  It  may  be  con- 
ceded that  the  present  City  Council 
would  adopt  such  an  act  or  pass  such 
an  ordinance. 

I have  no  doubt  that  they  would  do 
so.  But  we  do  not  know  what  the  City 
Council  of  five  or  ten  years  hence  may 
think  of  that  proposition.  We  do  not 
know  what  influence  may  be  brought 
to  bear  upon  the  City  Council  to  have 
them  change  their  minds,  and  it  ought 
to  be  fixed,  and  that  fact  is  recognized 
by  anybody  who  has  given  thought  to 
public  matters  throughout  the  country. 
There  may  be  some  reason  why  this 
should  not  be  incorporated  in  the  char- 
ter, but  I have  not  heard  any  reason 
advanced  except  that— — 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Isn’t  this  just 

as  common  to  the  rest  of  the  state  as 
it  is  to  Chicago,  and  do  not  we  have 
legislation  on  that  affecting  the  whole 
state? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I am  in- 

clined to  think  that  the  state  legisla- 


December  15 


357 


1906 


ture  will  act  upon  that  matter  in  the 
near  future.  I think  the  members  of 
the  legislature  will  act  upon  that  sub- 
ject in  the  near  future,  but  I think  we 
ought  to  have  self -protection  to  guard 
against  the  City  of  Chicago  and  its  offi- 
cers accepting  these  acts  of  gratuitous 
service.  I think  it  is  wholesome,  I 
think  it  is  in  the  line  of  public  sen- 
timent upon  this  matter,  and  I trust  the 
substitute  will  not  pass. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON-:  Mr.  Chairman, 

in  view  of  what  has  been  said  I move 
to  lay  the  substitute  upon  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  there  is  confusion  in  this 
matter  between  a pass  and  the  contract 
right  for  free  service  for  certain  officers 
of  the  city.  In  my  judgment  the  char- 
ter should  contain  the  provision  as  sub- 
mitted by  Mr.  Eckhart  with  the  excep- 
tion that  the  second  paragraph  read- 
ing as  follows:  (Reading  second  para- 
graph), should  be  stricken  out  before  it 
is  passed.  Then  whatever  arrange- 
ments the  City  Council  chooses  to  make 
in  regard  to  special  contracts  passed 
by  the  City  Council  with  any  public 
service  corporation  will  be  within  the 
power  and  discretion  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil and  I believe  would  be  wisely  at- 
tended to.  If  the  particular  prohibition 
against  a pass  which  is  only  given  to 
some  officer  in  authority  for  supposed 
advantage  of  course  to  the  corporation, 
and  the  actual  service  rendered  be  sep- 
arated in  the  discussion,  I believe  we 
will  take  the  right  action. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eidmann. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Probably  outside 

of  the  police  department  there  are  no 
other  servants  that  require  a greater 
amount  of  transportation  than  do  the  in- 
spectors of  the  various  departments  of 
the  city  government.  Outside  of  the  po- 
lice department  and  the  fire  depart- 
ment and  the  city  inspectors  of  the 


city  government  who  for  some  time 
past  have  had  their  transportation  paid 
by  the  city,  I do  not  think  any  one 
should  ride  free  in  the  way  of  public 
transportation.  We  know  what  public 
sentiment  is  at  the  present  time  about 
the  public  officer  using  free  transporta- 
tion, even  on  the  railroads  or  on  the 
public  transportation  lines  of  the  City 
of  Chicago.  I think  that  the  resolution 
offered  by  Mr.  Eckhart  covers  the  point. 
I do  not  think  there  is  any  question 
about  it  if  it  is  properly  drawn  up  in 
the  form  of  a charter  so  that  it  cannot 
be  misunderstood  what  is  meant  by  it, 
and  I personally  hope  that  the  resolu- 
tion offered  by  Mr.  Eckhart  will  pre- 
vail. It  ought  to  prevail. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Werno. 

MR.  WERNO:  I am  in  favor  of  Mr. 

Eckhart ’s  resolution  with  the  exception 
of  the  provision  to  include  the  firemen. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I cannot  hear 

anything  you  say,  Mr.  Werno. 

MR.  WERNO:  I say  I am  in  favor 

of  Mr.  Eckhart ’s  resolution  with  the 
exception  of  the  firemen  being  added. 
I understand  that  provision  has  been 
made  for  them,  and  if  that  is  the  way 
the  resolution  now  reads  I think  it 
ought  to  be  adopted. 

The  ordinance  that  the  local  transpor- 
tation committee  of  the  City  Council 
adopted  practically  settled  that.  We 
have  a provision  of  that  kind  in  the  or- 
dinance which  allows  and  permits  po- 
licemen and  firemen  in  uniform  to  ride 
free. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 

ther discussion  upon  this  question? 
Then  the  question  is  upon  Mr.  Dixon’s 
motion  to  lay  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  substi- 
tute upon  the  table.  As  many  as  favor 
that  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no. 
The  motion  to  lay  on  the  table  is  car- 
ried. The  question  is  now  upon  the 
adoption  of  Mr.  Eckhart ’s  resolution 
as  amended. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman. 


December  15 


358 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Senator  Jones. 

MR.  JONES:  I should  like  to  move 

a substitute  for  Mr.  Eekhart’s  resolu- 
tion; that  is  that  the  resolution  be  as 
drafted  by  Mr.  Eckhart,  but  omitting 
the  second  paragraph  which  reads, 
“That  this  provision  shall  not  extend 
to  the  furnishing  of  free  transportation 
to  the  police  and  fire  departments,  ’ ’ 
something  of  that  kind.  I believe  that 
we  should  cut  out  all  exceptions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  move  to 

strike  out  the  provision  exempting  the 
members  of  the  police  and  fire  depart- 
ments? 

MR.  JONES:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  a sec- 

ond to  that  motion? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  MacMillan. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I hope  that  Sen- 

ator Jones’  amendment  will  not  be  car- 
ried. I believe  that  if  there  are  any 
two  classes  of  our  servants  who  should 
have  free  transportation  on  our  city 
railway  systems  those  two  are  the  police 
and  fire  department  members.  Gentle- 
men who  have  observed  the  movements 
of  our  population  at  the  crowded  times 
of  the  day  must  have  been  struck  by 
the  fact  that  wherever  great  crowds 
have  gathered,  where  peace  at  times 
was  in  jeopardy,  the  presence  of  a 
police  officer  or  a member  of  the  fire 
department  in  uniform  always  conduced 
to  the  public  peace.  It  is  quite  differ- 
ent from  an  officer  who  is  not  a uni- 
formed officer,  whether  he  be  a mu- 
nicipal court  bailiff  or  inspector  or  any 
one  holding  a municipal  position.  The 
fact  that  a member  of  the  police  de- 
partment or  a member  of  the  fire  de- 
partment, a public  servant  is  uniformed 
is  in  itself  a guaranty. 

But  more  than  that,  it  seems  to  me 
that  all  our  public  servants  in  the 
City  of  Chicago,  of  whom  there  are 
probably  many  thousands,  receive  a 
small  enough  return  for  the  services 
which  they  render.  Their  callings  are 


the  most  perilous  callings  of  the  en- 
tire city  department,  I suppose  in  all 
of  the  city  departments,  and  we  should 
make  it  an  object  to  secure  the  very 
best  men  possible  for  those  places.  We 
should  make  it  an  object  in  any  and 
all  conditions  and  circumstances  to  sur- 
round them  with  the  expressions  of  our 
support  that  are  possible,  and  it  seems 
to  me  that  to  strike  out  these  two 
would  be  going  back  upon  the  record. 

I do  not  believe  that  a police  officer 
or  a member  of  the  fire  department 
will  be  one  whit  less  capable,  willing 
and  ready  to  perform  the  duty  incum- 
bent upon  him  if  he  were  to  ride  free. 
He  does  not  have  to  have  a pass  in  his 
pocket;  his  uniform  is  his  pass,  "his 
star  is  his  pass,  and  I hope  the  amend- 
ment offered  by  Senator  Jones  will  not 
be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hunter. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I have  no  knowl- 

edge of  what  the  gentleman  is  speaking 
about  except  in  a general  manner.  I 
have  just  come  in.  Unfortunately  my 
official  position  kept  me  from  coming  in 
until  now,  but  I have  today,  as  a repre- 
sentative of  this  city,  made  a requisi- 
tion for  transportation  for  certain  men. 
In  my  office  men  are  paid  $1,500  per 
year.  They  have  to  give  a bond  of 
$50  a year.  They  have  to  pay  any 
street  car  fare  under  the  law  that  the 
law  prescribes,  and  that  law  does  not 
limit  them  to  anything. 

I have  asked  today  one  hundred  tick- 
ets from  the  comptroller,  and  he  has 
sent  them  to  my  office,  recognizing  the 
justice  of  the  request.  I have  them  in 
my  possession,  but  I will  not  issue  them 
until  I am  satisfied  that  the  men  who 
are  going  to  get  them  are  entitled  to 
them. 

I have  men  working  for  me  in  my 
office  until  12  o’clock  at  night.  I have 
today  assigned  ten  men  who  will  labor 


December  15 


359 


1906 


until  all  trains  leave  Chicago.  Must 
these  men  go  home — must  they  not  go 
home  until  the  time  transpires  until  all 
of  these  trains  shall  go?  Shall  these 
men  have  the  right  to  communicate  with 
their  families  or  shall  they  not?  These 
men  go  home  and  they  come  back.  They 
are  employes  of  this  city  and  so  far 
as  my  record  goes  I am  an  employe  of 
the  state. 

All  I want  to  know  is  this:  Whether 
or  not  they  shall  wear  uniforms,  be- 
cause my  men  have  no  uniforms.  My 
men  cannot  wear  uniforms  until  the 
law  prescribes  that  they  shall,  and  also 
until  it  shall  be  prescribed  where  they 
shall  get  their  uniforms.  I wish  to  say 
to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  to  the  gentle- 
man who  has  just  spoken,  if  I catch 
it  right,  that  I want  to  protect  the  men 
who  are  working  for  me  and  keep 
them  harmless.  They  shall  not  take 
one  cent.  It  has  been  prescribed  by 
the  law  in  the  past  that  men  shall 
take  fifty  cents  from  a man  that  is 
sent  to  the  Bridewell.  My  men  cannot 
under  the  present  law  take  that  money. 
A reputable  lawyer  told  me  l^p  would 
give  me  $25  for  my  man  today  if  he 
would  stay  until  12  o’clock  tonight  to 
serve  a paper  on  a man,  and  my  man 
served  that  paper,  but  he  cannot  take 
one  dollar. 

Therefore,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Mr. 
President,  I wish  to  say  to  you  that  this 
matter  about  which  you  now  speak  and 
which  is  before  you  now  should  be  de- 
liberated longer  than  a second  or  an 
hour.  I wish  to  protect  my  men.  I am 
responsible  for  them  and  I want  them 
to  be  just  as  clean  as  any  man  that 
speaks  here. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  .Tones. 

MR.  JONES:  I should  like  to  speak 

to  my  motion.  I think  the  remarks  of 
Mr.  Hunter  demonstrate  that  it  will  be 
a mistake  if  we  pass  Mr.  Eckhart’s 
resolution  without  striking  out  the  ex- 
ceptions as  to  police  officers  and  firemen. 


I can  see  no  reason  why  the  deputy 
bailiffs  and  certain  inspectors,  and  per- 
haps other  city  employes  should  not 
have  the  same  privileges  as  the  police- 
men and  firemen.  I believe  that  if  the 
City  of  Chicago  wishes  to  provide  trans- 
portation for  the  deputy  bailiffs — and  I 
can  see  no  reason  why  they  should  not 
— that  they  should  provide  that  trans- 
portation by  either  paying  the  fares  or 
making  a contract  with  the  street  rail- 
road companies  for  those  particular  em- 
ployes. 

If  it  is  desirable  that  the  policemen 
should  at  any  time  have  a right  to  ride 
upon  the  street  cars  then  that  can  be 
provided  for  by  a special  ordinance  or 
a suitable  contract,  but  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  matter  which  we  should 
put  into  the  charter  is  a broad  declara- 
tion against  anybody  accepting  any 
gratuitous  service  which  can  be  accord- 
ing to  law  construed  in  the  nature  of  a 
bribe.  And,  I do  not  believe  that  we 
should  put  upon  our  statute  books  or 
into  our  charter  that  policemen  and 
firemen  may  be  permitted  to  accept 
these  gratuitous  services  which  we  are 
preventing  anybody  else  from  accept- 
ing. 

I believe  that  this  particular  ex- 
ception should  be  stricken  out  of  the 
motion  which  is  before  the  house. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

Under  the  rules  of  the  Convention 

Mr.  Hunter. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I do  not  want  to 

speak  upon  the  motion,  I want  to  make 
a suggestion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  Chair 

has  already  recognized  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Very  well. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

it  seems  curious  to  me  to  have  the  gen- 
tleman speaking  about  the  city  making 
a contract  with  corporations  which  prac- 
tically shall  be  in  violation  of  the 
fundamental  law  of  the  city.  Now,  if 
our  charter  provides  that  no  gratuities 


December  15 


360 


1906 


shall  be  accepted  and  no  gratuities  shall 
be  given  and  no  pass  taken  and  no  free 
transportation  had?  the  city  is  power- 
less to  make  any  contract  with  any  cor- 
poration regarding  that  very  thing 
which  is  forbidden  to  be  done  by  the 
charter.  So  if  we  are  going  to  have 
any  law,  let  us  have  all  the  exceptions 
properly  in  there.  That  is  the  very  rea- 
son why  I thought  it  was  inadvisable 
and  inexpedient  to  pass  such  a law. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett. 

MR,  BENNETT:  I just  wanted  to 

ask  Mr.  Rosenthal  a question,  if  he  con- 
sidered a gratuity  a contract  entered  in- 
to between  the  city  and  a corporation. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  If  our  charter 

provides,  and  we  will  assume  that  this 
resolution  is  passed,  that  no  city  officer 
shall  accept  any  pass  or  gratuitous  ser- 
vice, then  we  cannot  provide  by  any 
contract  that  a railroad  company  shall 
give  him  that  which  is  forbidden  by 
our  charter.  I think  that  is  a very 
plain  legal  proposition. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE : I believe  in  the  city 

collecting  every  cent  that  is  due  it 
from  any  corporation  or  any  individual 
property  owner  of  the  city,  and  I be- 
lieve in  the  city  insisting  upon  every 
cent  due  it,  and  I believe  in  the  city 
paying  all  its  bills  for  its  employes, 
and  I am  in  favor  of  Senator  Jones’ 
amendment. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Church. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I believe  it  would 

be  a great  mistake  to  adopt  Senator 
Jones’  amendment  if  that  excluded  po- 
licemen. Now,  in  some  of  the  outly- 
ing portions  of  this  city  the  patrolmen 
are  required  to  cover  a great  deal  of 
ground.  I know  in  the  extreme  south- 
ern portions  of  the  city  the  districts 
they  have  to  patrol  sometimes  includes 
three  or  four  settlements,  although  in- 
side of  the  city  limits.  I believe  the 


system  should  be  left  as  it  is.  It  is  a 
fact  that  we  have  in  those  portions  of 
the  city  inadequate  police  protection  at 
the  present  time,  and  everything  that 
can  be  done  to  facilitate  the  police  in 
getting  over  their  district  ought  to  be 
retained  in  the  charter,  and  it  would  be 
a great  mistake  to  adopt  that  resolu- 
tion. 

MR.  COLE:  I desire  to  ask  the  gen- 

tleman a question:  I would  ask  if  you 
think  patrolmen  can  take  proper  care 
of  their  districts  inside  of  a street  car. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I want  to  say  in  re- 

ply to  that  that  in  the  district  where 
I live  in  the  City  of  Chicago,  I speak 
with  that  in  mind,  the  patrolmen  cover 
a territory  there  that  consists  of  five 
or  six  settlements,  centers  of  population, 
that  are  remote.  There  is  a great  ex- 
panse of  territory  that  is  not  settled  up 
at  all  between  these  different  settle- 
ments and  they  have  to  go  between 
these  settlements  on  trains  or  street 
cars.  It  is  necessary  for  them  to  do 
that, 

MR,  SHEDD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

you  tha^  we  lay  the  motion  on  the  table. 

MR.  CAREY:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Carey. 

MR,  CAREY:  I just  want  to  say  a 

word  in  connection  with  the  good  of  the 
service,  both  of  the  firemen  and  the  po- 
lice department.  The  firemen  and  po- 
licemen of  this  city  are  always  on  duty, 
or  supposed  to  be.  We  have  a large 
fire  and  part  of  the  firemen  are  off 
duty,  and  I do  not  believe  they  would 
feel  it  their  duty  if  they  had  to  pay 
their  fare  while  off  duty  to  practically 
take  it  upon  themselves  to  go  to  that 
fire  in  some  district  on  a general  call. 

We  all  know  what  this  city  has  gone 
through  in  riots,  where  policemen  were 
rushed  from  one  part  of  this  town  to 
the  other  in  the  last  few  years,  many 
of  them  being  off  duty,  perhaps.  It 
would  look  to  me  as  though  it  would  be 
a hardship  on  these  policemen  to  jump 
on  a car  and  have  to  pay  car  fare  for 


December  15 


361 


1906 


the  purpose  of  doing  their  duty  in  some 
other  part  of  town- 

I believe  it  would  be  to  the  welfare 
of  this  city,  for  the  good  of  the  police 
and  fire  departments  that  they  should 
be  excepted.  I believe  that  Mr.  Eck- 
hart  in  his  resolution  covers  everything 
that  ought  to  go  into  this  charter.  I 
believe  so  far  as  the  bailiffs  are  con- 
cerned, that  Mr.  O’Donnell  has  reached 
the  bottom  on  that  point. 

There  are  men,  though,  they  are  un- 
der Mr.  Hunter — and  I know  Mr.  Hun- 
ter is  an  honest  man — that  might  be 
reached  in  the  serving  of  papers  and 
things  of  that  kind.  For  instance,  if 
a bailiff  went  to  serve  a paper  on  the 
street  car  company’s  employe,  that  he 
could  not  very  well  get  away  from,  the 
pass  might  have  something  to  do  with 
that,  it  might  get  him  away  from  his 
duty,  for  little  favors  extended.  But 
the  police  and  the  fire,  there  is  no 
chance  to  reach  them,  or  anything  of 
that  kind.  I believe  Mr.  Eckhart’s 
resolution  should  pass. 

MR.  GANSBERGEN:  It  seems  to 

me  if  you  abolish  the  exception%made  by 
Mr.  Eekhart  that  instead  of  avoiding 
an  evil  you  create  one.  For  instance, 
if  an  officer  is  to  pay  his  fare  while  on 
duty,  or  while  going  from  place  to 
place,  it  would  be  necessary  for  him  to 
have  some  kind  of  transportation;  he 
will  have  to  be  furnished  with  tickets 
purchased  from  the  street  car  company 
in  order  that  he  may  ride,  and  those 
tickets  will  have  to  be  distributed  to 
the  officers.  That  is  the  only  way  I can 
see  it.  Those  matters  have  been  con- 
sidered in  the  franchise  matters  now  be- 
ing discussed  by  the  city  with  the  trans- 
portation companies.  I understand  that 
in  the  franchises  about  to  be  closed  be- 
tween the  street  car  companies  and  the 
city  those  matters  have  been  taken  in- 
to consideration. 

It  seems  to  me  there  would  not  be 
any  incentive,  for  instance,  for  an  offi- 
cer riding  on  a street  car  in  his  uni- 


form while  off  duty,  to  save  five  cents. 
I believe  that  instead  of  benefitting 
matters  it  would  be  a detriment,  that  in- 
stead of  creating  an  honest  force  you 
would  be  forcing  dishonesty  upon  them 
in  these  matters. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I wish  to  speak 

to  the  motion  offered  by  Senator  Jones, 
and  in  its  favor,  and  on  the  assumption 
that  it  should  be  carried,  that  the  pre- 
ceding paragraph  shall  be  amended  by 
inserting  after  the  word  “ another” 
these  words,  “except  as  the  same  may 
be  provided  by  the  city.”  That  is  in 
the  fourth  line.  That  is  the  only  way 
the  city  could  act,  I presume,  by  ordi- 
nance. 

This  resolution  now,  Mr.  Chairman,  as 
it  stands,  is  intended  to  prohibit  the 
solicitation  or  receipt  of  transportation 
by  any  officer  from  a company,  as  an 
individual;  it  is  not  as  I take  it,  in- 
tended to  restrict  or  limit  the  city  in 
any  way  whatever  providing  for  the 
transportation  of  its  servants.  It  says, 
the  words  “free  pass  or  gratuity,”  and 
if  the  city  should  elect  by  contract  or 
otherwise,  or  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  transportation  of  its  officers, 
that  becomes  a part  of  the  considera- 
tion of  the  contract,  and  is  not  free,  is 
not  a gratuity.  It  seems  to  me  by 
striking  out  the  second  paragraph  of 
Senator  Jones’  motion,  and  then  by  in- 
serting the  words  “except  as  the  same 
may  be  provided  by  the  city  by  ordi- 
nance, or  otherwise,”  we  will  have  fully 
covered  the  situation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Shedd’s  motion,  that  Sena- 
tor Jones’  motion  to  strike  out,  lie  on 
the  table;  the  Chair  will  suggest  that 
some  of  these  matters  be  put,  so  that 
we  can  get  this  question  decided. 

MR.  JONES:  In  order  to  reduce  the 

number  of  motions  I will  accept  the 
suggestions  of  Mr.  Pendarvis. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  can  be 

done  after  the  motion  to  lie  on  the  table 
has  been  put.  Gentlemen,  you  have 


December  15 


362 


1906 


beard  the  motion  of  Mr.  Shedd;  as 
many  as  favor  the  motion  to  lie  on  the 
table — I will  state  Senator  Jones  ’ mo- 
tion— he  moves  to  strike  out  from  the 
Eckhart  resolution  the  section  exempt- 
ing policemen  and  firemen,  and  Mr. 
Shedd  moves  to  lay  it  upon  the  table. 
Now,  upon  Mr.  Shedd ’s  motion  to  lay 
upon  the  table,  the  vote  will  be  taken. 
All  those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Shedd ’s  mo- 
tion will  signify  so  by  saying  aye; 
those  opposed,  no.  The  motion  is  car- 
ried. Now,  the  question  is  upon  Mr. 
Eckhart ’s  motion  as  amended.  As  many 
as  favor  that  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  section  is 

adopted  as  amended.  The  Secretary 
will  read  No.  17. 

MR.  SNOW : Before  proceeding  with 

that,  I gave  notice  last  night  that  I 
should  offer  today  amendments  to  the 
Public  Utilities  section  that  was  passed 
last  night.  I desire  to  do  that  now,  and 
move  that  it  be  taken  up  at  a later  date. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  communica- 

tion will  be  read  and  printed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Snow: 

“ Amend  proposition  1,  section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  ‘city'  in  line  11,  and  inserting 
in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  ‘Also  to 

docks  and  wharves.  ’ ” 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Where  is  that, 

where  are  you  reading? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Amend  proposi- 

tion 1,  section  16,  Public  Utilities.  That 
is  found  on  page  345;  proposition  1, 
scetion  16;  the  first  proposition  in- 
volved, right  hand  column  on  page  345. 

THE  SECRETARY : Also  on  page 

345,  right  hand  column,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities.  Mr.  Snow  moved  to  amend 
the  first  proposition  by  striking  out  after 
the  word  “city”,  in  line  eleven,  and  by 
inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  following: 
“also  docks  and  wharves.” 

There  is  another,  also  by  Mr.  Snow, 
page  345,  right  hand  column,  under  No. 


16,  Public  Utilities,  Section  1,  Public 
Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Snow: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Public 
Utilities,  by  adding  the  following:  Pro- 
vided, that  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and  that 
the  income  from  each  service  shall  be 
used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that  utility 
exactly  as  though  it  were  an  independent 
business  enterprise;  and  whenever  the  in- 
come from  any  utility  shall  exceed  the 
reasonable  needs  of  that  service,  in- 
cluding all  proper  and  reasonable  sink- 
ing funds,  the  price  of  or  charge  for 
the  service  rendered  or  commodity  fur- 
nished by  such  utility  shall  be  lowered, 
to  the  end  that  the  patrons  of  such 
utility  shall  directly  secure  the  greatest 
benefit  of  the  city’s  ownership  thereof; 
and  no  such  utility  shall  be  so  oper- 
ated as  to  render  its  charge  for  service 
an  indirect  form  of  taxation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  communica- 

tions will  be  printed  and  taken  up  at 
some  subsequent  meeting.  The  Secretary 
will  read  No.  17,  Parks,  Boulevards  and 
Public  Grounds. 

The  Secretary  read  Section  17  as  it 
appears  in  the  proceedings  at  page  55. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I desire  to  move, 

sir,  the  adoption  of  the  second  alterna- 
tive to  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Lathrop 

moves  the  adoption  of  the  second  alter- 
native to  No.  1. 

MR.  COLE : I move  to  amend  by 

adopting  the  first  alternative  to  No.  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole  moves 

as  a substitute  that  the  first  alternative  to 
No.  1 shall  be  adopted.  The  matter 
is  before  the  house  for  discussion.  Mr. 
Jones  has  the  floor. 

MR.  LATHROP:  May  I be  allowed 

to  say  a word,  Mr.  Chairman?  What 
I will  say  will  cover  both  alternatives. 

There  is  no  one  thing  in  which  the 
people  of  Chicago  feel  a keener  interest 
than  in  the  parks.  No  bigger  misfor- 
tune could  come  to  the  parks  than  to 


December  15 


363 


1906 


have  them  come  under  the  influence  of 
politics.  There  are  some  people  who 
say  that  the  consolidation  of  the  park 
systems  as  a department  of  the  City  Gov- 
ernment, whether  desirable  or  not,  is  in- 
evitable. 

The  plan  first  suggested  to  keep  the 
parks  beyond  the  influence  of  politics 
was  to  have  the  commissioners  appoint- 
ed by  the  judges  of  the  Appellate  Court. 
The  objections  to  this  plan  are  so  seri- 
o.us  that  I believe  it  ought  not  to  be 
adopted,  and  I hope  it  eventually  will 
not  be  adopted.  Our  former  lawyers 
and  the  judges  themselves  think  it  a 
misfortune  to  impose  political  patronage 
on  judges  who  are  themselves  elective, 
holding  that  it  is  of  the  first  importance 
to  preserve  the  integrity  and  independ- 
ence of  the  judiciary,  and  to  protect 
them  from  outside  influences. 

For  many  years  past  the  Justices  of 
the  Peace  have  been  virtually  appointed 
by  the  judges  and  the  result  hardly  jus- 
tifies much  enthusiasm  over  the  extension 
of  the  system  to  include  the  appoint- 
ment of  park  commissioners  to  repre- 
sent the  whole  city.  It  may  be  argued 
that  the  south  parks  have  been  well 
managed  and  that  those  commissioners 
have  been  appointed  by  judges,  but  the 
excellent  results  in  the  South  Park  Sys- 
tem have  been  primarily  due  to  the  con- 
tinuity of  the  management  under  which 
the  present  able  superintendent  has  been 
kept  there  more  than  thirty  years. 

Judges  have  not  always  shown  good 
judgment  or  independence  in  such  ap- 
pointments. Some  of  the  appointments 
have  been  due,  it  has  been  popularly 
believed,  to  the  result  of  political  pres- 
sure, and  the  boards  so  appointed  have 
not  entirely  escaped  scandals.  Mr. 
Chairman,  I venture  to  question  the  fit- 
ness of  judges  to  select  such  a park 
board. 

Park  commissioners  should  have  spe- 
cial qualifications.  The  first  and  most 
important  qualification  is  a clear  con- 
ception of  the  main  objects  and  pur- 


poses of  the  parks,  and  as  much  expe- 
rience as  possible  in  the  various  kinds 
of  work  involved  in  the  making  and 
maintenance  of  parks.  Combine  with  this 
good  business  and  organizing  abilities 
and  you  have  an  ideal  park  commis- 
sioner. 

Our  judges  are  very  busy  men,  and 
have  no  time  to  investigate  and  to  fa- 
miliarize themselves  with  the  work  and 
the  needs  of  the  parks,  and  to  consult 
with  leading  citizens  as  to  the  qualifi- 
cations of  the  appointees.  This  matter 
lies  outside  of  their  regular  duties,  and 
apart  from  their  previous  training. 

There  are  two  other  methods  of  ap- 
pointment, by  the  governor  and  by  the 
mayor.  Under  the  consolidation  all  ap- 
propriations for  the  maintenance  and  im- 
provement of  the  parks  and  parkways 
will  come  from  the  City  Council,  and 
the  city  will  thus  exercise  all  needful 
control  over  the  commissioners.  Experi- 
ence and  observation  show  that  the  mayor 
of  the  city  is  inevitably  influenced  more 
or  less  in  his  appointments  by  local 
political  considerations.  I believe  that, 
on  reflection,  we  shall  agree  that  if  it 
is  given  to  the  mayor  to  appoint  the 
park  commissioners,  with  the  large  num- 
ber of  employes  whom  they  will  con- 
trol, it  will  be  merely  a question  of 
time  when  the  parks  will  be  ruled  by 
the  spoilsmen. 

The  remaining  method  of  appointment 
is  by  the  governor  of  the  state.  The 
objection  which  will  naturally  be  raised 
to  this  is  the  bad  appointments  made 
by  some  of  the  recent  governors,  prior 
to  Governor  Deneen.  These  have  been 
the  exception  of  the  rule.  For  thirty- 
seven  years  the  commissioners  of  Lincoln 
Park  have  been  appointed  by  the  gover- 
nor of  the  state.  For  more  than — for 
about  twenty-five  years  the  governor  ap- 
pointed representative  citizens  of  the 
highest  character  and  ability,  and  during 
all  that  time,  a quarter  of  a century,  no 
governor  ever  attempted  to  dictate  a 
single  appointment  of  an  employe  in 


December  15 


364 


1906 


Lincoln  Park.  Which,  I want  to  say, 
cannot  be  said  of  any  other  department 
of  the  city. 

Then  came  the  period  of  the  Goths 
and  Vandals,  when  the  parks  were  given 
over  to  the  tender  mercies  of  the  spoiler. 
It  is  not  probable  that  this  will  ever 
occur  again.  No  governor  of  that  period 
was  ever  re-elected  governor,  or  was  ever 
afterwards  elected  to  any  high  office  of 
the  state.  Under  the  present  governor 
the  best  interests  of  the  parks  have 
been  the  sole  consideration  in  their  man- 
agement. With  the  parks  under  th,e 
civil  service  system,  which  has  been  de- 
cided upon  here,  with  my  full  and  hearty 
approval — under  the  civil  service  laws, 
future  governors  may  be  confidently  ex- 
pected to  adhere  to  the  old  custom  of 
choosing  the  best  men  to  be  had  for 
park  commissioners. 

If  we  compare  the  average  results 
during  the  past  thirty-seven  years  in 
the  various  city  departments  under 
heads  appointed  by  the  mayor,  such  as 
water,  police,  school,  buildings,  streets, 
and  so  forth,  with  those  in  the  parks 
under  men  chosen  by  the  governor,  I 
think  that,  considering  all  the  conditions, 
and  the  very  serious  objections  to  the 
other  methods  of  appointment,  we  may 
safely  decide  to  recommend  the  appoint- 
ment of  park  commissioners  by  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  state.  As  the  future  com- 
missioners will  have  to  depend  upon  the 
City  Council  for  appropriations  for  all 
their  expenditures,  and  the  Council  and 
the  mayor  will  be  able  adequately  to 
safeguard  the  city’fs  interests  in  the 
management  of  the  parks. 

I move  you,  sir,  that  this  second  al- 
ternative to  Section  1 be  adopted. 

MB.  COLE:  I want  to  get  a straight 

vote  as  between  appointment  by  the  gov- 
ernor and  the  mayor.  I am  in  favor 
of  appointment  by  the  mayor,  but  I 
think  it  will  bring  it  up  under  a direct 
vote  if  I withdraw  my  motion,  which 
I ask  leave  to  do. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  Mr.  Cole  asks  the 


Convention’s  consent  to  withdraw  his  mo- 
tion, and  in  the  absence  of  objection  it 
will  be  allowed. 

MB.  MacMILLAN : I venture  to  ask 

a question,  whether,  if  either  the  first 
or  the  second  alternative  be  adopted, 
what  provision  will  be  made  as  to  the 
term  of  office  of  these  park  commis- 
sioners? The  alternative  does  not  set 
forth  any  provision  as  to  the  term  of 
office. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  No.  1 provides 

that. 

MB.  MacMILLAN : No.  1 provides  it, 
No.  1. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  This  is  simply 

a question  of  the  manner  of  appoint- 
ment of  the  commissioners. 

MB.  MacMILLAN : That  answers  the 

question. 

MB.  YOPICKA:  What  is  the  ques- 

tion? 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  the  second  alter- 
native to  No.  1.  The  second  alternative 
to  No.  1,  page  56:  “Park  commis- 

sioners shall  be  appointed  by  the  gov- 
ernor of  the  state.” 

MB.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman  and 

gentlemen,  I hope  this  motion  will  not 
prevail.  We  are  preparing  a charter  for 
the  City  of  Chicago,  and  we  want  to 
give  the  city  all  the  powers  we  can,  as 
I have  said  before;  and  here  you  can 
give  more  power  to  the  council  than 
the  mayor,  and  you  should  do  so.  I 
think  the  appointment  by  the  governor 
of  the  park  commissioners  should  be 
taken  from  him.  I believe,  gentlemen, 
that  every  one  of  you  present  here  in 
this  hall  is  in  favor  of  giving  all  the 
powers  that  possibly  can  be  given  to  the 
City  Council  and  to  the  mayor,  and  any 
appointment  that  should  be  made,  should 
be  made  by  the  mayor,  as  the  rightly 
appointing  power  of  the  park  commis- 
sioners. Both  the  mayor  and  the  gov- 
ernor are  under  the  influence  of  cer- 
tain parties,  they  are  both  politicians. 
They  are  interested,  both  of  them,  either 


December  15 


365 


1906 


in  the  democratic  or  the  republican  par- 
ty, but  it  seems  to  me  they  will  both 
try  to  select  the  very  best  men  for  the 
office  of  park  commissioners.  They  al- 
ways did,  and  they  always  will  do  so 
in  the  future.  We  have  had  experience 
that  the  judges  have  made  very  good 
appointments  for  the  South  Park  Board 
for  years,  but,  at  the  same  time,  we 
do  not  want  the  judiciary  connected  with 
politics.  We  do  not  wish  them  to  meddle 
with  polities,  but  we  want  them  to  look 
after  the  affairs  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
However,  I think  we  should  give  the  pow- 
er to  the  mayor,  and  I hope  ultimately 
that  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I say 
that  in  no  discourtesy  to  the  governor. 
We  know  he  will  appoint  wisely,  and 
he  has  always  appointed  the  very  best 
people  he  can  possibly  select  out  of  the 
citizens  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  At  the 
same  time,  I think  we  must  hold  the 
mayor  and  the  council  responsible  in 
this  matter.  I am  sure  that  any  ap- 
pointees by  the  mayor  will  be  as  good 
and  as  capable  as  anybody  else.  The 
mayor  appoints  the  members  of  the 
School  Board,  who  have  in  their  hands 
the  spending  of  ten  to  twelve  millions 
every  year,  and  he  should  be  good  enough 
to  appoint  the  park  commissioners,  who 
do  not  spend  so  much  money  as  the 
School  Board.  I believe  the  mayor 
should  have  the  right  to  appoint  the 
park  commissioners. 

MR.  SNOW : I simply  desire  to  call 

the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  this 
fact:  that  we  have  already  included  the 
parks  as  a department  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment ; and  the  City  Council  will  now 
have  the  appropriation  of  money,  and 
the  care  of  money  for  the  maintenance 
and  care  of  the  parks.  It  certainly 
seems  to  me  to  be  a particularly  odd 
proposition  that  the  head  of  the  parks 
should  be  appointed  by  some  other  au- 
thority. That  would  result,  I think,  in 
a conflict  of  authority  in  which  there 
would  be  no  direct  responsibility.  There 


would  be  divided  authority.  The  mayor 
is  at  present  the  city  governor,  and 
certainly  there  should  be  no  division  of 
authority. 

MR.  GANSkERGEN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

as  to  the  matter  of  divided  authority, 
let  me  say  that  in  a large  number  of 
instances  in  the  large  cities  of  the  United 
States  there  is  that  same  divided  au- 
thority. The  police  commissioners  in 
New  York  City  are  appointed  by  the 
state.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago  has  suf- 
ficient authority  just  now  without  put- 
ting the  parks  under  his  jurisdiction. 
My  idea  of  a Park  Commission  is  that 
they  should  be  appointed  by  the  Appel- 
late Court  judges,  and  it  was  based  upon 
the  fact  that  I thought  it  removed  fur- 
ther than  by  any  other  method,  the  park 
system  from  politics,  and  my  report  so 
states — I was  acting  as  chairman  during 
the  absence  of  Mr.  Lathrop.  But  if 
there  was  a chance  of  the  mayor  having 
this  authority,  I should  rather  vote  for 
the  governor.  I might  be  allowed  to 
explain  the  reason  of  this  committee — 
with  the  exception  of  Mr.  Yopicka,  who 
put  in  his  argument  on  the  other  side — 
I might  explain  why  the  committee  were 
in  favor  of  the  Appellate  Court  judges. 
That  opinion  was  based  on  the  fact  that 
the  Appellate  Court  judges  are  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Supreme  Court; 
they  are  selected  from  the  Superior  Court 
and  the  Circuit  Court.  Now,  it  seems 
to  me  that  they  have  not  been  corrupted 
in  the  past  in  any  form  by  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  commissioners  to  the  South 
Park  Board.  If  there  has  been  any  cor- 
ruption I have  not  seen  it,  or  heard  of 
it  even.  I think  the  Park  Board  has 
been  free  from  criticism. 

But  I feel  that  if  we  are  going  to 
vote  on  this  question  as  between  the 
governor  and  the  mayor,  that  I shall 
certainly  favor  the  governor  having  the 
appointments  to  the  office. 

MR.  CRILLY : In  the  Committee  on 

Parks,  in  this  matter  of  appointment, 


December  15 


366 


1906 


I was  in  favor  of  the  mayor.  I have 
not  seen  anything  since  to  change  my 
mind  in  this  matter.  In  fact,  I see 
more  reason  why  it  should  be  so.  I 
feel  that  we  in  this  Convention  have 
voted  to  elect  the  mayor  for  four  years 
and  that  he  will  be  ineligible  for  re- 
election. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  lim- 

itation as  to  his  eligibility. 

MR.  CRILLY : The  mayor  is  to  be 

elected  for  four  years? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  CRILLY : And  to  be  eligible  for 
re-election  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : So  I understand. 

MR.  CRILLY:  I didn’t  understand 

that.  In  my  opinion  the  governor  is 
elected  to  his  office  from  some  remote 
part  of  the  state,  and  he  does  not  know 
as  much  about  who  should  be  appoint- 
ed to  the  f*ark  Commission  as  the  mayor 
does,  right  here  in  our  city.  I think 
that  the  mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
would  know  more  about  what  kind  of 
a man  should  be  appointed  to  the  com- 
mission than  the  governor,  who  does  not 
live  here  in  the  city.  Therefore,  1 
am  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  mayor 
making  these  appointments. 

MR.  LINEHAN : I do  not  think  that 

we  should  lay  so  much  stress  on  the 
mayor.  This  says:  “With  the  consent 

of  two-thirds  of  the  City  Council.”  To 
my  mind,  that  looks  as  though  the  coun- 
cil appoints  them.  Following  up  the 
argument  as  advanced  by  Alderman  Snow, 
thait  the  Council  is  going  to  provide  the 
revenue,  the  city  provides  the  revenue 
for  them.  I think  it  is  only  right  and 
proper  that  the  council  should  appoint. 
Now,  we  know  that  the  mayor,  while 
he  may  have  the  right  of  appointment, 
is  not  going  to  be  so  foolish  as  to  come 
to  this  Council  and  propose'  names  for 
park  commissioners  without  first  con- 
sulting the  members  of  the  council  be- 
forehand; and  then  it  will  take  two- 
thirds  of  the  members  of  the  Council  to 
confer  that  appointment.  So  it  is  clearly 


an  appointment  by  the  mayor  and  by 
the  council;  or  by  the  executive  and 
legislative  departments  of  the  City  of 
Chicago,  who  are  paying  for  the  main- 
tenance of  the  parks  according  to  the 
new  provisions  of  this  charter.  I do 
not  think  that  the  members  here  should 
lay  so  much  stress  on  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  governor  or  mayor  shall 
appoint,  because  it  is  clearly  an  appoint- 
ment by  the  City  Council — the  executive 
and  the  legislative  departments. 

MR.  R AYMER : Mr.  Chairman,  the 

talk  has  been  quite  prevalent  in  this 
Convention  that  we  are  making  a charter 
for  Chicago ; and  we  are  trying  to  give 
to  Chicago  the  greatest  measure  of  home 
rule  that  we  can.  The  taxes  for  the 
maintenance  of  these  parks  are  all  col- 
lected within  the  limits  of  the  City  of 
Chicago.  We  vest  in  the  mayor  the 
authority  to  appoint  our  Library  Board, 
our  School  Board,  and  various  other  of- 
ficials. We  should  be  just  as  consistent, 
it  would  seem  to  me,  to  vest  in  the 
governor  the  power  to^  appoint  the  mem- 
bers of  the  School  Board  and  the  Li- 
brary Board. 

I think  it  is  a mistake  to  assume 
that  the  mayor  of  Chicago  would  not 
be  capable  of  appointing  park  commis- 
sioners that  would  discharge  the  du- 
ties of  that  office  equally  as  good  as  the 
appointments  made  by  any  other  man. 
If  we  are  going  to  give  home  rule  to 
Chicago,  let  us  do  it  in  its  fullest  meas- 
ure. I do  not  believe  that  it  would  be 
consistent  with  this  body  to  vest  with 
the  governor  the  appointment  of  com- 
missioners for  the  Chicago  parks. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I agree  with  Al- 

derman Rayrper,  and  with  what  Aider- 
man  Raymer  has  said,  and  with  what 
Alderman  Snow  has  said.  Certainly,  af- 
ter voting  in  favor  of  home  rule  charter 
we  are  making  ourselves  ridiculous  by 
voting  one  by  which  this  distinctly  local 
matter  of  appointing  park  commissioners 
would  be  given  to  the  governor  of  the 
state.  It  would  make  a feasible  argu- 


December  15 


367 


1906 


ment  that  the  governor  should  appoint 
judges  of  the  Municipal  Court,  because 
in  a certain  sense  they  are  state  officials; 
or  he  should  appoint  the  police,  be- 
cause the  police  are  agents  of  the  state. 
Or  we  could  make  out  some  kind  of  an 
argument  that  the  governor  should  ap- 
point the  members  of  the  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation, because  their  duties  are  in  a 
sense  pertinent  to  the  state.  But  if  any- 
thing is  recognized  as  exclusively  a mu- 
nicipal function,  it  is  certainly  the  care 
of  the  parks.  We  do  not  have  to  vote 
on  this  question  as  to  whether  the  mayor 
shall  appoint  these  members  of  the  Park 
Board  or  whether  it  should  be  done  by 
the  judges.  The  sole  question  to  be 
settled  here  is  whether  we  can  have  the 
judges  of  the  court  appoint — whether  we 
should  have  the  mayor,  as  the  head  of 
the  local  authority,  appoint  the  park  com- 
missioners, or  whether  they  should  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  head  of  the  state,  and  as 
between  the  local  authority  and  the  state 
authority  I do  not  see  how'  there  can 
possibly  be  any  choice.  The  parks,  the 
care  of  the  parks,  the  maintenance  of 
the  parks  by  taxation,  is  distinctly  and 
decisively  a municipal  function,  wffiich 
can  not  under  any  circumstances  be 
placed  under  the  control  of  an  authority 
outside  of.  the  city. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I want  to  say  one 

word. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  With  the  Conven- 

tion ’s  consent. 

MR.  LATHROP:  The  parks  are  at 

present — the  Lincoln  Park  and  the  West 
Parks  are  state  institutions.  The  gov- 
ernor has  now  the  right  to  make  those 
appointments,  and  I do  not  know  that  it 
is  so  very  absurd  that  the  consent  of 
the  legislature  should  be  asked  to  leave 
it  there.  The  governor  now  has  the 
right  to  make  the  appointments  and  at 
present  the  park  systems  are  not  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  this  municipality  at 
all. 

MR.  MERR1AM:  I did  not  mean 
to  say  that  this  is  an  absurd  proposi- 


tion. I meant  to  say  that  if  we  adopt 
this  proposition  w'e  place  ourselves  in  an 
inconsistent  position. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  the  second  alterna- 
tive to  No.  1,  which  provides  in  effect 
that  the  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  governor. 

MR.  HUNTER:  The  motion  is  upon 

the  appointing  by  the  governor? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Upon  that 

the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Brown,  Church,  Dixon, 
G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eidmann,  Gans- 
bergen,  Hill,  Hunter,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Lundberg,  MacMillan,  O ’Donnell,  Pen- 
darvis,  Rinaker,  Shanahan,  Shedd — 18. 

Nays — Bennett,  Brosseau,  Burke,  Ca- 
rey, Cole,  Crilly,  Dever,  Guerin,  Jones, 
Linehan,  McCormick,  McGoorty,  McKin- 
ley, Merriam,  Ow^ens,  Raymer,  Robins,  Ro- 
senthal, Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Taylor,  Yopicka,  Werno,  Young,  Zimmer 
—27. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  the  motion 

of  Mr.  Lathrop  that  alternative  to  No.  2, 
providing  for  the  appointment  of  park 
commissioners  by  the  governor,  the  vote 
is  yeas,  18;  nays,  27.  The  motion  is 
lost.  The  Secretary  will  read  alternative 
to  No.  1. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : For  what  purpose 
does  Mr.  Rosenthal  arise? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  To  propose  an 

amendment  to  alternative  to  No.  1. 

THE  SECRETARY:  At  page  55, 

lowrer  right  hand  column. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Wait;  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal has  an  amendment,  which  the  Sec- 
retary will  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal : With  the  consent  of  a majority 

of  the  members  of  the  City  Council,  as 
provided  in  the  case  of  heads  of  depart- 
ments. ’ ’ 

A VOICE:  I move  that  that  be  laid 

on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  Mr.  Rosen- 


December  15 


368 


1906 


thal’s  amendment  be  laid  on  the  table. 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question?  As 
many  as  favor  that,  signify  by  saying 
aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

MR,  SHEPARD : Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  alternative  to 
No.  1. 

MR,  RAYMER:  I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  fa- 

vor that  signify  by  saying  aye;  those 
opposed,  no.  The  motion  to  adopt  is 
carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  now  re- 

mains No.  1,  from  which  has  been  elim- 
inated the  appointment  by  the  Appellate 
Court,  and  wherein  still  remains  the  num- 
ber of  park  commissioners  and  their 
terms. 

MR.  JONES:  I should  like  the  record 

to  show  that  I voted  in  opposition  to 
alternative  No.  1.  I am  in  favor  of 
the  appointment  by  the  judges.  I would 
like  the  record  to  show  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  record 

so  show. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I wish  to  submit  an 
amendment  as  a substitute  for  No.  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Lathrop ’s  substitute  for 
No.  1. 

MR.  HUNTER:  On  what  page  is 

No.  1,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  55,  lower 

right  hand  column. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  La- 
throp : Substitute  for  Section  1,  of 

XVII.  1.  The  management  of  the  mu- 
nicipal parks  and  parkways  and  small 
parks,  and  of  any  forest  preserve  or 
outer  belt  park  system,  shall  be  vested 
in  a Board  of  Park  Commissioners  con- 
sisting of  nine  members,  who  shall  be 
appointed  by  the  mayor  of  the  City  of 
Chicago;  three  from  the  West  Side,  three 
from  the  South  Side  and  three  from  the 
North  Side;  three  for  a term  of  two 
years,  three  for  a term  of  four  years 
and  three  for  a term  of  six  years,  their 


successors  to  be  appointed  for  a term  of 
six  years.  Any  vacancy  which  may  occur 
shall  be  filled  by  appointment  of  the 
mayor,  for  the  unexpired  term. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Strike  out  “ alter- 

natives’ ’ 1 and  2;  section  1 of  No.  17, 
it  should  be. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Do  you  want 

this  second  one,  too,  Mr.  Lathrop? 

MR.  LATHROP:  No,  I must  have 

given  you  another  paper  by  mistake. 
That  is  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  Mr.  Lathrop ’s  substitute  for 
No.  1.  What  will  you  do? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Question. 

MR.  CHURCH:  There  is  one  question 

that  comes  to  my  mind  here,  and  it  is 
the  same  question  that  was  raised  in  the 
committee  on  municipal  parks  when  this 
matter  was  discussed  there,  and  that  is 
as  to  the  indefiniteness  of  the  terms 
“West  Side,  South  Side,  North  Side. ” I 
think  something  ought  to  be  put  in  there 
describing  just  what  is  meant.  It  is 
intended  apparently  to  divide  the  city 
into  three  districts,  so  that  each  district 
would  be  represented  by  these  appoint- 
ments. I think  those  terms  are  very  in- 
definite. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  the  draft- 
ing committee  will  understand  what  is 
meant  by  North  Side  and  West  and  South 
Side,  the  three  principal  divisions  of  the 
city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further  dis- 

cussion upon  this  question? 

MR.  McGOORTY : I would  like  to 

have  the  Secretary  read  the  resolution 
again. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Lathrop ’s  substitute  once 
more. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
hereinbefore  printed. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I think  that  is  a fair 

indication  probably  that  vacancies  shall 
be  filled  by  the  mayor,  with  the  ap- 
proval of  two-thirds  of  the  council,  but 
in  order  to  leave  no  doubt  in  the  minds 


December  15 


369 


1906 


of  any  one  I would  like  to  substitute 
these  words  there. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  that  is 

covered  by  the  section  just  adopted. 

MR,  LATHROP:  I accept  that 

amendment. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I think  it  is  covered, 

but  I want  it  to  be  clear. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Just  to  strike  out 

the  word  “ mayor’ ’ there;  the  appoint- 
ment is  otherwise  provided  for. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  did 
not  quite  understand  what  you  said,  Mr. 
Shepard. 

MR.  SHEPARD : If  you  simply  strike 

out  the  words  “the  mayor, ” in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  appointment  is  pro- 
vided for  elsewhere;  it  is  elsewhere  pro- 
vided for,  and  that  would  make  it  clear 
of  any  ambiguity. 

MR.  BEEBE:  I judged  from  the 

reading  that  it  contemplated  the  ap- 
pointment of  two  Park  Boards. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  it  contem- 

plates the  appointment  of  one  Park  Board 
with  nine  members,  three  of  whom  shall 
come  from  each  one  of  the  divisions  of 
the  city.  Are  you  ready  for  the  ques- 
tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Lathrop ’s  sub- 
stitute. As  many  as  favor  that  signify 
by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no.  It  is 
carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  2. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  No.  2 simply  pro- 

vides for  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes. 
That  is  covered  in  the  chapter  on  revenue, 
and  I suggest  that  it  be  deferred  and 
taken  up  under  the  subject  of  revenue. 

MR.  EIDMANN : Have  you  disposed  of 
the  park  appointments? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I desire  to  offer  an 
amendment  to  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Chair  is  very 

sorry,  but  the  motion  has  been  made  and 
almost  unanimously  carried,  almost  un- 


animously adopted,  adopting  Mr.  Lath- 
rop’s  substitute. 

MR.  EIDMANN : I did  not  know  but 
what  it  would  be  subject  to  amendment 
after  being  passed. 

MR.  BURKE : I desire  to  second  Mr. 

Shepard’s  motion,  that  that  be  deferred 
until — be  referred  to  the  Revenue  Com- 
mittee, or  be  deferred  until  we  take  up 
the  subject  of  revenue. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understand  your 
motion  to  be  that  the  question  of  No.  2 
relating  to  taxes  be  deferred  until  the 
revenue  question  is  taken  up ; is  that 
your  motion? 

MR,  SHEPARD:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no  ob- 
jection, it  will  take  that  course. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I want  to  offer  a 

separate  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Unless  the  matter 
is  reopened  by  consent  for  reconsidera- 
tion, it  cannot  be  done. 

MR,  EIDMANN : I move  the  reconsid- 
eration of  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  did  the  gen- 

tleman vote? 

MR.  EIDMANN : I did  not  vote  at  all. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I move  a recon- 

sideration of  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  a second 

to  that  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McCormick 

moves  that  the  matter  just  disposed  of 
be  reconsidered. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

the  purpose  of  this  reconsideration. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I will  state  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  purpose. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Eid- 

mann:  No  appointment,  however,  shall 

be  acted  on  until  after  a subsequent 
meeting  of  the  City  Council.  ’ ’ 

MR.  EIDMANN : This  resolution  is 

offered  to 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  reconsideration  of  the  vote. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I would  like  to 

speak  on  the  question  of  the  reconsider- 


December  15 


370 


1906 


ation  of  the  motion;  I made  the  motion 
and  I believe  I have  a right  to  speak  upon 
it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  does  the 

house  want  to  do  about  it? 

MR.  McCORMICK  : That  is  an  amend- 
ment that  was  prepared  to  be  sent  in, 
and  the  Chair  was  not  looking  the  right 
way;  I move  a reconsideration  of  this 
matter  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  if  the  un- 

animous consent  of  the  house  is  ob- 
tained, all  right.  Mr.  Eidmann  has  the 
floor  for  the  purpose  of  debating  his 
■fnotion. 

MR.  EIDMANN : I thought  it  was  a 

motion  with  reference  to  the  appoint- 
ment; if  the  matter  is  one  of  appoint- 
ment made  by  the  mayor  and  concurred 
in  by  the  City  Council,  I think  it  should 
lay  over  for  at  least  some  time  so  that 
the  City  Council  may  act  upon  it  and 
know  who  the  appointees  are.  In  the 
past  these  appointments  have  come  gen- 
erally— have  been  made  generally  the 
same  evening  that  the  appointments  are 
offered.  They  usually  come  when  the 
members  of  the  council  have  had  no 
notice  that  the  appointment  is  going  to 
be  made  and  have  no  information  on  the 
men  that  are  to  be  appointed,  and  they 
should  be  given  an  opportunity  to  in- 
f vestigate  the  appointees  submitted  by 
the  mayor.  I think  that  is  good  reason 
for  reconsideration. 

MR.  RAYMER:  With  a view  of  sav- 

ing time,  I ask  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  house  for  the  adoption  of  this 
amendment. 

Cries  of  “Consent.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  Chair 

suggests  that  it  be  presented  as  a separ- 
ate resolution  to  be  put  in  this  section. 

MR.  EIDMANN : I move  that  that  be 
done,  that  it  be  offered  as  a separate 
resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor its  adoption  signify  by  saying  aye; 
those  opposed,  no. 

The  motion  prevailed. 


MR.  TAYLOR:  ’ I move  that  the  con- 
sideration of  Section  18  be  m^de  a 
special  order  for  Thursday  evening. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  special 

order  before  that  is  special  order  of 
revenue. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I thought  that  had 

been  postponed  beyond  that.  It  is  quite 
necessary,  owing  to  the  wide  interests 
on  the  subject  of  education,  that  a day 
be  named  some  time  in  advance,  and  in 
the  evening,  and  I don ’t  see  why  we 
should  not  at  this  time  name  a day  for 
that  special  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  WTell,  Mr.  Taylor, 
will  you  withdraw  that  until  we  see  how 
far  we  get  with  our  work  this  afternoon, 
and  then  renew  your  motion,  doctor,  with 
the  consent  of  the  second? 

MR.  CRILLY:  Can  I say  a word  in 

regard  to  park  matters? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  what  mat- 

ters? 

MR.  CRILLY : Park  matters.  There 

is  no  provision  in  here  as  to  who  shall 
be  the  president  of  this  board  of  nine 
commissioners,  or  in  what  way  the  com- 
missioners shall  elect  their  president. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I assume  that 

would  be  a matter  of  detail  that  would 
be  provided  in  the  full  draft  of  the 
charter. 

MR.  CRILLY : Another  matter  that 

I would  like  to  speak  about  and  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  it,  and 
that  is  this:  The  civil  service,  in  my 

opinion,  the  city  civil  service  should  not 
apply  to  parks.  I think  that  the  Park 
Commissioners  ought  to  have  civil  ser- 
vice of  their  own. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  has  already 

been  passed  upon  by  this  Convention. 

MR.  CRILLY:  I would  like  to  call 

the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  this 
fact:  On  the  South  Side,  in  the  South 

Park  system,  we  have  had  as  many  as 
2300  employes . in  that  park  system  at 
a time,  paying  out  as  much  as  a quarter 
of  a million  dollars  a month.  It  ap- 
pears to  me  there  should  be  civil  service 


December  15 


371 


1906 


applying  to  the  parks  alone,  because  it 
is  a question  of  seasons  and  weather,  and 
so  forth,  that  appoints  these  people,  put- 
ting them  on  and  discharging  them. 

Now,  there  is  another  matter  that  I 
think  should  be  considered,  and  that  is 
this,  that  the  president  of  the  Park 
Board  should  have  a salary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Those  are  mat- 

ters of  detail  that  are  to  be  taken  up 
when  the  charter  comes  to  us  in  its  fin- 
ished condition. 

MR.  CRILLY : In  regard  to  the  sal- 

ary of  the  president? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  that  is  a 

detail.  The  Secretary  will  read  No.  19. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Before  we  pass 

to  the  next  subject,  I have  sent  to  the 
desk  a substitute  for  a resolution  that 
has  already  been  passed,  and  my  idea 
in  having  that  first  read  is  to  move  a 
reconsideration,  because  I think  the  form 
in  which  it  has  been  passed  it  will  get 
us  into  difficulty  at  some  subsequent 
time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  is  a substitute 

for  what? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Eckhart ’s 

resolution.  I want  to  say  that  I have 
submitted  it  to  a number  of  gentlemen 
who  agree  on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  substitute? 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal: No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratu- 
ity, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimination 
from  any  person  or  corporation  holding 
or  using  any  franchise,  privilege,  or  li- 
cense granted  by  the  city,  or  from  any 
agent  or  representative  of  any  such  per- 
son or  corporation;  provided,  that  noth- 
ing herein  contained  shall  prevent  the 
City  of  Chicago  from  providing  by  or- 
dinance for  the  free  transportation  of 
any  city  officer  or  employe  while  in  the 
performance  of  his  official  duties.  The 
charter  shall  contain  appropriate  pro- 


visions for  the  enforcement  of  this  pro- 
hibition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  a substitute, 

Mr.  Rosenthal  offers  this  and  gives  no- 
tice that  he  will  ask  a reconsideration  of 
the  vote  by  which  the  original  was  passed 
in  order  to  substitute  this  for  it. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

may  we  have  that  vote  now?  Mr.  Chair- 
man, can  we  have  that  vote  now  while 
it  is  fresh  in  our  minds. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  is  your 

question? 

MR,  ROSENTHAL;  Can  we  have  a 
vote  on  the  reconsideration  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  would  be 

the  proper  motion.  Did  you  vote  in  the 
affirmative,  Mr.  Rosenthal? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which 
the  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Eckhart, 
relating  to  the  acceptance  of  passes, 
was  passed.  All  those  in  favor  of  re- 
considering the  substitute  will  say  aye; 
opposed,  no.  The  motion  to  reconsider 
is  lost. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  a 

division  or  roll  call  on  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  on  the  motion  to  re- 
consider. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Bennett,  Burke,  Church, 
Hunter,  Jones,  McGoorty,  Merriain, 
O’Donnell,  Pendarvis,  Rainey,  Robins, 
Rosenthal,  Shepard,  Snow,  Taylor,  Vo- 
picka,  Zimmer — 18. 

Nays — Brown,  Carey,  Cole,  Crilly,  De- 
ver,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eck- 
hart, J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Gansbergen,  Gue- 
rin, Hill,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan, 
Lundberg,  MacMillan,  McCormick,  Mc- 
Kinley, Owens,  Raymer,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Smulski,  Sunny,  Werno,  Young — 27. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I think 

there  are  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Convention  that  do  not  know  just  what 
is  before  the  Convention.  I would  like 
to  have  the  substitute  read  once  more. 


December  15 


372 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  the  Secretary 
read  the  substitute  once  more. 

The  Secretary  re-read  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question  to  reconsider?  Let  the 
Secretary  continue  the  calling  of  the 
roll. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart. 

MR.  ECKHART:  I would  like  to 

ask  for  information.  It  appears  to  me 
that  if  this  substitute  now  offered  is 
adopted  it  practically  means  that  the 
City  Council  may  provide  for  the  grant- 
ing of  a pass  to  any  city  officer  or  em- 
ploye. It  means  to  neutralize  the  entire 
provision  as  heretofore  enacted  or  adopt- 
ed, and  I believe  that  the  provision  we 
have  adopted  is  a just  one  and  one 
that  ought  to  go  into  the  charter,  and 
it  should  not  now  be  mutilated  so  that 
it  would  be  meaningless. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  I rise 

to  a point  of  order.  We  are  in  the  midst 
of  a roll  call  and  I submit  it  is  not  de- 
batable. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Chairman 

permitted  Mr.  Eckhart  to  make  an  ex- 
planation because  this  is  a substitute  to 
Ills  motion.  The  Secretary  will  con- 
tinue the  roll  call. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  my 

name  was  omitted  from  the  roll  call.  1 
desire  to  vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett 

votes  aye. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

change  my  vote  to  aye. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  1 

change  my  vote  to  aye. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  what  pur- 

pose does  Mr.  Rosenthal  rise? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Why  it  is  for  this 
purpose,  Mr.  Chairman:  during  the  roll 
call  you  allowed  Mr.  Eckhart  to  arise 
and  make  an  explanation  of  this  substi- 
tute which  I have  introduced,  which  was 
incorrect,  and  which  may  have  misin- 


formed certain  members;  and  I simply 
,want  to  say  one  word  in  explanation  be- 
fore the  roll  call  is  closed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr  Rosenthal’s 

name  was  called  after  Mr.  Eckhart ’s 
and  he  could  have  made  his  explanation 
on  the  roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  reconsider,  the  ayes  are  18,  the  nays 
are  27,  and  the  motion  is  lost.  The  Sec- 
retary will  read  Section  19. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan: 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Before  we 

pass  from  Section  17,  I would  like 
to  call  attention  to  the  Convention 
that  in  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr. 
Lathrop  the  word  1 1 municipal  parks  ’ ’ 
was  used.  I think  that  is  a limitation. 
The  parks  in  Chicago  are  not  municipal 
parks.  We  have  municipal  parks,  some 
three  or  four  small  ones,  but  the  three 
great  park  systems  are  not  municipal 
parks.  One  is  a municipality  in  itself, 
and  the  other  two  are  departments  of 
the  state,  and  they  will  not  become  mu- 
nicipal parks  until  this  charter  is  adopted 
by  the  people,  and  I think  we  ought  to 
strike  out  the  word  1 1 municipal.  ’ ’ 

MR.  LATHROP:  No  objection. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan 

moves  to  strike  out  the  word  “ munici- 
pal, ’ ’ and  if  there  is  unanimous  consent 
it  will  be  so  dpne. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Strike  out 

1 1 municipal  ’ ’ ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Strike  out  “mu- 

nicipal.” Read  Section  19. 

The  Secretary  read  paragraph  1 of 
Section  XIX  as  it  appears  in  the  pro- 
ceedings at  page  56. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I move  its  adoption, 

Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I move  its  adoption  by  the  unani- 
mous vote  of  this  Convention. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

like  to  hear  from  somebody  that  is  fa- 


December  15 


373 


1906 


miliar  with  the  Library  Board,  whether 
or  not  a board  of  nine  is  not  too  large? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eekhart  can 

best  answer  that. 

ME.  J.  W.  ECKHAET:  I will  tell 

you,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  Library  Board, 
consisting  of  nine  members,  seems  to 
have  gotten  along  nicely  for  a good  many 
years.  We  seem  to  have  gotten  along 
without  any  trouble,  and  we  believe  that 
it  is  necessary  to  have  quite  a number 
of  members  in  order  to  have  a quorum. 

ME.  TAYLOE:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

Library  Board  was  also  consulted  and 
are  quite  in  accord  with  the  report  of 
the  Committee  on  Education. 

MB.  YOUNG:  I was  going  to  discuss 

that  in  the  discussion  of  that  section  by 
saying  that  we  look  forward  to  an  ex- 
tension of  our  li  orary  system.  You  will 
find  a section  further  on  giving  authority 
to  the  city  to  establish  branch  libraries. 
Now,  if  the  library  system  is  to  be  ex- 
tended through  the  establishment  of 
branch  systems,  it  seems  to  me  that  now 
is  a suitable  time  to  consider  that  mat- 
ter and  discuss  it. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : The  question  is 

on  the  adoption  of  No.  1,  of  Section 
XIX.  As  many  as  are  in  favor  of  its 
adoption  will  signify  so  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  The  ayes  have  it  and  it  is 
adopted.  The  Secretary  will  read  para- 
graph 2. 

The  Secretary  read  paragraph  2 of 
Section  XIX  as  it  appears  on  page  56 
of  the  proceedings. 

MR.  BEOSSEAU:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

this  Section  2 I think  the  word  1 1 two  * ’ 
should  be  placed  before  the  word 
“ years’’  so  that  three  will  retire  every 
two  years. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Every  two  years? 

ME.  BROSSEAU : Yes.  It  is  an  er- 

ror in  printing  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  in  favor  of 

the  adoption  of  paragraph  two  will 


signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  It 
is  adopted.  Read  No.  3. 

The  Secretary  read  paragraph  3 of 
Section  XIX  as  it  appears  in  the  pro- 
ceedings at  page  56. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON;  I move  its  adop- 
tion, Mr.  Chairman. 

MR,  HUNTER : Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hunter. 

MR,  HUNTER:  I desire  to  have  a 

clause  inserted  in  there : 1 1 Provided  they 

do  not  now  take  a police  station. 5 ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  a second 

to  this  amendment? 

MR.  HUNTER:  Provided  that  they 

do  not  now  change  over  a police  station. 
I have  reference  now  to  the  police  sta- 
tion in  my  ward.  They  are  trying  now 
to  take  the  police  station  for  a public 
library.  I would  rather  they  would  not 
do  it.  I am  not  an  alderman  now,  but 
at  the  same  time  I would  rather  they 
did  not  take  that  police  station  for  a 
library  board  or  anything  else  than  a 
station.  So,  I would  just  like  it  provided 
that  they  do  not  do  that.  I would  like 
a second  to  that  motion. 

MR.  SMULSKI : Question  of  infor- 

mation. Was  Section  2 passed  as  it  reads 
in  the  report? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  is  changed  to 

two  years. 

MR.  SMULSKI:  Every  two  years? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes.  Are  you 

ready  for  the  question  on  No.  3? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  its  adoption  will  say  aye;  op- 
posed, no.  It  is  carried. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Doctor  Taylor. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I desire  to  offer  an 

additional  resolution  to  Section  18  to 
be  printed  in  the  proceedings  and  sub- 
sequently discussed,  on  an  educational 
commission  which  is  provided  for  in  the 
report  of  the  committee  on  public  edu- 
cation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  communica- 

tion will  be  read  and  printed  in  the  pro- 
ceedings and  taken  up 


December  15 


374 


1906 


THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Taylor: 

A permanent  educational  commission  of 
advisory  capacity  shall  be  appointed  by 
the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the 
council,  to  consist  of  seventeen  members, 
who  shall  serve  without  compensation,  in- 
cluding the  superintendent  of  the  public 
schools  and  the  librarian  of  the  public 
library,  wffio  shall  be  members  ex-officio. 
Each  other  member  shall  hold  office  until 
another  person  is  appointed  to  succeed 
him. 

It  shall  be  the  function  of  the  educa- 
tional commission  to  tender  advice  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city,  to  correlate 
the  educational  forces  of  the  city  and 
to  prevent  unnecessary  duplication  of  ac- 
tivities by  exercising  their  influence  to- 
ward co-ordinating  the  various  educa- 
tional and  scientific  institutions  of  the 
city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Doctor  Taylor, 

do  you  want  that  section  to  go  with 
Section  XVIII  or  XIX?  Section 
XVIII  is  the  educational  section  and 
Section  XIX  is  the  public  library  section. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  It  pertains  quite  as 

much  to  the  public  library  as  it  does 
to  the  use  of  the  schools,  the  idea  being 
to  bring  into  co-operation  the  public 
library  and  the  public  schools,  and  the 
museums  of  the  city,  as  their  co-opera- 
tion is  not  now  possible. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I would  suggest 

-that  inasmuch  as  we  have  temporarily 
deferred  Section  XVIII,  that  it  be  made 
part  of  Section  XVIII. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Very  well. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  be  taken  up 

when  Section  XVIII  is  taken  up.  The 
Secretary  will  read  Section  XX. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  1 of  Section 
XX,  as  it  appears  in  the  proceedings  at 
pages  56  and  57. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

like  to  say,  as  chairman  of  this  commit- 
tee on  penal,  charitable  and  reformatory 
institutions,  that  we  gave  this  whole 
matter  very  thorough  consideration.  We 


had  a series  of  meetings  in  which  every- 
body had  a chance  to  be  heard  either  by 
writing  or  otherwise,  and  the  adoption 
of  the  report  of  the  committee  was  un- 
animous in  every  way;  and  I move  the 
adoption  of  the  clause  as  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  that  No.  1 as  read 
be  adopted. 

MR.  MaeMILLAN : Mr.  Chairman, 

may  I ask  Mr.  Cole  a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole  will  re- 

ply to  the  question. 

MR.  MaeMILLAN : Does  that  read 

into  the  clause  authority  to  maintain  free 
lodging  houses?  This  word  “free’’  to 
be  used  there,  which  you  use  in  the  next 
line? 

MR.  COLE:  “Authority  to  maintain 

lodging  houses  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. ’ ' I do 
not  understand  that  it  does  giv.e  author- 
ity to  maintain  free  lodging  houses ; no, 
sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  city  main- 

tains one  now,  doesn't  it? 

MR.  COLE:  In  addition  to  the  pres- 

ent one? 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  is  just  to  that  point 
paragraph  2,  the  words  “care  for"  be 
or  delinquent  children.  ’ ’ 
that  I understood  this  provision  as  origi- 
nally drawn  to  run.  There  is  no  object 
for  maintaing  a free  employment  bureau, 
no  reason  that  does  not  equally  apply  to 
maintaining  free  municipal  lodging 
houses.  Neither  one  is  of  a character  to 
compete  or  conflict  with  the  paid  em- 
ployment bureaus  or  the  paid  lodging 
houses.  They  are  for  that  class  that 
in  such  a city  as  the  City  of  Chicago 
are  constantly  drifting  and  without  any 
resources  whatever,  and  who  would  be  a 
charge  upon  the  city  and  the  police  sta- 
tions unless  there  was  some  such  pro- 
vision made,  properly  restricted. 

MR.  COLE:  Let  me  explain  a mo- 

ment. I understand  the  city  has  no  au- 
thority now. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I understand  it  has 


December  15 


375 


1906 


not  that  authority,  but  within  the  power 
of  the  city  it  has  been  operated  and  no 
one  has  ever  questioned  it  because  of  its 
general  benefit. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion,  gentlemen,  that  this  section 
be  adopted  as  read.  All  in  favor  of  its 
adoption  will  signify  so  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  It  is  adopted.  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  No.  2. 

The  Secretary  read  paragraph  2 of 
Section  XX,  as  it  appears  in  the  pro- 
ceedings at  page  57. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  this  section? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I think  that  the 

city  should  not  be  limited  in  regard  to 
this  section  to  the  power  to  contract  with 
the  County  of  Cook.  While  it  probably 
would  be  practical  and  expedient  in  many 
instances,  I think  that  the  city  should 
have  the  power  to  care  for  the  detention, 
housing  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners  or  dependent  or  delinquent  chil- 
dren, whether  it  contracts  with  the 
County  of  Cook  or  not.  And,  therefore, 
I suggest,  or  I move  to  amend  that  after 
the  word  1 1 power  ’ ’ in  the  first  line  of 
paragraph  2,  the  words  “ care  for”  be 
inserted  so  that  the  paragraph  shall  read: 

1 1 2.  The  city  shall  have  power  to  care 
for  or  contract  with  the  County  of  Cook 
for  the  detention,  housing  and  care  of 
indigent  persons,  prisoners  or  dependent 
or  delinquent  children.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Does  not  that 

duplicate  the  section  just  adopted? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  No;  it  is  the 

section  under  discussion  now. 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  is  the  evident 

purpose  of  this  section  to  authorize  the 
City  of  Chicago  to  contract  with  the 
County  of  Cook  for  the  care  of  its  pris- 
oners, not  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  It  is 
intended  to  cover  the  bridewell.  We 
take  the  county  prisoners  in  the  bride- 
well and  this  authorizes  us  to  contract 
so  that  we  may  receive  pay  from  the 
County  of  Cook  for  such  services.  We 
have  not  the  full  power  now. 


MR.  McGOORTY:  I desire  to  say,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  I am  in  hearty  sympathy 
with  this  section,  but  I do  not  understand 
now  that  the  city  has  power,  for  instance, 
to  maintain  an  orphan  asylum  or  to 
care  for  it,  and  the  laws  have  been 
strained  or  liberally  construed  to  enable 
the  council  to  provide  for  any  such  ap- 
propriation; and  it  has  been  suggested, 
and  I am  willing  to  adopt  the  suggestion, 
that  in  lieu  of  the  amendment  which  I 
offer  that  after  the  word  1 1 Cook  ’ ’ or  the 
phrase  1 1 County  of  Cook 1 ’ the  words  be 
inserted,  1 1 or  otherwise  provided  for.  ’ ’ 
I think  that  is  a better  form,  so  as  to 
read  as  follows: 

“The  city  shall  have  power  to  con- 
tract with  the  County  of  Cook,  or  other- 
wise, to  provide  for  the  detention,  hous- 
ing and  care  of  indigent  persons,  pris- 
oners or  dependent  or  delinquent  chil- 
dren. ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Would  not  that 

somewhat  confuse  what  Mr.  Bennett  says 
is  the  object  of  this  paragraph? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Not  at  all,  Mr. 

Chairman,  because  it  provides  for  two 
affirmative  powers  or  propositions ; one 
that  the  city  may  contract  with  the 
county  and  the  other  that  it  may  in  some 
other  form  do  what  is  provided  for  in 
this  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have  heard 

Mr.  McGoorty’s  amendment  to  this  sec- 
tion, gentlemen. 

MR.  CHURCH : Mr.  Chairman : Be- 

fore this  is  voted  upon  I desire  to  say 
that  the  city  now  has,  I believe,  some 
contract  or  some  understanding  with  the 
county  in  regard  to  the  Juvenile  Court. 
The  question  arose  in  my  mind  whether 
anything  should  be  put  in  here  extend- 
ing the  authority  to  the  city  in  that  re- 
gard. I understand  the  city  is  bearing 
a portion  of  the  expense. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett  can 
answer  that  question,  probably 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  city  appropri- 

ated this  year  a portion  of  the  cost  of 
the  new  building  and  the  land,  con- 


December  15 


376 


1906 


tributed  toward  the  new  institution,  I 
do  not  know  in  just  what  way.  But  we 
did  contribute,  and  there  is  some  doubt 
about  our  authority  to  do  that.  There 
will  be  no  objection  to  having  such  a 
clause  inserted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  is  your 

amendment,  Mr.  Church? 

MR.  CHURCH:  Well,  my  amend- 

ment is,  that  authority  be  given  to  the 
city  to  contract  with  the  county  with 
reference  to  the  erection  and  maintenance 
of  the  Juvenile  Court  Building. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Eor  the  opera- 

tion of  the  Juvenile  Court  Building? 

MR,  CHURCH:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  will  first  put 

Mr.  McGoorty’s  amendment.  Those  in 
favor  of  Mr.  McGoorty ’s  amendment 
will  signify  so  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  It  is  carried  and  so  ordered. 

Mr.  Church  now  proposes  an  amend- 
ment that  this  section  shall  contain  a 
clause  authorizing  the  City  of  Chicago 
to  contract  with  the  County  of  Cook  for 
the  erection,  maintenance  and  operation 
of  the  Juvenile  Court.  As  many  as  fa- 
vor that  amendment  will  signify  so  by 
saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

The  question  now  is  upon  the  entire 
section  as  amended. 

MR.  SMULSKI:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

point  has  been  already  adopted,  but  I 
would  suggest  that  the  word  ‘ ‘ free  ’ ’ be 
inserted  before  the  word  “lodging,”  so 
as  to  give  authority  to  maintain  free 
lodging  houses. 

MR.  COLE:  I was  about  to  ask  for 

that.  At  the  time  I made  this  motion 
for  its  adoption,  I supposed  the  city 
had  this  authority,  because  it  was  doing 
it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections  it  will  be  inserted. 

The  question  is  now  upon  No.  XX  as 
amended.  As  many  as  favor  its  adop- 
tion will  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  It  is  adopted. 

The  Secretary  will  read  No.  21. 


The  Secretary  read  paragraph  1 of 
Section  XXI  appearing  on  page  57. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  take  up 

the  paragraph  or  will  you  have  the  whole 
section  read? 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  1 

move  that  we  insert  15  per  cent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  one  moment, 
Mr.  Hunter.  I would  like  to  get  this 
cleared  up.  Do  you  want  the  entire  sec- 
tion relating  to  this  read,  or  do  you 
want  to  take  it  up  paragraph  by  para- 
graph ? 

MR.  SNOW : These  are  so  intimately 

related  to  each  other  that  I suggest  we 
read  the  whole  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secretary 
read  the  whole  section. 

The  Secretary  read  Section  XXI,  ap- 
pearing on  page  57. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

that  alternative  to  No.  2 be  substituted 
for  both  No.  1 and  2,  with  a provision 
until  30  days,  and  within  that  time  15 
per  cent,  of  the  majority  of  the  voters 
voting  at  such  election. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

see  whether  he  can  get  your  amend- 
ment. Mr.  Beebe  moves  that  the  alter- 
native to  No.  2 be  submitted  for  both 
No.  1 and  No.  2.  Do  you  so  understand 
it? 

MR.  BEEBE:  I will  make  that  30 

days  after  the  passage. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  one  mo- 

ment. The  Chair  understands  that  you 
move  that  alternative  to  No.  2 be  sub- 
stituted for  No.  1 and  No.  2. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Then  you  move 

to  insert  in  the  first  blank,  what  number 
of  days? 

MR.  BEEBE : Thirty  days. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Thirty  days.  And 

in  the  next  blank,  the  amount  of  per 
cent? 

MR.  BEEBE:  Twenty-five  per  cent. 

Instead  of  15. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Twenty-five  per 

cent,  instead  of  15? 


December  15 


377 


1906 


ME.  BEEBE : And  for  the  voters  vot- 
ing, at  the  closing  paragraph,  ‘ ‘ A major- 
ity of  the  voters  voting  at  such  election. 1 ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  At  such  election. 

Has  the  Secretary  got  this? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  BEEBE:  It  reads  now  ‘‘upon 

the  question.  ’ * 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  an 

amendment,  Mr.  Snow? 

MR.  SNOW : Yes,  I desire  to  offer  an 

amendment  to  Mr.  Beebe’s  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Beebe’s  mo- 

tion. The  Secretary  will  read  the  motion 
as  amended  by  Mr.  Beebe.  We  will  read 
Mr.  Snow’s  amendment  first. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Snow: 

* * * the  City  Council  to  have  power 

to  fix  penalties  for  any  fraud,  forgery  or 
deceit  in  the  preparation  and  signing  of 
the  petition  provided  for. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  an  ad- 

dition, is  it? 

MR.  SNOW : Yes,  an  addition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  that  again,  please. 

Mr.  Snow’s  amendment  was  re-read  by 
the  Secretary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary now  read  the  section  as  amended  by 
Mr.  Beebe  and  by  Mr.  Snow',  so  that  the 
house  may  know  what  it  has  got  before 
it? 

The  Secretary  read  alternative  to  No. 
2 as  amended  by  Mr.  Beebe  and  Mr. 
Snow. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  the  adoption  of  the  section  as 
amended. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

to  amend  by  making  the  per  cent,  of 
voters  required  10  per  cent,  instead  of 
25  per  cent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Werno  moves 
to  amend  by  striking  out  the  figures  25 
and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  figure 
10.  Mr.  Merriam. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  do 

we  have  a separate  vote  on  each  of  these 
provisions  as  to  the  30  days  and  25 


per  cent  ? I should  like  to  have  a division 
upon  those  things. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  have  a division  on  the  per- 
centage and  on  whether  a majority  of 
the  voters  voting  may  carry  it,  or  a ma- 
jority at  the  election  as  Mr.  Beebe  pro- 
vides ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  are  three 

propositions  here.  Do  you  desire  to  di- 
vide it  into  two  or  three  propositions? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Three. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  three 

propositions  here. 

MR.  SNOW:  Can  not  the  same  result 

be  reached  if  Prof.  Merriam  or  any  other 
member  of  the  Convention  who  are  not 
agreed  with  the  figures  given  offer  an 
amendment  to  those  figures? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I want  to  get  a 

vote  on  them  separately,  that  is  all. 

MR.  SNOW : Exactly,  get  a vote  on 

that.  You  can  offer  an  amendment  as 
Mr.  Werno  has  done  for  the  percentage 
of  voters  and  the  number  of  days  after, 
require  and  get  a direct  vote  on  each 
proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  the 

question  that  you  are  to  decide  is,  does 
the  house  want  the  question  divided? 

(A  division  was  called  for.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Those  who  favor 

the  division  of  this  question  will  signify 
by  saying  aye. 

The  viva  voce  vote  left  the  Chairman 
in  doubt. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  the  division. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  what  pur- 

pose does  Mr.  Lathrop  rise? 

MR.  LATHROP:  Simply  for  informa- 
tion; what  is  the  question  before  us? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  are  voting 

upon  the  question  as  to  whether  there 
shall  be  a division. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  If  there  is  a second 

from  the  house,  with  his  consent  I will 
withdraw  my  motion  for  a division,  in 
order  to  save  a roll  call. 


December  15 


378 


1906 


A VOICE : I accept  the  withdrawal. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Prof.  Merriam 

withdraws  his  motion  for  a division  of 
the  question. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to 

move,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  a substitute 
for  the  number  of  days  from  30  to  60 
days. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Prof.  Merriam 

moves  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  fig- 
ures 30  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the 
figures  60. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Strike  out  the 

word  voting (The  balance  of  Mr.  Mc- 

Cormick’s remark  was  inaudible.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I suggest  that 

we  have  a vote  on  a single*  amendment 
at' a time.  It  is  impossible  to  put  two 
questions  at  once.  The  question  before 
the  house  is  Mr.  Merriam ’s  motion  to 
strike  out  the  figures  30  and  insert  in 
lieu  thereof  the  figures  60. 

MR.  SNOW : On  that  I would  like  to 

say  just  a word  in  support  of  the  mo- 
tion as  made  by  Prof.  Merriam. 

The  intention  of  this  provision  is  that 
in  case  legislation  affecting  public  utili- 
ties shall  have  been  passed  by  the  City 
Council,  that  the  voters  of  the  city  shall 
have  an  opportunity  to  pass  a review 
upon  that  legislation  before  it  shall  be- 
come effective,  if  they  so  desire.  Now, 
a period  of  30  days  is  a very  short  per- 
iod in  which  to  provide  the  necessary 
petition,  and  for  that  reason  I believe 
that  the  amendment  as  offered  by  Prof. 
Merriam  should  be  adopted.  They  should 
be  given  at  least  60  days  in  which  to 
prepare  the  petition  and  work  up  public 
sentiment  if  it  may  be  necessary,  and 
an  ordinance  of  that  kind,  a public  util- 
ity ordinance,  will  lose  nothing  of  its 
value  to  the  people  of  Chicago  by  laying 
over  60  days. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  Prof.  Merriam ’s 
substitute.  As  many  as  favor  its  adop- 
tion will  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  The  ayes  have  it  and  it  is  carried, 


and  the  figures  30  days  are  stricken  out, 
and  the  figures  60  days  put  in. 

The  next  is  Alderman  Werno’s  amend- 
ment to  strike  out  the  figures  25,  and 
insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  figures  10. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

opposed  to  the  motion  as  made  by 
Alderman  Werno.  We  are  entering 
somewhat  upon  a new  field  of  legislation 
in  the  adoption  as  a part  of  the  organic 
law  of  tlie  city,  of  the  principle  of  refer- 
endum, and  I am  quite  clear,  at  least  in 
my  own  mind,  that  the  opportunity  should 
not  be  offered  to  hold  up  and  delay  legis- 
lation unless  it  should  be  very  clear  that 
a very  considerable  portion,  a very  re- 
spectable minority  of  the  people  are  op- 
posed to  the  legislation  in  question. 

Now,  if  there  is  any  legislation  passed 
against  which  there  is  a decided  public 
sentiment,  there  will  be  no  difficulty 
whatever  in  securing  in  a period  of  60 
days  a petition  of  one-fourth  of  the 
voters,  and  it  is  not  a fair  proposition 
in  my  judgment  to  force  upon  the  people 
of  Chicago  the  trouble  and  turmoil  and 
expense  if  you  please  of  elections,  when 
only  a very  small  minority  of  the  people 
have  expressed  a desire  that  that  expense 
be  met. 

It  seems  to  me  that"  if  there  is  any 
public  sentiment  which  is  large  enough 
to  be  respectable  in  proportions,  that 
there  will  be  no  difficulty  in  securing 
25  per  cent  in  a petition. 

Again,  ^5  per  cent,  is  the  figure  which 
has  been  fixed  by  state  statute  hereto- 
fore in  the  Public  Policy  Act,  and  under 
which  we  never  have  had  any  difficulty 
in  securing  a petition  wherever  there  was 
a concerted  effort  made  for  that  purpose. 
For  that  reason  I oppose  the  cutting 
down  to  15  per  cent. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

this  particular  section  w'e  are  limited  to 
a referendum  to  merely  ordinances  af- 
fecting public  streets  or  alleys,  a very 
narrow  limitation  it  seems  to  me 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell, 

the  question  of  the  entire  section  will  be 


December  15 


379 


1906 


taken  up  later.  The  question  now  before 
the  Convention  is  the  substitution  of  the 
figures  10  for  the  figures  25. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I beg  the  Chair’s 

pardon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  section  itself 

is  not  under  discussion. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  All  right,  Mr. 

Chairman.  I was  trying  to  draft  an 
amendment  to  fix  that,  and  I lost  count 
of  the  motions  pending.  I will  address 
myself  to  that  when  we  reach  it. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  amend  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  Alderman  Werno  by  substitut- 
ing the  word  15  per  cent,  for  10  per  cent. 
I think  that  in  this  city,  which  possibly 
has  400,000  voters  or  350,000  voters,  that 
if  50,000  of  the  voters  decide  to  take 
enough  interest  in  any  public  question 
to  sign  a petition  asking  that  any  ordi- 
nance passed  by  the  City  Council  be  sub- 
mitted to  a vote  of  the  people,  why 
that  is  a fair  evidence  that  a large  pro- 
portion of  the  people  of  the  city  feel  a 
deep  interest  in  the  ordinance;  and  the 
requirement  of  100,000  makes  any  initia- 
tive proposition  in  my  opinion  nugatory 
and  of  no  avail.  There  isn’t  in  any 
city  charter  any  provisions  for  a larger 
percentage  than  fifteen,  and  I think  that, 
however  one  may  view  the  whole  pro- 
position of  initiative  and  referendum, 
that  a 15  per  cent,  limitation  is  reason- 
able and  just. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I think  25  per  cent,  of  the  voters  of 
the  city  would  be  about  right.  We  all 
know  how  easy  it  is  to  get  that  number, 
and  if  the  question  that  is  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  a vote  of  the  people  is  meri- 
torious you  will  have  no  difficulty  in  se- 
curing 25  per  cent.,  and,  as  has  been 
stated  by  .Alderman  Snow,  if  you  do 
make  the  percentage  too  low  you  can 
easily  secure  10  per  cent,  or  15  per  cent., 
and  in  that  way  put  this  city  to  the 
expense  of  holding  an  election  and  pass- 
ing upon  a question  which  might  be  quite 
expensive.  I have  no  hesitancy  in  saying 


that  a man  could  go  out  and  get  a peti- 
tion signed  by  the  voters  of  this  city  for 
almost  anything  without  very  much  diffi- 
culty on  the  slightest  kind  of  pretense, 
without  giving  very  much  of  a reason  for 
it ; and  therefore  on  that  account  you 
should  make  the  limit  reasonable,  and 
1 think  25  per  cent,  would  be  reasonable. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I think  I know  a little 
something,  Mr.  Chairman,  about  the  ex- 
pense of  getting  up  a 25  per  cent,  peti- 
tion. I have  done  something  in  that 
already.  The  actual  expense  in  the  case 
of  the  one  before  the  last  was  $4,800; 
that  was  accounted  for.  I happened  to 
be  familiar  with  the  difficulty  of  getting 
25  per  cent,  of  the  voters  of  Chicago  to 
sign  legitimately  any  petition  whatever. 
This  question  is  one  of  a real  referen- 
dum or  a sham  referendum ; a power  that 
can  really  be  exercised,  or  one  that  is 
prepared  for  the  purpose  of  its  not  being 
exercised.  If  I know  anything  about 
the  people  of  Chicago  I know  that  a 
new  charter  which  does  not  provide  a 
fair  referendum  will  not  be  accepted  by 
the  people  of  this  city.  That  is  only 
my  opinion  and  I give  it  for  what  it  is 
worth.  Fifteen  per  cent,  of  the  voters 
of  this  city  is  a fair  referendum  in  my 
judgment.  I should  prefer  ten.  I should 
believe  that  there  was  no  menace  in  10, 
and  I believe  that  15  is  a fair  percentage. 
So  far  as  the  expense  to  the  city  is  con- 
cerned there  is  no  expense  except  the 
printing  of  the  ballot.  The  election  will 
be  held  at  the  next  election.  There  is 
no  provision  for  a special  election  in  this 
matter..  It  simply  means  the  printing 
of  the  ballots.  Now,  if  you  wish  to  have 
a charter  adopted  that  up  to  this  time  has 
provided  that  the  aldermen  shall  have  p 
four  year  term,  or  the  duties  of  a mayor, 
a four  year  term,  you  have  got  to  satisfy 
the  people  that  the  trust  in  aldermen  and 
the  mayor  shall  not  be  capable  of  some 
of  the  most  serious  violations  that  are 
possible.  Otherwise,  in  my  judgment, 
the  people,  or  the  majority  of  the  voters 
of  this  city  will  be  quite  content  with  the 


December  15 


380 


1906 


present  old  charter.  Fifteen  per  cent,  is 
the  per  cent,  used  whenever  the  referen- 
dums  are  used,  as  far  as  I know,  in  the 
larger  cities.  As  far  as  I know  there  are 
only  two  large  cities  in  which  the  per- 
centage is  higher.  In  one  of  those  cities 
it  was  made  50  per  cent,  simply  for 
the  purpose  of  having  no  referendum  at 
all;  and  the  result  was  that  application 
was  made  to  the  State  Legislature  for  a 
new  charter  based  on  that  matter  alone. 

Now,  I do  not  know  whether  all  the 
members  of  this  Convention  are  familiar 
with  how  thoroughly  the  people  of  Chi- 
cago have  been  educated  to  believe  in 
the  referendum,  and  to  exercise  it.  All 
that  you  have  to  do  is  to  look  over  the 
records  of  the  past  five  or  six  years  to 
find  in  every  ward  of  the  city  that  by 
the  wise  and  by  the  ignorant,  so  called, 
by  the  rich  and  by  the  poor,  this  power 
has  been  exercised  for  the  purpose  of 
expressing  public  sentiment  on  public 
questions;  and  so  wisely  have  the  people 
of  this  city  discriminated  in  the  past  on 
any  new  question  that  was  presented  as 
to  whether  a man  was  a good  alderman, 
and  his  record  was  satisfactory  to  them 
— he  might  be  opposed  to  that  particular 
public  question — but  the  people  have 
voted  that  the  alderman  be  returned,  and 
voted  in  favor  of  that  proposition.  I am 
saying  this  because  1 believe  this  refer- 
endum question  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant questions  that  this  Convention 
will  have  to  consider,  and  unless  a refer- 
endum is  provided  the  opposition  to  this 
charter  will  be  greater  because  of  that 
one  point,  and  upon  that  point  than  upon 
any  other  point  in  this  charter  law.  I 
believe  in  15  per  cent. 

. MR.  BEEBE : I want  to  say  that  I 

am  one  of  the  few  people  who  really 
believe  in  the  people.  I really  believe 
that  when  the  people  elect  a man  to 
represent  them  in  the  City  Council,  or 
in  any  other  legislative  capacity,  that 
the  people  expect  that  man  to  do  the 
work;  and  I believe  that  if  we  select 
aldermen  for  a four  year  term,  or  a six 


year  term,  or  for  a ten  year  term,  the 
people  electing  these  men  for  any  speci- 
fied term  expect  those  people  whom  they 
have  elected  to  do  their  work  as  legis- 
lators. But  I believe  in  the  referendum 
only  on  one  proposition.  I believe  in 
the  referendum  as  a check  upon  matters 
of  franchise,  and  upon  matters  of  fran- 
chise purely;  and  I can  conceive  of  no 
condition  whereby  the  people 

MR.  MERRIAM:  May  I ask  a ques- 

tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Do  you  believe  in 

the  referendum  on  bond  issues? 

MR.  BEEBE:  On  bond  issues? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Yes. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Possibly  on  bond  is- 
sues  1 will  say  that  on  matters  of 

revenue,  possibly,  also. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  It  is  provided  for 

in  the  constitution,  is  it  not? 

MR.  BEEBE:  Just  on  matters  of 

revenue  and  on  matters  of  franchise  and 
not  upon  any  general  matters.  I do  not 
believe  in  the  initiative  referendum.  I 
do  not  believe  in  the  people  initiating 
legislation.  I believe  they  elect  men  for 
that  purpose.  I-  believe  25  per  cent,  is 
a fair  petition  because  it  must  be  a 
petition  where  a manifest  injustice  has 
been  done  to  the  public.  I believe  that 
a large  petition  is  far  better  than  a 
small  one.  I proposed  15  per  cent,  in 
the  first  place,  but  I believe  25  per  cent, 
is  far  better  than  15. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I wish  just  to  add 

this  word  to  this  discussion:  I have  been 
for  many  years  where  I could  see  the 
popular  effect  of  the  referendum  vote, 
and  I wish  to  make  it  clear  that  among 
those  who  most  need  education  in  citizen- 
ship there  is  scarcely  any  better  means 
of  educating  the  electorate  than  by  the 
submission  of  the  referendum  on  all  ques- 
tions of  public  policy.  I wish  also  to 
make  the  point  that  in  proportion  as  the 
people  favor  the  referendum  will  there 
be  a rise  in  the  percentage.  Raising  of 
the  percentage  makes  it  impossible  for 


December  15 


381 


1906 


them  to  exercise  their  prerogative.  In 
asking  for  the  submission  of  the  refer- 
endum vote  I therefore  favor  15  per  cent, 
and  believe  that  is  a safe  percentage. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  It  occurs  to  me 

that  it  is  desirable  to  suggest,  that  a 
desirable  suggestion  may  be  made  at 
this  point;  1 don’t  see  anywhere  a reso- 
lution that  the  council  be  authorized  to 
order  a referendum  vote. 

Not  long  since  the  traction  question 
was  before  the  council  very  accurately 
and  very  actively,  and  provoked  a great 
deal  of  discussion  on  the  floor  of  the 
council  and  all  over  the  city,  and  at  that 
time  the  council  saw  fit  to  pass  a resolu- 
tion that  none  should  be  adopted  until 
after  a referendum  had  been  had  upon 
it.  I believe  that  was  a very  good  pro- 
position. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  matter  will 

come  up  when  that  section  come!?  up  for 
discussion. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I am  discussing 

this  in  connection  with  that  section.  It 
seems  to  me  a petition  might  be  expen- 
sive to  get  when  there  is  no  desire  for  it, 
when  there  is  not  much  desire  for  it. 
If  the  people  had  any  reason  to  believe 
that  the  council  were  selling  them  out 
there  would  be  no  trouble  in  getting  a 
petition.  Places  where  petitions  would 
be  signed  would  be  thronged  by  voters 
anxious  to  put  their  names  down.  Now, 
if  we  have  a provision  in  the  charter 
that  the  council  must  have  a referendum 
vote  upon  every  franchise,  and  in  the 
franchise  considered  to  be  absolutely  fair 
by  everybody,  and  that  the  council  does 
not  ask  for  a referendum,  nobody  would 
object;  there  would  be  no  desire  for  a 
petition  of  even  5 per  cent.  If  there 
is  a certain  question  as  to  whether  it  is 
desirable  to  grant  the  franchise  most 
aldermen  will  be  very  glad  to  put  it  up 
to  their  people.  An  aldermen  does  not 
like  to  be  accused,  even  by  the  ignorant 
and  malicious,  of  having  wrong  senti- 
ments when  he  has  not  got  them.  And 
if  there  was  a question  of  doubt  an  aider- 


man  would  much  rather  put  it  to  a refer- 
endum vote  than  advocate  it  in  his 
ward ; then  if  there  is  a question  of  doubt 
and  some  alderman  proposed  to  have  a 
referendum  upon  this,  a majority  vote 
will  at  once  arouse  public  suspicion,  and 
you  could  get  your  25  cent,  in  that  case 
just  as  easily  as  15  per  cent,  in  the 
other,  and  not  have  so  much  red  tape 
about  it.  Therefore,  Mr.  Chairman,  if 
it  can  be  done  under  rule,  I will  move 
that  the  question  as  amended  by  Mr. 
Beebe  be  further  amended  so  that  the 
council  can  call  for  a referendum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

have  to  rule  that  was  not  germane.  The 
question  must  be  upon  the  amendment  by 
substituting  the  figures  15  for  the  figures 
10,  and  the  figures  10  for  the  figures  25. 

MR.  WERNO:  Just  a minute;  I de- 

sire to  say  that  it  seems  to  be  an  opinion 
quite  general  among  the  members  here 
that  15  per  cent,  would  be  nearer  right 
than  10  per  cent,  or  25  per  cent.  I am 
willing  to  accept  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
McGoorty,  making  it  15;  I believe  that 
if  we  make  that  per  cent  15,  that  is 
all  that  ought  to  be  reasonably  asked; 
that  would  mean  a petition  with  at  least 
60,000  names  to  it,  and  that  is  certainly 
quite  a respectable  minority  of  the  voters 
of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  DEVER:  I intended  to  discuss 

another  question,  but  under  the  ruling 
of  the  Chair  I expect  it  would  not  be 
proper  at  this  time.  I understand  the 
motion  made  by  Mr.  Beebe  is  to  substi- 
tue  alternative  2 for  2 and  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  DEVER:  And  that  the  motion 

before  the  house  is  that  the  per  cent,  be 
made  15,  not  25? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  ques- 

tion. 

MR.  DEVER:  The  question  we  are  dis- 
cussing is  simply  the  question  of  the 
amendment,  the  amendment  of  Alderman 
Werno,  dr  Professor  Merriam. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Werno 


December  15 


382 


1906 


has  withdrawn  his  amendment  of  10  per 
cent.,  I believe. 

MR.  DEVER:  Just  one  word;  it  has 

been  said  by  some  gentleman  on  the 
floor  here  that  it  was  an  easy  matter,  a 
rather  easy  matter  to  procure  a petition 
containing  25  per  cent,  of  the  names 
of  the  registered  voters  of  this  city.  To 
those  who  have  had  some  actual  experi- 
ence in  that  matter,  that  may  seem  to 
be  a little  strange.  I believe  they  would 
be  prepared  to  say  that  is  not  so.  It 
is  an  extremely  difficult  matter,  and  it 
is  only  in  an  extreme  case,  and  in  a case 
where  the  whole  populace  is  more  or 
less  aroused  that  it  is  even  possible  to 
get  a 25  per  cent,  petition,  and  it  is 
only  possible  then  when  we  have  interests 
working  for  the  petition  wThieh  feel 
that  they  can  afford  to  spend  a consid- 
erable amount  of  money  in  procuring  that 
petition. 

It  is  true,  as  Alderman  McCormick  has 
said,  that  if  there  is  an  ordinance  pro- 
posed or  passed  by  the  City  Council  that 
may  be  inimical  to  the  best  interests  of 
the  city  then  the  people  en  masse  may 
want  to  sign  a petition.  But  that  is  not 
the  difficulty.  It  is  easy  enough  to  get 
the  voters  to  consent  to  that  petition  if 
you  can  procure  ways  and  means  of  re- 
presenting the  petition  to  the  voters,  or 
in  some  convenient  way  where  they  can 
sign  it.  But  if  we  are  going  to  kill  off 
the  idea  of  a referendum  altogether,  if 
we  want  to  wipe  out  the  idea  of  a refer- 
endum in  this  city,  I can  imagine  no 
better  way  to  do  it  than  to  fix  the  period 
of  time  as  30  days  and  the  per  cent,  of 
signers  at  25  per  cent.,  and  the  other 
amendment  proposed  of  requiring  a ma- 
jority of  the  voters  to  vote  at  the  elec- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  section  relat- 
ing to  the  30  days  has  been  changed. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  when 

I arose  in  the  first  place  to  try  to  stop 
all  this  discussion  I probably  was  in 
advance  of  my  time  fifty  years;  I will 
admit  that  these  gentlemen  are  that 


much  behind.  I proposed  15  per  cent. 
I did  it  advisedly.  There  are  men  here 
in  this  body  now  that  have  s^en  men 
standing  in  this  building  with  petitions 
on  the  radiators  asking  everybody  to  sign 
as  they  passed  and  telling  them  some- 
thing that  was  not  true.  There  are  men 
in  this  room  now  that  can  vouch  that 
men  who  have  gone  out  with  a petition 
to  get  them  to  sign  for  the  referendum 
lied,  that  they  told  them  they  were  sign- 
ing for  something  that  they  were  not 
signing  for;  and  I am  one  of  those  men, 
and  there  are  others  here,  that  I can  call 
by  name  if  necessary.  I am  one  of  those 
men  who  have  been  asked  to  sign  in  the 
corridor  of  this  building.  And  I have 
been  in  offices  of  members  of  this  Con- 
vention when  they  wrere  asked  to  sign 
for  the  same  thing,  for  something  that 
was  totally  different  from  what  they 
were  afked  to  sign  for.  The  explana- 
tion of  these  people  was  not  satisfactory. 
When  I moved  15  per  cent.  I did  not 
anticipate  or  expect  we  would  have  all 
this  discussion,  and  I moved  it  just  as  a 
premonition  of  what  was  coming.  I say 
this  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentle- 
men of  the  Convention,  that  15  per  cent, 
is  just  as  few  or  is  just  as  little  as  there 
should  be.  And  there  should  be  also 
something  stated  that  a man  should  get 
jerked  up  pretty  quick  as  soon  as  he 
misrepresents.  I don’t  care  who  it  is  for 
or  what  it  is  for,  if  he  misrepresents  he 
should  be  called  down.  There  are  people 
in  this  room  that  can  tell  you,  and  I am 
one  of  them,  that  they  were  asked  to 
sign  petitions  and  told  what  they  were 
for,  and  that  it  was  an  absolute  lie.  I 
have  no  fear  of  the  press  or  anybody 
else.  I don’t  have  to  cater  to  anybody. 
So  I say  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gen- 
tlemen, that  it  was  an  absolute  falsehood, 
when  they  asked  me  to  sign  for  some- 
thing that  was  not  the  truth.  I believe 
in  the  truth,  and  I believe  in  standing  for 
a principle,  and  I respect  those  that  will 
stand  for  a principle,  but  not  to  hood- 
wink people,  to  grab  them  as  they  pass 


December  15 


383 


1906 


through  a corridor  and  tell  them  they 
are  signing  something  that  is  not  so. 

I again  move  that  my  original  motion 
of  15  per  cent,  be  inserted  in  this^ 
amendment  we  are  talking  to  now. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  I desire 

the  indulgence  of  the  Convention  just  a 
minute  while  I say  a word  on  Alderman 
Werno ’s  motion  for  15  per  cent. 

The  principle  of  the  referendum  in 
democratic  governments  has  been  worked 
out  more  completely  in  Switzerland, 
where  it  really  originated,  than  in  any 
other  democratic  government;  and  in  the 
various  cantons  of  Switzerland  the 
number  of  names  required  to  a petition 
ranges  from  12*4  to  20  per  cent,  of  the 
voters. 

MR.  CHURCH:  How  about  their 

population  f 

MR.  SNOW:  The  question  of  popula- 

tion cuts  no  figure  where  the  percentage 
basis  is  used.  There  are  just  as  many 
more  to  get  in  proportion  to  the  number 
of  voters  there  are. 

In  addition  to  that  the  Swiss  provision 
calls  for  the  most  careful  scrutiny  of  the 
petition.  They  do  not  allow  a petition 
to  be  secured  as  we  have  been  in  the 
habit  of  securing  a petition  in  this  coun- 
try in  our  efforts  for  a referendum. 
There  is  no  haphazard  gathering  of  < 
names.  The  provisions  in  nearly  all  are 
that  the  signing  of  a petition  shall  be 
safeguarded  with  the  same  limitations 
that  are  required  in  voting.  Citizens  de- 
siring to  sign  a petition — and  in  some 
cantons  they  have  an  oral  provision — but 
those  desiring  to  express  their  approval 
of  a petition  must  go  before  the  election 
officer  of  what  is  equivalent  to  our  pre- 
cincts, in  order  that  he  may  express  that 
desire. 

Now,  if  in  a country  where  the  princi- 
ple has  been  worked  out  most  fully  the 
number  required  ranges  as  high  as  20 
per  cent,  with  the  additional  restrictions 
upon  the  manner  in  which  the  petition 
was  signed,  then  I submit  to  this  Con- 
vention that  a requirement  of  25  per 


cent.,  in  a free  and  easy  manner  in  which 
petitions  are  made  and  secured  here,  is 
a reasonable  requirement. 

MR.  DEYER:  I do  not  wish  to  dis- 

cuss the  question.  Under  our  rule  five 
o’clock  would  be  the  adjourning  hour. 
I have  an  appointment  at  five  o ’clock,  and 
for  that  reason  I move  that  we  adjourn. 

MR.  REYELL:  I want  to  make  a 

motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Dever  has 

moved  that  we  adjourn.  The  Chair  has 
no  choice  but  to  put  the  motion. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  With  Alderman 

Dever ’s  consent,  I ask  to  make  a motion 
in  regard  to  procedure  next  week;  I move 
you  set  the  subject  of  revenue — I move 
you  that  the  subject  of  revenue  be  made 
a special  order  for  7:30  o’clock  next 
Tuesday  evening,  December  18. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I move  you  that 

education  be  made  a special  order  for 
Thursday  evening  at  7:30  o ’clock. 

MR.  SHEPARD : That  woman  suf- 

frage be  made  a special  order  to  be  taken 
up  immediately  upon  the  disposition  of 
the  subject  of  education. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  favor 
that  will  signify  by  saying  aye. 

MR.  EIDMANN ; Before  that  is  put, 
I have  a resolution  I wish  to  hand  in  to 
the  Secretary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

ask  that  the  motion  to  adjourn  be  not 
put  until  the  pending  matters  are  off  the 
desk.  The  question  is  upon  Mr.  Shep- 
ard’s motion;  as  many  as  favor  that 
signify  by  saying  aye. 

MR.  ROBINS:  In  regard  to  this 

matter  of  woman  suffrage,  I wish  the 
time  might  be  set  as  specific  as  the  other 
matters,  because  there  are  a number  of 
ladies  who  wish  to  attend,  and  I think 
they  have  a perfect  right  to  attend,  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  should  be  done. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  be  pos- 

sible before  the  week  is  concluded ; we 
will  know  just  how  much  is  to  be  taken 
up. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I moved  that  it  be 


December  15 


384 


1906 


taken  up  after  education,  it  should  be 
at  the  conclusion  of  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  will  be  at 

least  24  hours’  notice. 

MR.  G.  W.  NIXON:  Why  not  make 

it  for  Wednesday  afternoon? 

MR.  SNOW : Will  we  have  sufficient 

business  for  both  those  afternoons? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I would  judge 

so,  by  our  past  experience. 

MR.  J.  W.  DIXON:  Would  it  not  be 

well  to  have  one  of  these  subjects  taken 
up  in  the  afternoon? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  before 
the  house  is  Mr.  Shepard ’s  motion : Mr. 
Dixon  suggests  that  it  might  be  possible 
to  start  after  the  revenue  debate  on 
Wednesday  afternoon.  We  have  two 
meetings  before  that. 

MR.  TAYLOR : I submit  that  the 

subject  of  education  cannot  be  fairly 
taken  up  in  the  afternoon,  on  account  of 
so  many  desiring  to  attend  the  discussion 
that  can  only  attend  in  the  evening. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

gentlemen  do  with  this  matter? 

(Cries  of  ‘ ‘ Question.  ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  J.  W.  DIXON:  I will  withdraw 

my  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor will  signify  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no;  it  is  carried  and  so  ordered. 
Now,  there  is  a communication  here 
from  Mister Do  you  desire  to  ad- 

journ before  discussing  this  matter? 

(Cries  of  “No,  no.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Then  let  the 

Chair  put  the  motion  to  adjourn.  As 
many  as  favor  adjourning  now  signify  by 
saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no.  The 
motion  to  adjourn  is  lost. 

A VOICE:  Roll  call,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  roll  be 

called. 

Yeas— Burke,  Crilly,  Dever,  Guerin, 
Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  McKin- 
ley, O’Donnell,  Rainey,  Robins,  Rosen- 


thal, Shedd,  Shepard,  Taylor,  Vopicka, 
Werno,  Zimmer — 18. 

Nays — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown,  Carey, 
s Church,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eekhart,  B.  A., 
Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Gansbergen, 
Hunter,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Lundberg, 
McCormick,  Raymer,  Revell,  Shanahan,. 
Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Young — 24. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  adjourn  the  yeas  are  18  and  the  nays 
24.  The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  SNOW : I ask  that  the  previous 

question 

MR.  BURKE : A point  of  order 

MR.  SNOW : I ask  for  the  previous 

question  on  the  amendment  offered  by 
Alderman  Werno. 

MR.  BURKE:  A point  of  order.  I 

take  it  our  rules  provide  that  we  shall  be 
in  session  from  two  to  five  o’clock.  We 
are  governed,  outside  of  the  rules  adopt- 
ed, by  Roberts’  Rules  of  Order.  In  or- 
der to  suspend  the  rules  it  would  be  ne- 
cessary to  have  a two-thirds’  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chairman 

does  not  understand  that  that  was  adopt- 
ed as  a rule;  the  only  thing  that  was 
adopted  as  the  rules  of  this  Convention 
are  the  rules  contained  in  this  book. 
The  resolution  was  adopted  wffiich  was 
in  no  sense  a rule;  and  the  Convention 
has  uniformly  violated  the  resolution,  and 
upon  the  question  to  adjourn  the  Chair 
rules  that  the  majority  rule. 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

MR.  REVELL:  I would  like  to  speak 

upon  this  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Revell  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  SNOW : I withdraw  that  point 

for  the  moment. 

MR.  REVELL:  I rise  to  favor  the 

25  per  cent,  petition.  I hope  the  con- 
ditions will  come  in  the  City  of  Chicago 
where  the  City  of  Chicago  will  put  itself 
in  a position  to  do  business.  If  you  are 
going  to  say  one-sixth  of  the  vot- 
ers of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  hold 
up  some  reasonable  proposition  which 
the  council  may  approve  and  defer  it 


December  15 


385 


1906 


from  election  to  election,  you  will  not 
under  other  provisions  of  this  proposi- 
tion be  able  to  get  anything  through 
here,  because  if  you  say  that  a majority 
of  the  voters  that  vote  upon  a given 
question  at  the  election  shall  decide 
the  matter,  then  you  are  also  saying  at 
the  same  time  that  a small  proportion 
of  the  voters  of  the  City  of  Chicago  can 
carry  or  defeat  some  proposition  which 
may  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  of 
the  City  of  Chicago,  and  therefore  at 
each  election  15  per  cent,  can  sign  a peti- 
tion and  defeat  it  from  election  to  elec- 
tion. 

The  point  was  made  here  that  a peti- 
tion of  25  per  cent,  would  cost  from 
$2,000  to  $4,000.  Well,  suppose  it  does 
cost  $2,000  to  $4,000,  should  we  not  con- 
sider the  fact  that  if  one-sixth  of  the 
voters  should  say  we  must  have  an  elec- 
tion that  the  people  would  then  be  sad- 
dled with  an  expense  of  $60,000  to 
$100,000  for  the  election? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Permit  me  to  ask  a 

question:  Where  will  the  expense  come 

in,  Mr.  Revell,  of  $60,000  to  $100,000 
for  a referendum,  to  have  a referendum 
taken  at  an  election? 

MR.  REVELL:  I understand  that  an 

election  costs  between  $60,000  and 
$100,000.  A large  portion  of  that  ex- 
pense will  be  attributable  to  what  we 
are  talking  about  today. 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  can  only  be  the 

printing  of  the  ballots.  I think  Mr.  Re- 
vell will  admit  that  he  is  mistaken  in 
that. 

MR.  REVELL:  I take  that  part  out 

of  my  statement  in  connection  with  that 
matter.  But  it  does  seem  to  me  in 
view  of  the  whole  situation  here  regard- 
ing the  matter  of  whether  or  not  the 
argument  is  the  majority  of  votes  against 
a general  proposition,  or  the  majority  of 
votes  cast  at  the  election,  you  are  put- 
ting yourself  up  against  a proposition 
whereby  the  City  Council  will  not  be 
able  to  put  through  anything  that  may 
be  objected  to  by  one  sixth  of  the  voters 


who  may  not  be  in  favor  of  spending 
money  or  seeing  anything  through  that 
ought  to  be  done  for  the  benefit  of  the 
City  of  Chicago.  We  should  get  into 
shape  here  some  time  where  the  City  of 
Chicago  can  do  business. 

(Cries  of  ‘ ‘ Question,  question.”) 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  while  the  difference 
between  15  and  25  per  cent  may  not  be 
very  much  in  per  cent,  it  is  really  a 
very  much  more  vital  point  in  the  char- 
ter than  many  of  the  members  suspect. 
I think  that  the  adoption  of  the  elimina- 
tion clause  and  restricting  it  in  other 
ways,  goes  far  towards  making  the  char- 
ter ridiculous.  We  have  already  elimi- 
nated without  voting  the  proposition 
contained  in  number  21 — 1;  and  we  are 
eliminating  without  voting  or  discus- 
sion the  proposition  contained  in  num- 
ber 22 — 2,  which  a great  many  people 
favor.  I do  not  favor  it  myself.  But 
there  are  a very  great  many  people  in 
the  city  who  do  favor  it.  We  are  not 
boiling  it  down,  after  eliminating  the 
initiative  and  the  general  referendum, 
we  are  boiling  it  down  to  merely  the 
question  of  franchises  to  public  utility 
corporations.  The  restriction  of  the  scope 
of  the  referendum  is  in  my  judgment 
wise,  but  we  nevertheless  should,  in 
making  such  restrictions  to  the  form 
of  the  referendum,  give  a type  of  refer- 
endum that  would  be  absolutely  free 
from  reproach  by  anybody  in  this  com- 
munity, as  being  unfair,  or  being,  as  it 
has  been  said  in  this  Convention,  a 
sham  and  a mock  referendum.  Now, 
the  general  principle  of  the  referendum 
is  to  provide  for  a referendum  upon  a 
petition  of  from  10  to  15  per  cent  of 
the  voters.  We  are  practically  doub- 
ling that  amount  by  requiring  25  per 
cent.  Twenty-five  per  cent  of  the  voters 
means  the  signatures  of  at  least  nine- 
ty thousand  persons  in  this  city,  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  if  a question  is  so  im- 
portant that  fifty  to  sixty  thousand  peo- 
ple demand  a vote  on  it  that  it  is  unfair 


December  15 


386 


1906 


from  such  a vote  to  require  an  addition 
of  forty  thousand  more  voters;  that  is 
too  much;  it  is  too  limited,  and  too  re- 
stricted. It  would  be  an  unpopular  part 
of  the  charter.  We  have  eliminated  the 
referendum  in  many  ways,  and  the  ini- 
tiative; we  are  confining  ourselves  to 
franchises  on  public  utility  questions. 
We  should  be  careful  not  to  make  it 
too  limited. 

MR.  SNOW:  I move  that  the  roll  be 

called. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I sincerely 

trust,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  those  who 
are  in  favor  of  this  large  number  of  pe- 
titions will  be  fair  to  those  of  us  who 
disagree  with  them.  Now  the  hour  is 
late,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  this  is  an  all- 
important  question,  and  I hope  that  the 
gentlemen  who  are  calling  so  vigorous- 
ly for  the  previous  question  will  not  lay 
the  flattering  unction  to  their  souls  that 
this  question  is  going  to  be  decided  on 
a snap  judgment;  for  it  is  not.  It  is 
one  of  the  vital  questions 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  gentle- 

men remain  in  their  places? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  One  of  the  vital 

questions  of  the  charter;  it  is  one  of  the 
vital  questions  that  will  make  for  the 
adoption  of  your  charter  by  the  people, 
or  that  will  be  against  it.  Now,  Chica- 
go is  in  earnest,  I sincerely  believe,  on 
this  proposition,  that  the  people  want 
to  have  a voice,  beyond  saying  that 
they  can  interrupt  or  destroy  an  ordi- 
nance, or  legislation,  or  interfere  with 
business;  they  are  in  earnest  that  they 
shall  have  a voice  in  the  transaction  of 
their  own  business.  The  city  officials 
are  not  the  governors,  nor  the  masters 
of  the  people,  nor  are  they  elected  to 
govern  the  people.  As  has  been  said  on 
the  floor  of  this  house,  their  function  is 
to  represent  the  people;  to  represent 
their  wishes,  their  wants,  their  desires, 
their  interests.  Now  are  we  going  to 
destroy  this  referendum?  Are  we  going 
to  make  it  so  that  it  cannot  act,  and 
will  not  act?  All  the  cities  of  the  coun- 


try, the  great  majority  of  the  cities  of 
the  country  who  have  adopted  this  ini- 
tiative, or  this  referendum,  confine 
themselves  to  15  per  cent.  San  Fran- 
cisco, I think,  confines  itself  to  2 per 
cent,  provided  that  that  2 per  cent  is 
not  less  than  1,000  votes.  Now  for  you 
to  heap  on  this  referendum  the  neces- 
sity to  go  out  and  get  seventy-five  to 
eighty  or  ninety  thousand  votes  upon 
some  proposition  that  the  people  are  vi- 
tally interested  in  is  tying  the  hands  of 
the  people.  It  is  in  favor — and  I want 
to  charge  it — it  is  in  favor  of  the  pub- 
lic utility  franchise-seeking  corpora- 
tions that  have  done  their  best  to  kill 
Chicago.  Now,  as  I said  before,  this  is 
a late  hour  to  discuss  this  proposition. 
I have  several  things  to  say  on  this. 
We  went  through  such  a volume  of  busi- 
ness today  that  I never,  thought  we 
should  reach  it.  I do  not  think  it  is 
fair,  gentlemen,  to  press  this  vote  to- 
night. This  is  one  of  the  things  that 
will  mean  success  to  our  charter  in 
Chicago,  or  it  means  its  death. 

Now,  you  can  do  as  you  please  in 
this.  I sincerely  hope  this  matter  will 
not  be  pressed  here  without  a full,  fair 
and  complete  and  free  discussion  of  it. 

I say  this  to  you,  Alderman  Snow. 
It  is  your  motion  to  cut  off  the  debate 
on  this  question.  I say  this  to  you,  be- 
cause if  you  do  not  give  a fair  discus- 
sion of  this  question  here  other  men  in 
this  Convention  will  insist  on  it  and  it 
means  the  loss  of  your  charter. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  I renew 

my  call  for  the  previous  question. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair 

would  suggest  that  the  vote  should  come 
to  a head  by  a direct  vote,  and  if  the 
Convention  will  allow  I will  put  the 
question.  Do  you  desire  any  further 
discussion? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  This  is  the  first 

} time  the  previous  question  has  been 
moved  in  this  Convention. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish 


December  15 


387 


1906 


to  say  a word.  I have  got  to  go  and  I 
wish  to  be  recorded  as  voting  against 
the  15  per  cent. 

ME.  COLE:  I have  got  to  go,  and 

I am  in  favor  of  15  per  cent. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

1 move  this  be  made  a special  order  for 

2 o ’clock  on  Monday  afternoon. 

MR.  SNOW:  I will  move  that  it  lay 

on  the  table,  if  necessary. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I want  to  vote 

on  this  question  and  I think  it  is  very 
important. 

MR,  LINEHAN:  I have  the  floor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Linehan  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I want  to  say  this: 

This  is  Saturday  afternoon,  and  I have 
no  objection  whatsoever  to  letting  this 
go  over.  It  will  be  discussed  in  the 
Sunday  papers  tomorrow  and  there  will 
be  a freer  and  better  thought  on  Mon- 
day if  you  want  to  take  it  up  and  act 
on  it  then.  It  doesn’t  come  with  good 
grace  at  this  time  just  because  there  is 
a possibility  of  voting  this  question  in 
favor  of  the  25  per  cent,  with  men 
who  are  on  record  for  years  as  advo- 
cates of  this  referendum  question  ab- 
sent from  this  meeting  today.  They  are 
unable  to  attend,  and  I grant  you — of 
course  that  is  no  excuse.  This  question 
should  stand  over  till  we  have  had  a 
fair  and  deliberate  discussion.  We  have 
acted  with  the  desire  of  giving  every- 
body a free  show  to  express  their 
thoughts,  and  this  is  the  first  time  in 
this  Convention,  so  far,  that  an  effort 
has  been  made  to  force  any  question  to 
a vote  in  such  a manner.  I am  distinct- 
ly opposed  to  voting  on  this  question  at 
the  present  time.  I think  it  should  lay 
over  until  some  time  next  week. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  It  has  frequent- 

ly been  said  in  this  Convention  that  any 
of  these  matters  can  be  reconsidered  at 
any  time.  Now  I do  not  believe  that 
there  is  any  special  person  that  is  stand- 
ing for  a 25  per  cent,  or  a 20  per  cent, 
or  a 15  per  cent,  but  let  us  get  a test 


vote  on  it.  If  the  25  per  cent  proposi- 
tion won’t  carry,  try  some  other  per- 
centage, but  don’t  put  it  off  from  day 
to  day.  If  25  per  cent  carries  today 
and  you  want  to  reconsider  it  on  Mon- 
day, or  any  other  day,  you  can  do  so. 
Because  of  these  considerations  I think 
we  should  proceed. 

MR.  BURKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

ask  a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  BURKE:  Is  it  your  understand- 

ing that  in  case  the  motion  is  lost  it 
would  require  a two-thirds  vote  to  re- 
consider? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  No,  sir;  I do 

not  so  understand. 

MR.  SNOW:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  “ question.  ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

on  the  substitution  of  the  figures  15  for 
the  figures  25. 

MR.  DEYER:  To  a point  of  order. 

The  question  was  on  the  previous  ques- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

meaning  of  the  previous  question  when 
you  take  a direct  vote? 

MR.  DEYER:  I understood  that  was 

the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  did 

not  recognize  that  motion. 

MR.  SNOW : I withdraw  the  motion. 

MR,  DEVER:  Then  I move  to  defer 

the  consideration  of  this  question  until 
the  next  meeting  of  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  on  the  motion  to  defer. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman, 
what  is  the  pending  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  defer  until 

next  meeting. 

Yeas — Burke,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G. 
W.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Guerin,  Linehan, 
Lundberg,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Rai- 
ney, Robins,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno, 
Zimmer — 16. 

Nays — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown,  Carey, 


December  15 


388 


1906 


Church,  Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eidmann,  Gans- 
bergen,  Hill,  Hunter,  Kittleman,  Lath- 
rop,  McCormick,  Merriam,  O’Donnell, 
Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Revell,  Rosenthal, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Snow,  Sunny — 25. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  defer  the  yeas  are  16  and  the 
noes  25,  and  the  motion  is  lost,  and 
the  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
substitute. , 

MR.  DEYER:  I would  like  to  ask 

for  information  from  the  Chair.  What 
number  constitutes  a quorum  in  this 
Convention? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  41 

members  voting,  and  a quorum  consists 
of  37  members. 

MR.  DEYER:  And  41  vote? 

MR.  SNOW:  Question. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I simply  wish 

to  say  a word  on  this  proposition.  I 
myself  am  very  much  opposed  to  the 
extension  principle  of  the  referendum. 
And  I have  on  the  table  an  amend- 
ment that  I would  like  to  propose,  but 
if  we  are  going  to  have  a referendum 
on  any  proposition  it  does  seem  to  me 
it  should  not  be  a sham  referendum; 
and  it  ought  not  to  be  too  difficult  to 
get  the  number  of  voters.  Now  there 
is  a real  difference  of  opinion  and  an 
honest  difference  of  opinion  between  15 
per  cent  and  25  per  cent,  and  I think 
that  is  one  of  the  matters  on  which 
both  sides  ought  to  do  a little  trim- 
ming. I therefore  propose  that  that 
number  be  changed  to  20  per  cent. 

MR.  SNOW:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Rosenthal  if  he  would  not  be  willing 
to  withdraw  that  motion  until  we  have 
had  the  vote  on  15. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I am  perfectly 

willing  to  do  that. 

MR.  SNOW:  That  may  possibly  car- 

ry, but  we  should  have  a straight  vote 
on  15  and  consider  that  motion  after- 
wards. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 


tary call  the  roll  on  the  straight  vote 
of  15  instead  of  25. 

Yeas — Burke,  Carey,  Crilly,  Dever, 
Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Gansbergen,  Guerin, 
Kittleman,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  Mc- 
Goorty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell, 
Pendarvis,  Rainey,  Taylor,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  Zimmer — 20. 

Nays  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Church,  Dixon,  G.  W.;  Eckhart,  B.  A.; 
Eidmann,  Hill,  Hunter,  Lathrop,  McCor- 
mick, Raymery  Revell,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Snow,  Sunny — 21. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Call  the  ab- 

sentees, Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  absentees  roll. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Absent,  or  not 

voting? 

Absent  or  Not  Voting — Badenoch, 
Baker,  Beilfuss,  Brosseau,  Clettenberg, 
Cole,  Cruice,  Dixon,  T.  J.;  Erickson, 
Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Foreman,  Graham, 
Haas,  Harrison,  Hoyne,  Jones,  MacMil- 
lan, Oehne,  Owens,  Paullin,  Patterson, 
Post,  Powers,  Rinaker,  Sethness,  Swift, 
Thompson,  Walker,  White,  Wilkins, 
Wilson,  Young — 33. 

‘ THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  substitute  the  figures  15  for  25 
the  yeas  are  20  and  the  noes  21;  on  the 
motion  to  substitute 

MR.  BURKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire a verification  of  the  roll. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary verify  the  roll. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  to  a 

point  of  order.  Verification,  after  the 
result  lias  been  announced? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  roll  be 

verified,  if  there  is  any  doubt  about  it. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  to  a 

point  of  order.  I want  to  know 
whether  I may  change  my  vote  from 
aye  to  no? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is 

under  the  impression  that  you  voted 


no. 


December  15 


389 


1906 


MR.  BURKE : He  may  change  it, 

Mr.  Chairman,  cannot  he? 

MR.  ROBINS:  I simply  wish  to 

know  whether  I may  change  my  vote 
from  aye  to  no  or  the  other  way? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

rule  no,  after  the  vote  has  been  an- 
nounced. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  To  a point  of  or- 

der. Has  not  the  Chair  by  permitting 
a verification  of  the  roll  reserved  to 
the  members  of  the  Convention  the 
right  to  change  their  vote,  before  he 
has  actually  announced  the  vote?  Is 
not  that  in  order  under  Roberts’  Rules 
of  Order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  per- 

mitted a verification  of  the  roll  to  as- 
certain whether  or  not  there  was  any 
error,  and  because  it  was  such  a close 
vote.  But  that  does  not  carry  the 
privilege  of  changing  the  vote,  and 
that  was  not  in  the  mind  of  the  Chair. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  That  might  not 

have  been  in  the  mind  of  the  Chair,  but 
it  was  not  announced  to  the  Convention, 
Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  RAINEY:  Mr.  Chairman,  be- 

fore leaving  the  Convention  Mr.  Cole 
announced  that  he  wished  to  be  re- 
corded as  voting  aye.  Did  you  so  record 
him? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  rule 

to  permit  an  absent  vote.  Will  the 
Secretary  continue? 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wish  to  give  notice 

for  reconsideration  of  this  matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  notice  will 

be  recorded.  The  Secretary  has  some 
communications  which  he  will  please 
read. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

T think  I am  entitled  to  consideration. 
T made  a motion  that  the  per  cent  be 
made  20,  and  that  was  accepted  by  Al- 
derman Snow. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  was  the 

motion? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  the  per 

cent  be  changed  to  20. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  un- 

able to  hear  anything. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  The  motion  was 

that  the  per  cent  be  20  instead  of  25. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  And  that  was 

accepted  by  Alderman  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  All  legislation  is  a 

matter  of  compromise,  and  as  the  ma- 
jority has  gone  on  record  against  15, 
and  the  voting  was  very  close,  I myself 
would  favor  the  20  per  cent  proposition. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I ask  a vote. 

MR.  SNOW:  I second  the  motion. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Since  the  roll  call 

was  announced  a number  of  members 
have  left  the  hall.  I think  we  should 
be  satisfied  with  this  close  vote  on  this 
matter  and  it  should  now  be  deferred. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  of 

the  same  opinion. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I move  it  be  de- 

ferred until  next  Monday,  at  2 o ’clock. 

MR,  REYELL:  I second  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  All  those  in  favor  of  its 
adoption  will  say  aye;  opposed,  no;  the 
motion  is  adopted.  One  moment  for 
announcements,  then  Mr.  O’Donnell  will 
be  recognized. 

To  the  Charter  Convention  of  the  City 
of  Chicago: 

Gentlemen — In  compliance  with  the 
resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Merriam  on 
December  6th,  1906,  and  adopted  by  this 
Convention  on  December  10th,  1906,  I 
have  the  honor  to  appoint  the  following 
delegates  as  members  of  the  committee 
on  said  resolution  provided  for: 

Frank  I.  Bennett,  Chairman. 

Charles  E.  Merriam. 

Frank  T.  Hoyne. 

B.  A.  Eckhart. 

Raymond  Robins. 

John  G.  Shedd. 

David  E.  Shanahan. 

Very  respectfully, 

MILTON  J.  FOREMAN, 
Chairman. 


THE  SECRETARY:  The  committee 


December  15 


390 


1906 


on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan 
will  meet  Tuesday,  December  18,  1906, 
at  2 o’clock  p.  m.,  at  the  headquarters 
of  the  Convention,  171  Washington 
street. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  this  Con- 

vention do  now  adjourn. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

stands  adjourned  until  Monday  at  2 
o’clock,  and  gentlemen  will  take  strict 
legal  and  judicial  notice  of  it. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Monday,  December  17,  1906,  at 
2 o’clock  p.  m. 


December  15 


391 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 


The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ite  provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


December  15 


392 


1906 


V.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1 : a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  the  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 


The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

• 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality ; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter ; it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state ; and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 


December  15 


393 


1906 


any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

Section  X and  alternative  stand  as  a 
special  order. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraph  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 


i December  14,  1906,  have  been  re-re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XV.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  paragraphs  of  Section  XV  are  de- 
ferred to  be  considered  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to-  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 


December  15 


394 


1906 


The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


XVIL  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side; -three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 

The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

Section  XVIII  and  alternatives  stand 
as  a special  order. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 


December  15 


395 


1906 


2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
.otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

In  Section  XXI  the  proposition  to  in- 


sert the  figures  25  in  the  blank  before 
the  words  “per  cent’’  in  the  alternative 
to  No.  2,  has  prevailed. 

There  is  before  the  Convention  a 
motion  to  insert  the  figures  60  before 
the  word  “days’’  in  the  second  alterna- 
tive to  No.  2. 

There  is  also  a motion  pending  to 
substitute  alternative  to  No.  2 for  para- 
graphs Nos.  1 and  2. 

The  following  motion  is  also  pending: 
The  City  Council  shall  have  the  power 
to  fix  penalties  for  any  fraud,  forgery 
or  deceit  in  the  preparation  and  sign- 
ing of  the  petition  provided  for. 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

XXII. 

5.  SECTION Nothing  in  this  act 

shall  be  construed  to  modify,  impair  or 
affect  or  to  confer  upon  the  city  coun- 
cil power  to  pass  any  ordinance  modi- 
fying, impairing  or  conflicting  with  the 
provisions  of  Section  18  of  an  act  en- 
titled “An  act  to  provide  for  the  an- 
nexation of  cities,  incorporated  towns 
and  villages  or  parts  of  same  to  cities, 
incorporated  towns  and  villages”  ap- 
proved April  25th,  1889,  or  to  any  pro- 
vision of  any  law  of  Illinois  relating  to 
the  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  or  creat- 
ing or  defining  criminal  offenses  or  relat- 
ing to  the  prosecution  and  punishment 
thereof,  nor  shall  any  amendment  or 
addition  be  made  to  the  charter  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  except  by  the  General 
Assembly,  by  which  this  section,  or  any 
part  thereof  shall,  directly  or  indirectly, 
be  abrogated,  repealed  or  annulled. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 


the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
| tendent  Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
| sistant  Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
^Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  a'nd  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


December  15 


396 


1906 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSRS  WERNO  AND  ROSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehiel**. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  ‘‘city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.  ’ ’ 

BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following* 

Provided  that  the  city  shall  keep  sep- 


arate accounts  for  each  public  utility, 
and  that  the  income  from  each  service 
shall  be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of 
that  utility  exactly  as  though  it  were 
an  independent  business  enterprise;  and 
whenever  the  income  from  any  utility 
shall  exceed  the  reasonable  needs  of 
that  service,  including  all  proper  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  the  price  of  or 
charge  for  the  service  rendered  or  com- 
modity furnished  by  such  utility  shall 
be  lowered,  to  the  end  that  the  patrons 
of  such  utility  shall  directly  secure  the 
greatest  benefit  of  the  city’s  ownership 
thereof;  and  no  such  utility  shall  be  so 
operated  as  to  render  its  charge  for  ser- 
vice an  indirect  form  of  taxation. 


BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

A permanent  educational  commission 
of  advisory  capacity  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the 
council,  to  consist  of  seventeen  mem- 
bers, who  shall  serve  without  compensa- 
tion, including  the  superintendent  of 
the  public  schools  and  the  librarian  of 
the  public  library,  who  shall  be  mem- 
bers ex  officio.  Each  other  member  shall 
hold  office  until  another  person  is  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  him. 

It  shall  be  the  function  of  the  educa- 
tional commission  to  tender  advice  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  to  correlate  the 
educational  forces  of  the  city  and  to 
prevent  unnecessary  duplication  of  ac- 
tivities by  exercising  their  influence  to- 
word  co-ordinating  the  various  educa- 
tional and  scientific  institutions  of  the 
city. 


December  15 


39  7 


1906 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53.  (Tuesday,  December  18,  at  7:30  o'clock 
p.  m. 

SECTION  XV. — Streets  and  Public  Places,  at  page  54.  (Tuesday,  December 
18,  at  7:30  o'clock  p.  m.) 

SECTION  XVII. — Education,  at  page  56.  (Thursday,  December  20,  at  7:30 
o'clock  p.  m.) 

PARAGRAPH  3. — Suffrage,  at  page  52.  (To  be  taken  up  immediately  after 
the  disposition  of  the  subject  of  Education.) 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  92, 

first  column:  Line  13,  insert  word 

‘ 1 speak  ’ ’ instead  of  ‘ ‘ come. ' ’ 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  101, 

second  column:  Line  22,  after  the  word 
* ‘ then ' ’ add  ‘ ‘ who  shall.  ’ ' 


MR.  SHEDD:  On  page  128,  first 

column,  second  line,  strike  out  “in  a'' 
and  insert  therefor:  “eliminating  the.’’ 
Also,  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
“paper,’’  insert  “but  retaining  the  par- 
ty column.  ’ ’ 


MR.  POST:  On  page  130,  second 

column,  fifth  line  from  bottom,  sub- 
stitute the  word  “constitutional’’  for 
the  word  “satisfactory.” 


MR.  SHEPARD:  On  page  134,  first 

column,  last  paragraph,  fifth  line,  strike 
out  “that  is,  that  all  municipal  officers 
and  city  officers,  including  the  municipal 
court  judges  shall  be  elected  in  the 
spring”  and  insert  therefor:  “that  is, 
that  all  city  officers  shall  be  elected  in 
the  spring  at  one  and  the  same  election, 
except  the  municipal  court  judges.” 


MR.  SHANAHAN : On  page  159, 

first  column,  next  to  last  line,  strike 
out  “it  along”  and  insert  “about  its 
passage.” 


MR.  WERNO:  On  page  161,  left 

j hand  column,  line  25,  strike  out  the 
word  “has”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof 
I the  word  “have.” 

Also  on  page  161,  right  hand  column, 
13th  line,  strike  out  the  words  “to 
give”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  “who  gives.” 


MR.  LINEHAN:  On  page  162,  first 

column,  next  to  last  line,  strike  out 
word  “devoted”  and  insert  “di- 
vorced.” Also  same  column,  last  line, 
strike  out  word  “to”  and  insert 
“from.”  Also,  same  page,  second  col- 
umn, first  line,  strike  out  “we  are  pro- 
posing” and  insert  “a  proposal.” 


MR.  POWERS:  On  page  166,  sec- 

ond column,  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  lines, 
strike  out  “Well,  can’t  he  do  that 
without  the  consent  of  this  Conven- 
tion?” and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  “He 
cannot  do  that  without  the  consent  of 
this  Convention.” 


MR,  SHANAHAN:  On  page  170, 

first  column,  fourth  line,  after  the  word 
“entrance”  insert  the  following:  “to 
the  service  protected  by  the  law.” 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  Page  179,  first 

column;  strike  out  entire  line,  and  in- 
sert in  lieu  thereof:  “that  fact  we 


December  15 


398 


1906 


put  into  the,”  also,  same  page,  same 
column,  in  fourth  line  from  bottom, 
insert  the  word  “meet”  for  “leave.” 


ME.  EEYELL:  Page  179,  about  cen- 

ter of  the  last  column,  strike  our  the 
four  last  words. 


ME.  EEYELL:  Page  181,  strike  out 

the  sentence  or  paragraph  commencing 
with  “It  seems  to  me  if  the  duty”  and 
ending  with  “that  will  at  least  let  them 
out  of  it,”  and  insert  the  following: 

“It  seems  to  me  that  as  between  an 
appointment  by  the  judge  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  and  an  appointment  by  the 
Chief  Justice  of  that  court,  which  latter 
might  be  influenced  by  the  County  Cen- 
tral Committee— as  suggested  by  Aider- 
man  Eaymer — the  latter  would  be  pre- 
ferable, as  it  would  eliminate  the  other 
twenty-seven  or  twenty-eight  judges  of 
the  Municipal  Court  from  political  in- 
fluence. It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  the 
Chief  Justice  could  be  influenced  by 
anybody  or  anyone  toward  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  incompetent  man.” 

ME.  YOPICKA:  Page  214,  second 

column,  twelfth  line  of  paragraph, 
strike  out  words  “a  movement”  and 
insert  “an  improvement.” 


ME.  PENDAEYIS:  Page  226,  second 
column,  line  24,  change  the  word  “po- 
sition” to  “provision”;  also,  same 
page,  same  column,  line  26,  change  the 
word  “of”  to  “by.” 

ME.  YOPICKA:  On  page  226,  sec- 
ond column,  correct  as  follows:  “Mr. 

Chairman. — If  Mr.  Eosenthal  will  change 
his  amendment  to  read  $3,500  minimum 


and  $5,000  maximum,  you  will  get  men 
of  more  intelligence  tb  seek  the  office; 
make  it  a minimum  salary  of  $3,500 
and  a maximum  of  $5,000,  and  not  more 
than  that.” 

ME.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

have  inserted  in  the  records  at  page 
253,  column  2,  anywhere  there,  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph,  which  was  a part  of 
Mr.  Fisher's  speech,  and  was  left  out 
wholly,  as  follows: 

“ * * * Lmehan,  to  speak 

plainly,  is  in  sympathy  with  the  present 
mayor,  for  this  reason.  He  is  willing 
that  the  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
should  be  four  years,  but  objects  to  the 
aldermanic  term  being  lengthened.  I 
ask  him  if  he  would  be  of  the  same 
mind  if  he  were  opposed  to  the  mayor, 
but  was  in  sympathy  with  the  city  coun- 
cil, which  had  to  seek  re-election  every 
two  years.” 

ME.  FISHEE:  I must  object  to  the 

insertion  of  this  language  as  being  my 
exact  language;  that  is  not  exactly  what 
I stated.  I think  it  does  fairly  state 
the  sense  of  what  was  stated,  but  the 
remark  which  I made  was  that  Mr.  Line- 
han  was  in  favor  of  the  policies  of  the 
present  mayor.  I don't  know  whether 
he  is  in  favor  of  the  present  mayor  or 
opposed  to  the  present  mayor,  but  I 
do  understand  that  he  is  in  favor  of 
the  policies  of  the  present  mayor. 


ME.  PENDAEYIS:  On  page  257, 

second  column,  line  3,  insert  the  word 
“to”  in  place  of  “on.” 

ME.  DEVEE:  On  page  299,  first  col- 

umn, fifth  line  of  the  remarks,  omit  the 
word  1 1 not.  ’ ’ Also,  after  the  word 
* 1 certain, ' ’ add  ‘ 1 general  state. ' ' 


December  15 


1906 


399 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  the, 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  townishp,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may; 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness* 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  .the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  15 


400 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

MONDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1906 


(Clftragii  (Hljartn:  (EomirntUiu 

Convened,  December  12,  1908 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman.  ...  Chairma 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . Vice-Cmairma 

M.  L.  McHinlev Secretar 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin.  Asst.  Sec 


December  17 


403 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Monday,  December  17,  1906 

2:00  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convent!  i 

' . will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  will 

I 0 call  the  roll. 

; ’ Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
I "Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke,  Carey, 
Church,  Cole,  Crilly,  Cruice,  Dever,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 

I Eidmann,  Erickson,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hun- 
ter, Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lund- 
berg,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  McKinley, 
Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Oehne,  Owens, 
Pendarvis,  Powers,  Rainey,  Raymer, 
Revell,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Swift, 
Taylor,  Thompson,  Vopicka,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 55. 

Absent — C'lettenberg,  Dixon,  T.  .T., 
Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Gansbergen,  Gra- 
ham, Guerin,  Haas,  Harrison,  Jones, 
McCormick,  Paullin,  Patterson,  Post, 
Rinakcr,  Sethness,  Smulski,  Walker, 
i Wilson — 19. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  To  facilitate  the  dis- 
cussion, Mr.  Chairman,  on  Section  18,  on 
public  education,  I offer  a third  alterna- 
tive on  my  own  responsibility,  and  not 
as  chairman  of  this  committee.  It  is 
framed  in  deference  to  those  who  desire 
a briefer  and  less  detailed  statement 
than  the  full  report  of  the  committee  as 
printed  in  the  proceedings  of  October 
3d,  and  for  those  who  would  not  sacri- 
fice administrative  efficiency  in  the  man- 
agement of  our  school  affairs. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  alternative 

will  be  printed  and  will  be  taken  up 
when  Section  18  is  up  for  discussion. 

Are  there  any  corrections  to  the  min- 
utes? If  not,  they  will  stand  ap- 
proved. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  to  have  a motion 
printed  in  reference  to  the  question  of 
public  utilities.  I wish  to  offer  this  as 
an  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Under  the  rules 

this  will  be  printed  and  will  be  taken 
up  at  some  future  time.  It  will  be 
printed. 


December  17 


404 


1906 


At  the  close  of  the  last  meeting  the 
Convention  was  discussing  a motion  to 
substitute  alternative  to  No.  2 for  Nos. 
1 and  2,  to  Section  21,  entitled  “ Ini- 
tiative and  Referendum/  ’ and  the  last 
motion  that  was  adopted  was  by  a 
vote  of  21  to  20  to  substitute  for  the 
figures  ‘ ‘ 25  ’ ’ the  figures  “ 15.  ’ ’ Mr. 
Rosenthal  introduced  another  resolution 
making  a second  change  from  15  to  20 
per  cent.  Am  I correct? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  it  is  that 

resolution  which  is  now  before  the 
house. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman, 

before  you  proceed  to  call  up  that  mat- 
ter, I would  like  to  ask  for  a correction. 
I notice  in  the  vote  taken  on  the  mo- 
tion to  adjourn  Saturday  afternoon  I 
do  not  appear  to  be  recorded  as  having 
voted,  as  shown  by  the  printed  pro- 
ceedings. I voted  “No”  on  that  mo- 
tion. This  is  at  page  384. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  send 

your  correction  to  the  Secretary,  and 
the  proper  correction  will  be  made  in 
the  minutes,  showing  that  you  voted. 

The  question  is  upon  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
resolution.  Is  that  correctly  stated? 

THE  SECRETARY:  No;  the  25  per 

cent,  was  inserted  in  the  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

advised  me  that  I am  mistaken.  The 
25  per  cent,  was  carried  by  a vote  of 
21  to  20. 

MR.  SNOW:  The  Secretary  is  mis- 

taken on  that  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  SNOW:  The  Secretary  is  mis- 

taken on  that  point.  The  vote  was 
taken  on  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr. 
McGoorty,  if  I recall  correctly,  which 
fixed  15  per  cent.,  and  that 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Was  defeated. 

MR.  SNOW : And  that  substitute 

was  defeated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  correct. 

MR.  SNOW:  The  matter  now  stands 

on  the  original  motion  for  25  per  cent., 


to  which  Mr.  Rosenthal  has  offered  as  a 
substitute  that  it  be  fixed  at  20  per 
cent.  Now,  I move  the  adoption  of  the 
substitute  as  offered  by  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen  you 
have  heard  the  motion.  The  motion  is 
to  strike  out  the  figures  11 25”  and  in- 
sert in  lieu  thereof  the  figures  “20.” 

DR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I was 

not  present  at  the  last  meeting.  I do 
not  know,  of  course,  the  temper  of  the 
Convention  in  regard  to  that  matter, 
but  I should  be  very  glad  indeed,  un- 
less everyone  has  already  made  up  his 
mind,  to  hear  at  least  a limited  discus- 
sion on  the  comparative  value  of  the  25 
per  cent,  or  the  20  per  cent. 

I very  frankly  say  that  for  myself 
I believe  15  per  cent,  is  plenty  large 
enough,  if  the  referendum  is  to  mean 
anything.  I shall  vote  against  the  20 
per  cent,  because  I am  personally  in 
favor  of  a smaller  percentage.  Twenty 
per  cent.,  I take  it,  would  mean  a gath- 
ering of  something  like  80,000  names  un- 
der our  ordinary  registration  of  voting. 
It  is  a tremendous  task  in  itself,  and, 
in  my  judgment,  is  absolutely  unfair 
to  the  principle  involved.  If  the  refer- 
endum is  to  mean  anything  in  the 
affairs  of  Chicago  in  the  future,  the 
percentage  must  be  placed  at  such  a 
minimum  that  it  becomes  a workable 
feature  in  our  government.  Otherwise, 
it  is  prohibitive,  and  by  putting  the 
percentage  so  high,  it  becomes  so  high 
as  to  make  it  impracticable  to  work, 
and  we  find  ourselves  in  the  same  po- 
sition as  though  we  had  no  referendum. 
I am  opposed  to  anything  above  15  per 
cent. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  sure  that,  viewed  from  any  stand- 
point, the  25  per  cent,  or  the  20  per 
cent,  will  be  prohibitive.  It  is  not  a 
referendum.  When  it  comes  to  the  col- 
lection of  over  50,000  names,  it  becomes 
a pretty  hard  proposition.  My  reasons 
for  believing  that  are  these,  and  I be- 
lieve that  everybody  approaches  this 


December  17 


405 


1906 


subject  in  this  Convention  with  a de-  , 
sire  to  do  what  they  think  is  best. 
There  are  now  in  the  neighborhood  of 

50,000  to  60,000  independent  votes  in 
this  city.  The  past  history  of  elections 
proves  that  fact.  There  were  in  the 
neighborhood  of  40,000  to  50,000  cast 
for  Harlan  for  mayor.  There  were  in 
the  neighborhood  of  40,000  to  50,000 
votes"  cast  for  Altgeld  for  mayor.  There 
were  in  the  neighborhood  of  40,000  to 

50.000  cast  for  Gray  for  sheriff.  This 
city  has  been  carried  by  a Republican 
mayor  by  a majority  or  a plurality  of 
about  40,000  to  50,000,  and  it  has  been 
carried  by  a Democratic  mayor  by  a 
plurality  of  about  40,000  to  50,000. 

Now,  I only  offer  this  from  this 
standpoint,  that  there  is  in  this  city  a 
floating  vote  which  you  cannot  beg, 
borrow  or  steal — understand,  you  can- 
not beg,  borrow  or  steal,  from  a polit- 
ical standpoint.  They  are  voting  for 
what  they  think  is  right,  an  independ- 
ent vote,  but  when  you  put  on  a pro- 
hibitive referendum  you  are  barring 
that  independent  vote  which  is  the  bul- 
wark of  progress  as  far  as  this  city  is 
concerned.  When  you  have  a referen- 
dum under  which  it  is  possible  to  utilize 
that  independent  vote  to  the  amount  of 

40.000  or  50,000,  you  are  leaving  an 
opportunity  for  getting  a matter  con- 
sidered by  the  voters.  When  you  make 
it  above  that,  you  are  making  it  a 
hardship  to  the  voters  to  have  any  mat- 
ter considered  which  is  taken  up  by 
this  council. 

Now,  let  me  say  further,  that  this  city 
is  not  always  going  to  have  the  same 
kind  of  a Common  Council  that  it  has 
to-day,  and  just  think  of  the  danger 
that  would  exist  by  a 20  per  cent,  ref- 
erendum or  a 25  per  cent,  referendum. 
Supposing,  in  the  usual  state  of  affairs, 
that  this  council  was  overturned  and  the 
radical  element  got  possession  of  this 
council,  and  they  proposed  to  initiate 
legislation — understand,  legislation  that 
would  be  inimical  to  some  of  the  best 


interests,  as  you  might  call  them, — real 
estate,  or  anything  else, — of  this  city. 
Suppose  they  proposed  to  do  that,  and 
when  you  opposed  it,  they  said:  “Go 
out  and  get  a 25  per  cent,  petition.  * * 
Where  would  you  get  it?  I tell  you 
that  the  25  per  cent,  petition  which 
was  gotten  up  in  this  city,  which  rep- 
resented in  the  neighborhood  of  1,000 
votes,  could  never  have  been  gotten  up 
in  this  city  if  it  was  not  for  the  agency 
of  the  newspapers,  and  you  know  it, — 
if  it  had  not  been  for  the  Hearst  news- 
papers taking  up  the  petition  matter 
and  giving  the  people  an  opportunity, 
acting  as  an  agency,  it  would  have  been 
an  utter  impossibility  to  get  up  a pe- 
tition that  represented  25  per  cent,  of 
the  voters  of  this  city. 

Now,  that  is  so,  and,  acting  from  a 
square,  honest  position  on  this  question, 
what  is  the  use  in  creating  a hardship 
so  that  some  day  when  the  affairs 
might  turn  around  it  would  create  an 
injury? 

Mr.  Fisher  made  a statement  here  the 
other  day  showing  where  there  was  a 
street  section  on  the  north  side  that  he 
thought  possibly  some  day  it  would  be 
necessary  to  introduce  the  street  cars 
there,  to  North  avenue,  from  Division, 
so  that  it  would  complete  the  street  car 
system,  as  it  ought  to  be  done.  Now, 
the  property  owners  in  that  neighbor- 
hood are  opposed  to  that  proceeding. 
Supposing  the  radical  element  of  this 
city  were  in  possession  of  the  council, 
and  they  said,  “We  will  do  that. n 
What  opportunity  would  the  property 
owners  and  the  people  in  that  neighbor- 
hood have  under  the  25  per  cent,  to  pro- 
tect themselves  from  that  innovation? 

I tell  you,  gentlemen,  there  has  never 
been  a rule  that  was  ever  made  that  is 
a hardship  for  one  party  that  eventually 
does  not  become  a hardship  on  the 
other  one;  and  the  only  way  to  tackle 
the  question  is  from  an  honest  stand- 
point, one  which  is  fair  and  right  and 
honest,  and  give  everybody  a free  hand. 


December  17 


406 


1906 


Now,  I have  thought  over  this  thing 
since  Saturday  night;  I wanted  this 
thing  laid  over  so  that  we  would  have 
an  opportunity  to  have  a free-for-all 
vote  on  it;  I accept  my  medicine  when 
I am  voted  down,  but  I would  like  to 
have  the  vote  of  everybody  here  in  this 
matter.  Now,  since  that  time  the  Chi- 
cago Federation  of  Labor  has  taken  it 
up,  and  they  have  taken  the  stand  that 
the  lowest  possible  referendum  that 
you  can  have  is  the  most  honest  and  best 
for  the  whole  community.  If  there  is 
no  communication  here  from  them,  I 
consider  it  my  duty  to  move 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  arrived  this 

minute. 

MR.  LINEHAN : That  means  the 

substitution  of  5 per  cent,  as  an  amend- 
ment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  communication  which  has 
just  been  received. 

The  Secretary  read  the  following 
communication : 

Headquarters  Chicago  Federation  of 
Labor. 

Chicago,  Dec.  17,  1906. 
Hon.  Milton  J.  Foreman,  Chairman  of 
the  Chicago  Charter  Convention, 
Council  Chamber,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir: — The  Chicago  Federation  of 
Labor  at  its  meeting,  December  16th, 
instructed  its  legislative  committee  to 
notify  the  Charter  Convention  that  it 
demands  that  the  Chicago  charter  con- 
tain a provision  in  accordance  with  the 
expressed  will  of  the  people  as  recorded 
in  their  vote  on  the  Little  Ballot  at  the 
elections  of  November  8,  1902,  and  No- 
vember 8,  1904,  and  at  which  elections 
the  following  propositions  were  carried 
by  the  following  vote: 

Vote  at  election  of  1904: 


For  

In  Chicago. 

Against  . . 

For  

In  the  State. 

Against  . 

On  the  following  proposition: 

“ Shall  the  State  Legislature  pass  a 
law  enabling  the  voters  of  any  county, 
city,  village  or  township,  by  a majority 
vote,  to  veto  any  undesirable  action  of 
their  respective  law-making  bodies  (ex- 
cepting emergency  measures)  when- 
ever 5 per  cent,  of  the  voters  petition 
to  have  such  action  referred  to  popu- 
lar vote?  This  law  to  apply  only  to 
such  localities  as  may  adopt  the  same.” 
Vote  at  election  of  1902: 

In  Chicago. 

For  159,696 

Against ’ 24,466 

In  the  State. 

For  390,972 

Against  83,377 

On  the  following  proposition: 

‘ 1 Shall  the  next  general  assembly 
enact  a statute  by  which  the  voters  of 
any  political  sub-division  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  may  be  able  to  initiate  de- 
sired legislation  by  filing  a petition 
therefor  signed  by  8 per  cent,  of  the 
legal  voters  in  said  political  sub-division 
and  to  have  referred  to  the  voters  any 
legislation  enacted  by  the  several  local 
legislative  bodies,  by  the  filing  of  a pe- 
tition therefor  of  5 per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  of  any  such  political  sub-division, 
the  action  of  a majority  of  those  voting 
to  decide  in  each  case?” 

The  Chicago  Federation  of  Labor,  at 
its  meeting  December  2d,  also  adopted 
the  following  resolution: 

“ Resolved,  That  we  reiterate  our  de- 
mands for  a home  rule  charter  for  Chi- 
cago, to  be  framed  by  the  elected  rep- 
resentatives of  the  people  of  Chicago, 
subject  to  the  referendum  vote  and 
with  power  in  the  people  to  amend  said 
charter  on  their  own  initiative.” 
Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  C.  DILLON,  Chairman, 

WM.  M.  ROSSELL,  Sec’y, 
MARGARET  A.  HALEY, 
LELAND  P.  SMITH, 
Legislative  Committee  of  the  Chicago 
Federation  of  Labor. 


December  17 


407 


1906 


ME.  COLE : Mr.  Chairman,  I listened 
to  the  arguments  on  Saturday  afternoon 
with  a great  deal  of  interest,  and  was 
sorry  I was  obliged  to  go  away  before 
the  vote  was  taken.  I believe  in  a low 
rate.  I was  in  favor  of  10  per  cent., 
and  if  I had  been  here  I should  have 
voted  for  15  per  cent.  I had  to  go 


away,  and  through  the  courtesy  of  Mr^_  MR.  SHEPARD:  I rise  to  a point  of 
Young  we  agreed  topair* — The  matter  u^der,  Mr.  Chairman.  The  question  of 


-\yatf  discussed  fairly  and  as  thoroughly 
as  possible,  and  a majority  of  one  is  as 
'sacred  to  me  as  a majority  of  fifteen 
pV  twenty,  nr  J^very- 

^erfie  in  this  Convention  is  trying  to  do 
what  he  thinks  is  right,  and  when  there 
is  a majority  I think  that  should  be 
conclusive.  I will  now  be  in  favor  of 
the  20  per  cent,  and  hope  it  will  go  to 
a vote  on  that  issue. 

MR.  ROBINS:  A point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your 

point  of  order? 

MR.  ROBINS:  When  the  vote  was 

taken  on  the  25  per  cent,  the  resolution 
for  20  per  cent,  was  voted  down  at  that 
time.  Therefore,  the  only  matter  be- 
fore the  Convention  would  be  consider- 
ation of  the  vote  by  which  25  was 
agreed  upon  as  the  per  cent,  by  this 
Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  did 

not  understand  that  the  20  per  cent, 
proposition  was  before  the  house.  When 
the  matter  was  discussed  it  was  15  or 
25.  Therefore,  the  Chair  can  see  no 
parliamentary  reason  why  the  figures 
25  should  not  be  amended  to  20. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I offered  5 per 

cent,  just  before  I sat  down,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  to 
amend  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  proposition? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I do  not  know  if  I 
am  in  proper  shape  for  that.  I want  to 
get  a vote  on  5 per  cent.  I don’t  care 
whether  it  amends  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
amendment  or  any  other  way,  or  Aider- 
man  Snow’s  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  They  are  both 


the  same  motion.  Mr.  Snow  has  sec- 
onded Mr.  Rosenthal’s  motion,  as  I un- 
derstand. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Then  I offer  an 

amendment  that  it  be  made  5 per  cent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  that  a vote 

will  be  taken. 

MR.  SNOW : Question. 


15  per  cent,  is  a substitute  for  the  mo- 
tion to  make  it  25  per  cent.;  that  was 
considered  and  voted  upon  Saturday  on 
the  theory  that  that  was  the  low  figure 
to  be  considered.  My  point  of  order  is, 
as  the  figures  of  15  was  the  lowest  you 
cannot  go  lower  than  15  at  this  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

rule  that  in  the  matter  that  has  been 
decided  by  only  one  vote  to  amend  that 
it  is  open  to  all  amendments.  The 
point  of  order  is  not  well  taken. 

MR.  YOUNG:  A point  of  order.  I 

think  we  have  an  amendment  to  this 
original  section  offered  by  this  commit- 
tee, and  we  have  an  amendment  to  that 
amendment.  I want  to  inquire  how 
many  more  amendments  can  be  offered 
in  this  case? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  the 

original  matter  before  the  house  on  the 
record  as  it  now  stands  of  25  per  cent., 
and  a motion 

MR.  RAYMER:  That  is  an  amend- 

ment itself. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  ceased  to  be 

an  amendment  when  it  was  adopted;  it 
became  a part  of  the  entire  matter — 
the  general  matter. 

MR.  SNOW:  I want  to  raise  the 

question  that  the  25  per  cent,  has  not 
been  voted  upon.  It  has  not  been 
adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 
suggest  that  the  simplest  way  to  get  out 
of  this  is  by  the  method  of  having  a 
vote  upon  it. 

MR.  SNOW : That  is  what  I want 

to  bring,  about.  The  simplest  thing  is 
to  bring  about  a vote  on  the  amendment 


December  17 


408 


1906 


of  5 per  cent.  That  is  the  proper  thing 
to  do. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  A point  of  or- 

der. A vote  was  had  on  15  per  cent., 
and  that  was  voted  down.  Now,  it  is 
fair  to  suppose  that  having  voted  down 
15  per  cent,  the  members  of  this  Con- 
vention would  not  consider  5 per  cent, 
because  if  5 per  cent,  is  voted  down  we 
might  next  consider  6 per  cent.,  etc.  It 
seems  to  me  the  higher  number,  rather 
than  the  lower  number,  would  be  proper. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not but  understand  that  when  a matter 
is  opened  up  for  one  amendment  it  is 
opened  up  for  all  amendments. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  Mr.  Linehan’s  motion  signify  by 
saying  aye. 

(Cries  of  “Roll  call.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  the  5 per  cent. 

Yeas — Burke,  Carey,  Cruice,  Linehan, 
McGoorty,  Owens,  Rainey,  Robins, 
White,  Zimmer — 10. 

Nays — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Church,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eidmann, 
Erickson,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  Lundberg,  MacMillan, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  Pendarvis,  Pow- 
ers, Raymer,  Revell,  Rosenthal,  Shana- 
han, Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Swift,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Young — 36. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  What  is  Mr.  Line- 
han’s  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  make  the  ref- 
erendum percentage  5 per  cent. 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  I regret  very  much 
that  I was  unable  to  be  present  here 
Saturday.  It  strikes  me  we  are  going 
from  one  extreme  to  another.  What 
we  should  have  adopted  in  this  matter 
is  a sound  and  sane  middle  course. 
Twenty-five  per  cent,  is  in  my  estima- 
tion, almost  prohibitive,  and  5 per  cent., 
it  strikes  me,  is  too  low.  I cannot  vote 
for  that.  I should  like  to  vote  for  an 
amendment  of  15  per  cent.,  and  if  it  is 


still  in  time  to  be  offered,  that  is  the 
kind  of  an  amendment  we  should  have. 
I am  obliged  to  vote  against  5 per 
cent.,  but  also  should  be  against  25  per 
cent.  Fifteen  per  cent,  strikes  me  as  a 
sane  solution  of  this  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Line- 

han ’s  motion  the  yeas  are  10  and  the 
nays  36.  The  motion  is  lost,  and  the 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll  upon 

MR.  ROBINS:  I now  wish  to  move 

a reconsideration  by  which  the  vote  of 
15  per  cent,  was  defeated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  A point  of  or- 

der. There  is  a motion  now  before  the 
house.  There  cannot  be  a reconsidera- 
tion of  his  motion  while  the  present  mo- 
tion is  pending. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  point  is 
well  taken. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  Then  I will  move 

that  15  per  cent,  be  substituted  for  20 
per  cent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 
out  of  order,  the  consideration  of  the 
same  question  having  been  voted  down. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  Only  of  the  ques- 

tion, Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  ZIMMER  : I do  not  understand 

that  15  per  cent,  can  be  out  of  order,  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  the  other  motion 
was  voted  down,  because  it  was  a sub- 
stitute for  the  25  per  cent.  This  time 
it  is  for  20  per  cent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A direct  vote 

that  was  had  at  the  last  meeting  up- 
on the  question  whether  15  per  cent, 
should  or  should  not  be  substituted  for 
25  per  cent. 

MR.  ZIMMER : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  motion  of 

Alderman  Zimmer’s  is  an  exact  dupli- 
cate of  that  motion,  which  was  voted 
down  and  therefore  out  of  order, — it  is 
therefore  out  of  order. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 


December  17 


409 


1906 


ME.  ZIMMEE:  Do  I still  have  the 

floor?  I would  like  to  make  it  14  per 
cent.,  a substitute  for  the  other. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Chair  would 
suggest  that  a vote  be  had  on  this  ques- 
tion. 

ME.  EOBINS:  As  a matter  of  in- 

formation, will  the  Chair  please  state 
whether  if  20  per  cent,  is  voted  for 
that  it  will  be  possible  to  get  a recon- 
sideration on  15  per  cent.? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  There  will  be 

an  opportunity  to  have  a vote  upon  a 
motion  to  reconsider. 

ME.  EOBINS:  Thank  you;  that  is 

what  I wanted  to  know. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Chair  sim- 

ply desires  to  clear  the  record. 

ME.  MacMILLAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

in  order  to  help  this  matter  along,  I 
move  that  the  percentage  be  16  per  cent. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  How  much? 

ME.  MacMILLAN:  Sixteen  per  cent. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  There  was  an 

amendment,  and  an  amendment  to  that 
amendment,  and  an  amendment  to  the 
amendment  to  the  amendment  to  the 
amendment.  Now,  the  first  amendment 
being  voted  down,  the  second  amend- 
ment will  now  be  put,  and  no  further 
amendments  will  be  offered  until  we 
dispose  of  the  present  amendments. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  What  is  the 

amendment? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  amendment 

now  is  your  amendment. 

ME.  McGOOETY : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

understand  Alderman  Zimmer  has  of- 
fered an  amendment  to  Mr.  Eosenthal’s 
amendment,  and  I rise  for  the  purpose 
of  seconding  the  amendment  of  Aider- 
man  Zimmer. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not help  but  thinking  that  the  quickest 
and  best  way  is  to  have  a vote  on  one 
or  the  other  proposition;  it  is  eventual- 
ly possible  to  vote  one  or  the  other 
down,  and  the  Chair  does  not  want  to  be 
compelled  to  rule  motions  out  of  order, 
to  rule  amendments  out  of  order  which 


are  purely  for  the  purpose  of  evading 
the  ruling  of  the  Chair. 

ME.  EOBINS:  I have  the  same  ob- 

jection to  20  per  cent,  in  not  quite  the 
same  degree  that  I have  given  to  25 
per  cent.  Now,  I thought  that  the 
placing  of  25  per  cent,  was  prohibitive 
and  was  intended  to  be  prohibitive  up- 
on the  exercise  of  this  so-called  referen- 
dum right.  When  the  act  of  the  legis- 
lature known  as  the  “ Public  Policy 
Law”  was  adopted,  it  was  stated  on 
the  floor  of  the  Convention,  amid 
laughs,  that  25  per  cent,  was  a joke. 
One  of  the  representatives  of  the  legis- 
lature of  Illinois  said  that  the  passage 
of  the  act,  in  speaking  of  it  person- 
ally to  me,  was  a joke.  The  actual  pro- 
vision of  the  original  law  was  stricken 
from  the  law  and  25  per  cent,  inserted 
as  a means  of  making  it  wholly  prohibi- 
tive. Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  a referendum 
league  was  organized  in  the  State  of 
Illinois  for  the  purpose  of  using  that 
very  pivotable  pride  and  giving  expres- 
sion to  public  opinion  upon  great  ques- 
tions of  public  concern,  and  a number 
of  referendums  have  been  held  on  the 
basis  of  25  per  cent.,  permissive  of  a 
statement  of  public  opinion  upon  ques- 
tions of  public  policy.  A certain  amount 
of  popular  education  has  resulted;  but 
there  is  no  necessity  for  the  25  per  cent. 
Let  me  state  what  the  objection  is  that 
confronts  us  on  this  matter. 

The  difficulty  of  getting  25  per  cent, 
of  the  registered  voters  of  the  city 
makes  it  a real  object  for  somebody,  or 
some  person,  or  some  corporation,  or 
some  newspaper,  to  take  up  a problem — 
a question  to  take  up  a me*asure  that 
shall  meet  with  public  approval  and 
turn  it  into  partisan  machinery.  Now, 
if  you  have  a reasonably  fair  number 
of  voters,  there  will  be  no  great  object 
in  anybody  trying  to  exploit  it  as  a 
mere  popular  machine,  but  when  you 
make  a measure  difficult  of  exercising 
it,  you  put  a premium  upon  some  group, 
or  newspaper,  if  you  please,  taking  up 


December  17 


410 


1906 


that  cause,  and  assuming  a great 
amount  of  public  service,  in  succeeding 
in  getting  a referendum  for  the  people. 

Now,  how  foolish  would  be  your  ac- 
tion in  that  matter.  How  much  power 
and  strength  do  you  give  for  purposes 
that  may  be  against  the  public  inter- 
ests by  just  that  policy  if  you  allow 
that  referendum  in  a simple  and  fair 
way,  safeguarding  every  actual  signa- 
ture so  that  they  will  be  real  signa- 
tures, then  you  will  have  put  the  only 
safeguard  that  it  needs  upon  it.  If  you 
make  the  per  cent.  25,  you  do  not  make 
it  prohibitive  actually;  you  make  it 
prohibitive  as  a matter  of  general  or 
more  or  less  individual  public  action; 
but  you  make  it  entirely  possible  for 
some  particular  question  in  the  com- 
munity to  be  taken  up,  and  a great  deal 
of  credit  is  claimed  before  the  people, 
because  they  have  been  able  to  get  a 
public  expression  of  opinion  in  that  pub- 
lic manner. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  wise  and 
conservative  men  in  this  room  act  un- 
wisely when  they  do  not  consent  to  ten 
or  fifteen — 15  per  cent.,  which  seems  to 
me  to  be  wise  in  this  situation.  I hope 
the  20  per  cent,  will  be  voted  down. 

ME.  REYELL:  May  I ask  a ques- 

tion? Don't  you  think  that  the  news- 
papers will  take  up  the  matter  whether 
it  is  15  or  whether  it  is  25? 

MR.  ROBINS:  I think  they  may, 

but  I think  the  amount  of  credit  they 
will  claim  for  doing  it  will  be  lessened. 
There  will  be  no  particular  object  in 
doing  it,  if  the  people  who  are  really 
interested  in  legislation  on  public  affairs 
will  take  it  up;  then  nobody  could  claim 
any  glory  for  taking  it  up.  At  the 
present  time  and  in  the  past  there  has 
been  made  great  claims  of  service  to 
the  public  by  11  friends  to  the  people," 
by  taking  up  really  difficult  questions 
and  forcing  them  through.  How  diffi- 
cult it  is  to  get  25  per  cent,  of  the 
registered  voters’  consent  to  an  object 
only  those  people  who  have  actually 


done  that  work  can  bear  testimony  that 
is  of  any  value  in  this  Convention. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  we  have  a pretty  clear 
principle  presented  to  us  here.  In  other 
words,  the  question  is  here,  whether  we 
should  sustain  this  idea  of  legislation 
directly  by  the  people,  or  whether  we 
should  keep,  as  we  have  had  heretofore, 
the  principle  of  legislative  government. 
When  the  constitution  was  formed  and 
adopted  in  this  country,  this  country  be- 
came committed  to  the  principle  of  rep- 
resentative government.  That  matter 
was  carefully  considered  by  the  framers 
of  tfie  constitution ; that  matter  was 
carefully  considered  by  all  the  people  of 
that  time.  The  constitution,  and  the 
methods  of  election  in  different  coun- 
tries were  studied,  and  it  was  concluded 
that  that  was  the  only  sane  form  of  gov- 
ernment to  adopt. 

Now,  for  years  we  have  had  this  prin- 
ciple of  representative  government,  and 
simply  because  we  have  had  poor  legis- 
lation at  times;  simply  because  at  times 
the  will  of  the  people  has  been  thwarted, 
people  want  to  extend  this  idea  of  refer- 
endum and  initiative  and  everything  of 
that  sort.  Now,  I say  it  is  experimental 
in  this  country,  and  we  are  going  to  find 
that  it  will  not  work.  We  are  going  to 
find  that  if  we  extend  this  principle  of 
referendum  we  will  subject  ourselves  to 
a greater  tyranny  than  we  already  have, 
or  that  we  imagine  we  have. 

What  is  the  result  of  it  so  far?  Don’t 
we  know  now  that  when  the  legislature 
tacks  onto  a provision  that  ‘ 1 This  shall 
be  submitted  to  the  people,"  that  the 
legislature  itself  is  often  shifting  respons- 
ibility? Why,  every  one  who  has  gone 
down  to  the  legislature  to  have  a cer- 
tain act  passed,  or  to  oppose  the  enact- 
ment of  a certain  law,  has  been  met 
with  this  proposition : 1 Why,  we  will 

tack  onto  this  law  a little  section  by 
which  it  shall  be  submitted  to  a vote  of 
the  people,"  and  then,  after  all,  the 
people  are  to  pass  on  this  matter. 


December  17 


411 


1906 


Now,  the  result  of  this  has  been,  time 
and  again,  that  the  legislature  has  shift- 
ed the  responsibility  properly  upon  its 
shoulders  under  our  form  of  government, 
upon  people  who  are  not  prepared  to 
discuss  the  question,  and  who  are  not 
prepared  to  vote  upon  the  question  in 
the  manner  that  the  legislature,  or  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature  are.  Why,  you 
might  just  as  well  say  that  these  men 
who  have  sat  day  after  day  in  the  dis- 
cussion and  consideration  of  particular 
problems,  are  not  any  more  familiar  with 
them  than  a person  who  passes  on  them 
for  the  first  time,  as  many  persons  do 
when  they  enter  the  polling  booth. 

I think  it  is  a mistake — a great  mis- 
take— if  we  extend  at  this  time  this  prin- 
ciple of  referendum.  I think  it  is  a 
great  mistake.  Instead  of  electing  the 
right  sort  of  men  for  our  legislative  as- 
semblies, to  our  City  Councils,  and  places 
of  this  sort,  it  is  a great  mistake  to 
simply  say,  1 1 Here,  we  will  have  re- 
dress at  the  polls  if  anything  goes 
wrong ; * 1 and  as  a result  of  that,  you 
will  simply  get  inefficient  men  into  your 
council,  instead  of  having  strong  men 
who  are  put  there  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  questions,  and  who  are  there 
for  the  purpose  of  properly  deciding 
them. 

I think  that  we  ought  not,  by  our 
votes  here  today  to  extend  a principle 
which,  to  my  notion  is  really  foreign 
to  our  institutions. 

MR.  DEVER : I would  like  to  say 

one  word  on  this  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  is  the  ques- 
tion? 

MR.  DEVER:  I would  like  to  speak 

on  this  question  before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Dever. 

MR.  DEVER:  It  seems  to  me  that  we 
have  lost  sight  of  what,  in  my  judg- 
ment, is  the  most  important  point  that 
has  been  made  here  with  reference  to 
this  referendum  discussion,  and  that  is 
the  educational  value  of  a referendum 
to  the  whole  people. 


I do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Rosenthal  that 
in  all  instances  the  people  are  less  capable 
of  passing  on  great  public  questions  than 
the  various  legislatures.  I think  the 
experience  of  the  City  of  Chicago  and  the 
State  of  Illinois  during  the  last  ten 
years,  will  abundantly  prove  that  in 
many  instances  he  may  be  mistaken. 
However,  in  my  own  personal  experience, 
in  connection  with  referendum  votes,  I 
find  that  the  educational  value  of  the 
referendum  was  of  more  consequence  in 
most  cases  than  the  subject  being  dis- 
cussed at  the  time  the  referendum  was 
being  taken.  To  find  out  the  great  pub- 
lic interest,  the  interest  that  the  public 
takes  in  great  public  questions,  is  an  im- 
portant thing. 

For  instance,  the  traction  question. 
We  have  had  three  or  four  different  ref- 
erendums  on  that  question,  and  the  edu- 
cational value  of  the  great  discussion 
among  the  public,  of  the  financial  feat- 
ures of  that  great  matter,  was  a better 
school  for  the  voters,  and  it  has  done 
very  much  more  for  them  than  any  work 
any  legislative  body  has  ever  done  for 
the  people. 

It  seems  to  me  that  is  the  most  impor- 
tant consideration  in  connection  with  the 
discussion  of  the  referendum  idea,  that  is, 
if  you  can  arrange  it  so  that  the  re- 
sponsibility for  good  or  bad  laws  can 
be  brought  home  directly  to  the  voter 
himself,  you  will  make  it  to  his  in- 
terest, and  he  will  study  those  questions 
which  ought  to  have  the  interest  of  all 
good  citizens. 

Then  there  is  another  question — 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Let  me  ask  you 

a question:  Supposing  the  City  Coun- 

cil should  pass  a vicious  traction  grant 
or  ordinance;  don’t  you  think  that  they 
could  get  20  per  cent,  of  the  people  to 
petition  by  referendum? 

MR.  DEVER:  I think  that  is  pos- 

sible, and  that  it  is  possible  is  borne 
out  by  the  fact  that  when  the  council 
did  attempt  to  pass  certain  ordinances 
that  the  majority  of  the  people  thought 


December  17 


412 


1906 


were  vicious — I don’t  want  it  to  be  un- 
derstood that  I think  so,  but  the  people 
thought  they  were  vicious,  at  the  ex- 
pense of  a great  deal  of  money  and  a 
rather  perfect  organization,  we  were  en- 
abled to  get  a 25  per  cent,  petition. 

But  the  point  I wish  to  make,  in 
closing,  is  this:  That  where  a man  does 
not  believe  in  a referendum  at  all,  he 
ought  to  vote  against  20  per  cent,  or  25 
per  cent,  or  any  other  per  cent.,  if  he  is 
opposed  to  the  referendum  idea.  But  if  a 
man  is  in  favor  of  the  referendum  idea, 
if  he  thinks  it  is  a good  thing,  and 
if  he  thinks  it  will  assist  to  give  good, 
wholesome  local  self-government  in  this 
city,  then  he  ought  to  make  that  refer- 
endum just  as  simple  and  as  easy  as  pos- 
sible, having  in  mind  at  all  times  the 
importance  of  the  subjects  which  per- 
haps may  be  made  the  subject  of  the 
referendum,  and  for  that  reason,  it  seems 
to  me,  if  I were  opposed  to  a refer- 
endum, I would  not  vote  for  25  per  cent, 
or  15  per  cent.  I would  vote  against  the 
referendum  idea.  If  I favored  a refer- 
endum vote,  I would  favor  a referendum 
that  would  mean  a referendum,  and  I 
would  make  it  reasonably  easy  and  con- 
venient for  the  people  to  express  them- 
selves on  all  occasions  on  all  important 
public  questions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll.  The  question  is  on  the 
substitution  of  20  per  cent,  for  25  per 
cent. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Church,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A., 
Eidmann,  Erickson,  Hill,  Hunter,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  Lundberg,  Pendarvis,  Pow- 
ers, Raymer,  Revell,  Rosenthal,  Shana- 
han, Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Swift, 
Wilkins,  Young — 27. 

Nays  — Beilfuss,  Brosseau,  Burke, 
Carey,  Cole,  Crilly,  Cruice,  Dever,  Eck- 
hart, J.  W.,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Linehan,  Mac- 
Millan, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
O’Donnell,  Oehne,  Rainey,  Robins,  Tay- 
lor, Yopicka,  White,  Zimmer — 24. 

(During  roll  call.) 


MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish  to 

explain  my  vote.  I spoke  just  now  in 
favor  of  20  per  cent.,  in  a spirit  of  com- 
promise, but  inasmuch  as  a compromise 
has  been  entirely  lost  sight  of,  and  1 
failed  in  one  of  my  first  efforts  as  a 
peacemaker,  I will  go  back  to  my  original 
position,  and  vote  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : On  the  motion  to 

amend  by  making  the  figures  twenty  per 
eent.  instead  of  twenty-five  per  cent., 
the  yeas  are  27  and  the  noes  24,  and  the 
motion  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  ques- 

tion is  upon  the  pending  amendment  rela- 
tive to  the  last  clause.  Mr.  Beebe  moves 
to  amend  the  clause,  ‘ ‘ such  ordinance 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless 
at  such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  voting 
upon  the  question.  ’ ’ He  moves  to  strike 
out  the  words  1 1 voting  upon  the  ques- 
tion, ’ ’ and  insert  in  lieu  thereof,  1 1 vot- 
ing at  such  election.  ’ ’ 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  What  page  is 

that? 

THE  SECRETARY : Fifty-seven. 

MR.  McGOORTY : Is  the  amendment 

before  us? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  McGOORTY : If  this  amendment 

passes  it  makes  it  additionally  difficult 
for  people  in  case  of  any  proposition  be 
submitted.  The  constitutional  amendment 
of  1904,  which  has  been  adopted,  provides 
that  any  charter  constitution  may  be 
adopted  by  a majority  voting  on  that 
proposition.  Now,  according  to  the 
amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Beebe,  it  re- 
quires a majority  of  all  the  votes  cast 
at  that  election.  It  says,  in  fact,  that 
every  person  who  does  not  vote  on  the 
proposition  votes  no.  I think,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  is  specially,  under  the  circum- 
stances, unfair;  if  we  are  duly  regard- 
ful of  the  fact  of  how  any  matter  of 
this  kind  will  be  considered  by  the  public 
outside  of  this  chamber  we  will  stand  for 
twenty  per  cent.  Certainly,  the  pro- 
vision as  it  now  reads  in  the  second  al- 


December  17 


413 


1906 


ternative  should  stand  as  a majority  of 
those  voting  upon  the  question;  as  pro- 
vided in  Mueller  law  and  as  provided  in 
most  of  legislation  of  that  kind.  The 
only  exception,  I know  of,  Mr.  Chairman, 
is  one  that  provides  for  the  outer  park 
belt  proposition,  and  that  question,  as  I 
understand  it,  is  now  pending  before  the 
courts  as  to  whether  or  not  that  propo- 
sition was  passed.  With  that  exception, 
that  has  always  been  the  procedure  to 
vote  upon  the  proposition,  and  therefore 
I hope  the  amendment  will  be  voted  down. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Mr.  Chairman,  with 

the  permission  of  the  house  I will  with- 
draw that  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  BEEBE:  With  the  consent  of 

the  house  I wish  to  withdraw  that 
amendment. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : Consented. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  unani- 

mous consent? 

(Cries  of  “Agreed”.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  amendment 

will  be  allowed  to  be  withdrawn  and 
the  Secretary  will  read  the  section  as 
amended. 

MR.  SNOW:  There  is  an  amendment 

offered  by  myself  to  that  section  which 
is  not  voted  upon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Where  is  that? 

MR.  SNOW : “The  City  Council  shall 
have  power  to  prescribe  proper  penalties 
for  any  forgery  or  deceit  in  getting  out 
this  petition.  ’ ’ 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  394. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you  do 
with  this  amendment? 

MR.  SNOW : I move  its  adoption. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Whose  is  this  amend- 

ment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  is  Aider- 

man  Snow’s  amendment. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  May  I ask  a 

question  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Can  the  legis- 

lature confer  power  on  the  City  Council 
to  prescribe  a penalty  for  forgery? 


MR.  SNOW : I think  they  probably 

can  in  cases  of  this  kind  which  refer 
to  a specific  act  in  connection  with  the 
city  government.  I am  not  an  attorney, 
and  I cannot  pass  on  that  point,  but  it 
strikes  me  as  a matter  of  common  sense, 
they  can. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  the  gen- 

eral assembly  can  permit  the  City  of 
Chicago  to  punish  any  infringement  of 
the  law  which  the  legislature  has  given 
the  right  to  enact. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  strikes  me 

that  the  proper  way  to  write  that  law 
would  be  to  impose  the  penalty  in  the 
law  itself,  if  it  is  violated,  and  that  can 
be  done.  I doubt  whether  the  power 
can  be  conferred  upon  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  will  you  do 

with  the  amendment?  The  Convention 
may  take  action  upon  it  or  it  might  be 
considered  by  a committee — the  Law  Com- 
mittee. 

MR.  SNOW:  That  was  what  I was 

thinking.  I was  going  to  ask  that  it 
be  sent  to  the  Law  Committee  if  the 
Convention  sees  fit  to  adopt  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Before  or  after 

action? 

MR.  SNOW:  After  action  and  before 

it  is  reported  to  the  committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have  heard 

the  amendment  that  has  been  suggested. 
All  those  in  favor  of  it  say  aye;  opposed, 
no;  it  is  so  ordered. 

MR.  ECKHART : I desire  to  offer  an 

amendment,  too. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  offer  a 

substitute  for  the  entire  matter? 

MR.  ECKHART:  No,  I offer  an 

amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  B.  A. 

Eekhart:  “Amend  ‘alternative  to  2,’ 

third  line,  after  the  word  ‘alley,’  to  read: 

‘ or  space  below  as  well  as  above  the  level 
of  the  surface  of  the  streets,  alleys  and 
other  public  places.  ’ ’ ’ 


December  17 


414 


1906 


MR.  ECKHART : I move  the  adoption 
of  that  amendment,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  SNOW : I suppose,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  is  intended  to  cover  the  ques- 
tion of  subways  and  tunnels,  is  it  not? 

MR.  ECKHART:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  SNOW : It  is  very  proper.  It 

should  be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  motion  say  aye,  and  those 
opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

The  Secretary  will  now  read  the  section 
as  amended.  The  entire  section  as 
amended  will  be  before  the  house  for 
its  action. 

MR.  DEVER:  I wish  to  offer  another 

amendment. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN : Will  you  write  it 

out,  please? 

MR.  DEVER:  I am  writing  it. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I am  also  desirous 

of  offering  another  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McGoorty 

has  an  amendment. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I offered  an  amend- 

ment on  Saturday  on  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Secretary, 

have  you  the  amendment  by  Mr.  Mer- 
riam? 

THE  SECRETARY:  It  was  never 

brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention and  it  fell  into  the  basket. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  your 

amendment,  Mr.  Merriam? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I will  write  it  out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McGoorty ’s 

amendment  will  be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Mc- 
Goorty: ‘ ‘ Amend  alternative  to  No.  2 

by  inserting  the  words  1 any  franchise 
or ’ following  the  word  1 granting.  ’ ’ 1 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Where  is  that? 

MR.  McGOORTY : The  purpose  of  the 
amendment — I will  read  the  clause.  It 
will  read  as  follows:  “Alternative  to  2: 
The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  ordi- 
nance granting  any  franchise  for  the  use 
of  any  street  or  alley  for  any  public 
utility,”  following  the  amendment  which 
is  adopted  as  offered  by  Mr.  Eckhart. 


The  idea  of  that,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that 
while  it  is  obviously  intended  by  this 
alternative  to  provide  that  in  case  of 
using  any  street  or  alley  is  sufficiently 
comprehensive  to  include  any  franchise, 
that  we  should  make  it  doubly  sure  by 
covering  franchises  which  might  be  given 
to  the  telephone  company,  for  instance, 
for  stringing  its  wires  above  the  ground, 
or  franchises  for  some  .other  purpose 
which  might  not  in  a legal  sense  be  con- 
sidered the  use  of  any  public  street  or 
alley.  And  therefore,  the  inclusion  of 
the  words  “any  franchise.” 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  may  I put 

a question?. 

MR.  McGOORTY : Certainly. 

MR.  SNOW:  I would  like  to  ask  the 

gentleman  what  franchise  can  be  granted 
that  does  not  include  the  use  of  the 
streets,  alleys  and  public  ways. 

MR.  McGOORTY : As  I have  sug- 

gested, Mr.  Snow,  it  might  be  strictly 
construed  in  the  giving  to  the  telephone 
company,  for  instance,  the  right  to  use 
overhead  wires,  that  that  might  not  be 
the  use  of  a public  street  or  alley,  al- 
though I am  inclined  to  think  it  would. 
I do  not  see  what  harm  could  come  by 
having  the  words  ‘ 1 any  franchise  ’ ’ in 
there,  which  is  comprehensive,  and  which 
would  include  any  grant  the  City  Council 
or  local  corporate  authorities  could  make. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  McGoorty,  as  a law- 

yer, knows  very  well  that  street  or  alley 
runs  from  the  center  of  the  earth  to 
the  sky. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I think  Mr.  Snow 

will  agree  with  me  that  there  can  be  no 
harm  in  our  having  the  words  in  there. 

MR.  SNOW:  I haven’t  any  objection 

to  it,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  is  surplusage. 

MR.  McGOORTY : That  may  be  and 

yet  it  may  not  include  those  things. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  its  adoption  say  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no.  The  motion  prevailed.  It  is 
so  ordered. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam, 

have  you  an  amendment? 


December  17 


415 


1906 


THE  SECRETARY : Amendment  by 

Mr.  Merriam : ‘ 1 The  City  Council  shall 
have  the  power  to  provide  for  a refer- 
endum on  any  such  ordinance  irrespective 
of  such  petition.  * ’ 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  SNOW:  Question. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  That  simply  means 

that  they  will  have  power  if  they  want 
to  consider  a question. 

MR.  SNOW:  I desire  to  second  that 

motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  is  be- 
fore the  house. 

MR.  DEYER:  I would  like  to  have 

that  read  again. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  the  Secretary 

read  again. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  there  is 

a slight — it  strikes  me  there  is  a slight 
ambiguity  in  the  proposition  as  framed, 
and  I have  therefore  drafted  a substi- 
tute which  I would  like  to  have  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

presents  a substitute. 

MR.  SNOW:  Another? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Who? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  substitute  to 
Mr.  Merriam ’s  amendment. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Who  presented  it? 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: The  City  Council  shall  have  the 

power,  irrespective  of  any  such  peti- 
tion, to  submit  any  such  ordinance  to  a 
vote  of  the  people  and  to  require  the 
same  to  be  adopted  by  a majority  vote 
as  aforesaid,  before  the  same  shall  be- 
come a law. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I will  accept  that 

as  a substitute. 

MR.  REVELL:  I would  just  like  to 

know  where  this  amendment  is  likely  to 
lead  us.  We  will  say,  for  example,  that 
the  council  has  a franchise  before  it,  and 
the  franchise  is  granted  by  a majority 
vote  of  the  council.  Opposition  is  aroused 
— perhaps  good  opposition— and  the 

mayor  vetoes  the  grant;  then  the  council 
proceeds  and  passes  the  grant  over  the 


mayor’s  veto  by  a two-thirds  majority 
vote;  then  a majority  of  the  council,  not 
two-thirds,  can  come  in  immediately  and 
say,  ‘ i This  matter  must  go  to  a vote  of 
the  people.  ’ ’ It  strikes  me,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  you  are  putting  up  problems 
here  and  propositions  to  make  it  abso- 
lutely impossible  for  capital  to  get  any 
chance  at  any  franchise  in  the  City  of 
Chicago.  They  have  to  go  all  through 
this  thing,  and  either  by  the  council, — 
a majority  of  the  council, — or  a petition 
of  20  per  cent.  It  goes  to  an  election, 
and  you  have  decided  that  a majority 
of  votes  cast  upon  a proposition  shall 
be  an  approval  of  the  franchise.  Now, 
we  all  know  that  a majority  of  votes 
passed  upon  a proposition  is  different 
from  a majority  of  votes  cast  at  an  elec- 
tion, so  that  with  all  those  obstacles  to 
get  over  from  start  to  finish,  (Compara- 
tively few  of  the  voters  of  the  people  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  can  stop,  perhaps,  a 
very  good  franchise;  because  we  all 
know,  no  matter  how  good  a franchise  is, 
there  are  a large  number  of  people  in 
the  community  who  oppose  it,  and  they 
could  immediately  get  a petition  by  20 
per  cent.,  and  when  the  matter  comes  be- 
fore the  people  at  an  election,  at  each 
election,  you  shall  say  a majority  of 
votes  cast  upon  a proposition  should  re- 
ject a franchise,  and  you  have  a 20  per 
cent,  petition  of  the  voters  to  go  with 
the  rejection,  or  supporting  the  rejection, 
and  you  can  immediately  see  that  you 
are  putting  up  a game  here  that  will  lead 
the  eyes  of  capital  to  absolutely  keep 
away  from  the  City  of  Chicago ; and  I 
am  beginning  to  think  that  that  is  just 
exactly  what  some  of  these  people  want. 
What  we  want  in  Chicago,  it  seems  to 
me,  is  to  invite  capital  to  come  here,  to 
safeguard  all  the  interests  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  so  that  we  can  get  the  good 
out  of  it  for  the  City  of  Chicago,  and 
not  to  have  capital  stay  away.  I tell 
you,  gentlemen,  upon  a proposition  of 
this  kind,  when  a majority  of  the  council 
can  turn  it  over  to  the  action  of  an  elec- 


December  17 


416 


1906 


tion,  you  are  also  telling  capital  to  stay 
out  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  I don’t 
believe  in  it. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I am  not  of  the  opin- 

ion that  the  Charter  Convention  need 
worry  much  about  the  ability  of  capital 
to  take  care  of  itself.  The  great  trouble 
has  been  for  years,  and  the  reason  for 
the  referendum  in  Chicago  has  been  to 
see  that  the  people  get  an  even  break 
with  capital;  and  I believe  that  this 
amendment  of  Mr.  Rosenthal’s — or  sub- 
stitute, rather — is  a reasonable  provision, 
for  the  reason  that  there  are  sometimes 
questions  arising  in  the  council  which 
the  council  passes,  which  it  is  not  neces- 
sary to  trouble  the  people  by  asking  them 
that  they  go  out  and  provide  a peti- 
tion, but  which  still  might  be,  as  a 
question  of  public  policy, — might  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people,  and  in  doing  this, 
passing  certain  things,  and  by  giving 
the  City  Council  a right  to  see  that  a 
referendum  is  provided,  you  are  simply 
hurrying  the  matter  along  instead  of  de- 
laying it,  and  if  necessary  at  a subse- 
quent election  the  people  could  vote  on 
those  questions.  You  can  save  a great 
deal  of  time,  and  save  a great  deal  of 
expense  and  worry  of  getting  up  a peti- 
tion on  some  questions  that  should  be 
voted  on  at  the  regular  election. 

MR.  O ’DONNELL : Is  an  amendment 

in  order  now  in  the  state  in  which  the 
record  now  is,  in  the  state  it  now  is, 
with  motions  pending,  is  an  amendment 
in  order? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  an 

an  amendment  before  the  house,  Mr. 
O ’Donnell.  If  the  amendment  which  you 
desire  to  offer  is  germane  to  the  amend- 
ment now  under  consideration,  it  is  in 
order. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I desire  to  move 

to  strike  from  the  amendment  the  word 
‘ 1 such. ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  word? 

MR.  O ’DONNELL : The  word  1 1 such,  ’ ’ 
so  that  it  will  not  relate  back  to  ordi- 
nances granting  franchises  for  public  util- 


ities merely,  but  it  will  refer  back  to 
any  ordinances  that  the  City  Council  at 
any  time  may  desire  to  have  an  expres- 
sion from  the  people  upon.  There  are 
many  ordinances  that  the  aldermen  of 
the  City  Council  may  desire  the  expres- 
sion of  the  people  upon,  other  than  ordi- 
nances concerning  grant  of  franchises, 
and  if  you  give  the  power  of  the  City 
Council  to  refer  to  the  people  for  refer- 
endum any  ordinances  regardless  of 
whether  it  is  for  a franchise  or  not,  1 
think  it  would  be  an  excellent  thing  to 
do.  It  is  merely  referring  it  to  the  City 
Council  to  determine  whether  or  not  they 
need  the  advice  of  their  constituents  and 
of  the  people  of  the  city. 

You  know  we  are  trying  to  have  home 
rule  here,  to  some  extent.  Some  time  or 
other  there  may  be  some  power  which 
may  try  to  curtail  that  home  rule,  and 
it  may  be  necessary  to  get  an  expression 
from  your  people  here,  so  that  I think 
it  would  be  only  wise  that  this  Conven- 
tion should  give  the  aldermen  of  the  City 
Council  the  power  to  go  to  the  people 
for  the  consideration  on  any  ordinance 
that  may  be  passed  by  the  City  Council, 
or  that  may  be  under  consideration.  1 
sincerely  trust  the  amendment  will  pre- 
vail, because  it  will  be  of  great  benefit 
to  the  people  of  Chicago. 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems 

to  me  we  are  not  quite  consistent,  or 
else  we  have  forgotten  some  things  that 
have  been  discussed  here  before  while  we 
are  considering  this  question.  The  wrhole 
effort,  with  regard  to  referendum,  seems 
to  be  an  effort  to  shift  the  responsibility 
of  legislation  from  the  regularly  elected 
representatives,  or  the  members  of  the 
Legislature,  on  to  the  shoulders  of  the 
people.  As  has  already  been  said,  it  is 
a well  recognized  fact  that  when  a ques- 
tion comes  up  on  which  there  is  some 
doubt,  and  which  it  is  desired  to  dodge 
the  responsibility  of,  it  is  a common 
j thing  to  have  a referendum,  and  thereby 
j shoulder  it  off  on  the  people.  Now,  ex- 
| perience  teaches — and  I think  every  man 


December  17 


417 


1906 


here  has  had  some  experience  in  this  di- 
rection— that  the  people  that  vote  upon 
the  little  ballot  as  a rule  do  not  pay  as 
much  attention  to  it,  or  take  as  much 
effort  to  be  thoroughly  posted  on  it,  as 
they  do  upon  the  candidates ; and  yet 
we  have  heard  it  discussed  here  at  great 
length,  that  we  should  reduce  the  number 
of  names  upon  the  ticket,  in  order  that 
there  might  not  be  any  confusion  to  the 
voter.  Now  we  come  before  the  Conven- 
tion with  a proposition  that  the  City 
Council  can  at  any  time  ask  for  a refer- 
endum vote  upon  a question.  Why,  Mr. 
Chairman,  we  are  liable  to  have  a dozen 
of  those  little  votes,  those  little  tickets, 
before  us;  and  I have  even  seen  people 
come  into  a voting  booth — I presume  you 
all  have — who  have  not  made  up  their 
minds  at  all  upon  the  question  of  the 
little  ballots,  who  ask  the  first  Tom,  Dick 
or  Harry  they  meet,  the  question : ‘ 1 What 
are  you  going  to  do  on  this?”  And  the 
reply  might  be:  “Why,  I am  going  to 
vote  1 no  ’ on  that.  ” 11  All  right,  so  will 
I;  let  it  go  at  that.” 

Now,  I don ’t  think  that  is  a proper 
thing  to  do ; when  there  are  members 
that  are  elected  to  the  City  Council  or 
to  the  Legislature,  when  a question  comes 
up  of  importance,  they  seek  to  find  out 
about  it,  to  get  all  the  information  they 
can  upon  the  question — we  seek  to  get  all 
the  information  we  can  upon  the  question 
from  both  sides,  wTe  try  to  get  advice 
from  those  that  are  posted,  we  try  to 
get  them  to  tell  us,  from  experience  in 
the  past,  get  all  the  enlightenment  we 
ean  upon  these  matters,  we  get  what 
books'  we  can  published  by  the  council, 
and  by  other  means  get  what  information 
we  can  on  the  subject.  The  individual 
voter  never  does  that,  hardly  ever  does 
that ; a very  small  percentage  would  do 
that.  You  are  simply  shifting  the  respon- 
sibility for  great  public  matters  from 
the  legislators  to  the  people,  and  it  is 
well  known  that  the  people  have  no  re- 
sponsibility on  the  little  ballot;  they  as- 
sume no  responsibility  when  they  vote  on 


the  little  ballot.  They  vote,  you  may  say, 
almost  without  thought.  I don’t  think 
it  is  right  to  shift  the  responsibility, 
except  on  great  public  matters — matters 
of  great  importance, — and  I am  in  favor 
of  the  referendum  only  on  those  impor- 
tant matters;  but,  to  put  in  a position 
the  City  Council,  or  any  other  legislative 
body,  to  send  down  a dozen  or  more  of 
those  little  ballots  in  that  way,  T don’t 
think  you  are  getting  an  expression  from 
anyone;  I think  the  people  who  vote  on 
them  vote  without  assuming  any  respon- 
sibility. I think  it  is  shifting  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  legislation  improperly 
down  to  the  people. 

There  is  another  point  that  occurs  to 
me  which  has  not  been  touched  upon  at 
all.  It  has  been  said  that  in 

Switzerland  this  thing  works  well, 
and  in  many  matters  brought  be- 
fore us  we  are  pointed  to  some 
foreign  city  or  state — London,  Berlin, 
Paris  or  some  country  like  Switzerland, 
and  they  say  that  it  works  well  there.  I 
venture  to  say  that  conditions  are  en- 
tirely different  here  from  what  they  are 
there.  You  take  a question  that  comes 
up  before  the  people  of  London,  for  in- 
stance, as  an  illustration.  There  they 
have  a voter  who  is  an  Englishman:  he 
is  familiar  with  the  language:  he  is 
familiar  with  the  form  of  government; 
he  is  familiar  with  newspaper  talk;  he 
knows  the  whole  theory  of  the  govern- 
ment from  his  childhood  up.  It  is  not 
so  here.  Here  we  have  thousands  and 
tens  of  thousands  and  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  foreigners  coming  here  from 
all  over,  emigrants  coming  here,  and  in 
a comparatively  short  time  they  are  made 
into  voters,  with  just  as  much  opportun- 
ity to  vote  as  you  and  I have.  They  are 
voters  before  they  understand  our  lan- 
guage; they  are  voters  before  their 
theory  of  government  which  they  bring 
over  with  them  is  eliminated,  and  which 
prejudices  them,  perhaps,  and  which  form 
of  government,  or  which  theory  of  govern- 
ment, perhaps,  has  gone  down  through 


December  17 


418 


1906 


generations  of  improper  government  and 
of  oppression.  It  is  hard  to  get  that  out 
of  their  minds. 

Now,  by  the  use  of  the  little  ballot, 
they  really  become  the  legislators;  they 
decide  those  questions  of  legislation 
which  should  be  decided  by  the  regularly 
elected  representative  on  whom  the  bur- 
den should  rest;  and  in  passing  upon 
these  matters  they  assume  no  responsi- 
bility by  voting  the  little  ballot. 

I believe  in  the  referendum  in  the  pro- 
per case,  where  there  are  great  questions, 
and  where  the  people  rise  up  and  want 
to  settle  those  questions;  a question  of 
franchise  or  something  of  that  sort,  per- 
haps; but  I believe  20  per  cent,  saves 
them  that  right.  I do  not  believe  in 
making  it  so  that  a couple  of  people 
can  hold  up  an  election,  and  I do  not 
believe  in  it  being  possible  to  shift  the 
responsibility  on  those  questions.  I be- 
lieve the  principle  is  wrong,  to  shift  the 
responsibility  of  legislation  from  the 
regularly  elected  representatives  to  the 
people  who  assume  no  responsibility,  and 
a large  percentage  of  whom  do  not  un- 
derstand our  form  of  government,  and 
do  not  understand  the  language,  and  who 
come  to  the  polling  places  with  the  little 
ballots,  and  either  don’t  vote  at  all  or 
take  the  recommendation  of  the  first  man 
they  meet  as  to  whom  they  shall  vote  for. 

I think  this  amendment  puts  it  in  the 
power  of  the  City  Council  to  pass  every 
ordinance  along  or  dodge  every  respon- 
sibility. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  The  original  resolu- 

tion provides  only  a referendum  on  grants 
of  public  utilities. 

MR.  HILL:  That  is  true.  Mr.  O’Don- 
nell’s proposition  brought  me  to  my 
feet;  if  it  is  limited  to  franchise  ques- 
tions, and  if  the  City  Council  desires 
to  secure  it,  it  is  quite  a different  prop- 
osition, but  if  it  is  wide  open  to  every 
proposition  it  is  entirely  a different 
thing,  and  I do  not  think  that  when 
these  questions  are  brought  home  to  the 
legislature  and  the  city  aldermen  that  I 


they  should  shift  the  responsibility  to 
the  people.  They  should  not  dodge  the 
responsibility,  and  we  know  very  well 
in  the  legislature  that  those  people  who 
want  to  dodge,  they  will  simply  pass  it 
down  to  the  people  on  a referendum,  and 
a man  who  is  not  afraid  he  will  not  be 
re-elected,  a man  who  is  not  making 
for  himself  and  against  the  interests 
of  the  people  will  stand  up  and  take 
the  responsibility  of  his  own  judgment 
in  view  of  the  facts  that  are  laid  be- 
fore him;  he  will  vote  upon  that  ques- 
tion, and  if  he  is  wrong  and  his  people 
are  not  with  him,  then  let  him  be  de- 
feated and  stay  at  home. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I wish  to  say  only 

a word  on  a point  which  I think  has 
not  been  touched  upon  and  which  I 
think  is  a practical  one.  I am  opposed 
to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  O’Donnell  ex- 
tending this  right  to  the  City  Council, 
for  this  reason:  I think  it  is  going  to 

put  it  within  the  power  of  the  minority, 
and  a very  small  minority,  of  the 
council,  to  seriously  embarrass  legis- 
lation by  proposing  whenever  a bill  is 
proposed  by  a minority  that  it  should 
be  referred  to  the  people,  thereby  put- 
ting the  members  of  the  majority  in  the 
embarrassing  position  of  delaying  legis- 
lation by  voting  for  it,  or  of  voting  to 
put  themselves  in  the  apparent  position 
of  objecting  to  submitting  the  question 
to  the  people.  I think  it  will  enable 
a very  small  minority  to  embarrass  the 
majority  seriously. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr. 
Hill  has  voiced  my  sentiments  exactly, 
excepting  that  I think  where  you  give 
the  people  the  opportunity  of  present- 
ing petition  for  referendum  that  should 
settle  it,  and  that  the  City  Council 
should  not  be  permitted  to  shift  the  re- 
sponsibility that  the  people  who  elect- 
ed them  imposed  on  them.  I think  both 
the  amendment  of  Mr.  O’Donnell  and 
the  amendment  submitted  by  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal should  be  voted  down  for  the  good 


December  17 


419 


1906 


and  the  independence  and  the  quality 
of  the  members  of  the  City  Council. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  when 

this  amendment  was  first  offered,  I ap- 
plied it  in  my  mind  to  a condition  which 
existed  in  the  council  at  one  time  dur- 
ing my  term  of  service,  and  it  struck 
me  at  first  blush  that  it  was  desirous, 
and  now  I have  in  mind  a condition 
where  a franchise  ordinance  had  been 
prepared  and  was  ready  to  be  reported 
out  to  a committee  just  a short  time 
before  an  election,  at  a time  when 
there  was  not  sufficient  time  could 
elapse  to  enable  to  prepare  for  its 
admission,  and  the  council  at  that  time 
would  have  been  vfery  glad  to  have  been 
able  to  submit  that  ordinance  to  a pop- 
ular vote.  But  as  I revolved  in  my 
mind  the  length  to  which  these  ques- 
tions might  be  carried,  I reached  very 
decidedly  the  opinion  that  it  would  be 
unwise. 

Now,  as  Senator  Hill  has  pointed  out, 
in  a representative  government  the 
power  of  legislation  has  been  delegated 
from  the  people  to  their  representative 
assemblies,  and  this  would  simply  place 
it  in  the  hands  of  those  representatives 
to  re-delegate  the  power  back  to  the 
people.  As  a matter  of  fact,  you  might 
just  as  well  abolish  the  council  or  abol- 
ish any  legislative  body  if  you  leave  it 
in  their  hands  to  send  any  ordinance 
back  for  a popular  vote.  In  every  body 
there  are  a certain  number  of  men, 
usually  a considerable  number,  as  hu- 
man nature  runs,  who  are  timid  of  char- 
acter, and  who  would  be  inclined  to 
take  a vote  upon  a thing  which  they 
might  not  entirely  approve  and  shield 
themselves  by  saying  they  voted  that 
vote  because  it  was  going  back  to  the 
people  to  be  decided. 

Now,  it  strikes  me  that  not  only  will 
that  condition  prevail,  but  that  you 
will  make  it  exceedingly  difficult  for 
anybody  or  any  interest  or  any  corpo- 


ration desiring  a public  franchise  for 
the  benefit  of  the  people  of  Chicago  to 
transact  their  work,  for  them  to  secure 
it,  because  they  will  realize  from  the 
start  that  it  is  necessary  to  go  back 
and  hold  an  election,  with  all  the  ex- 
penses of  election,  and  the  expenses  of 
a campaign  of  education  before  them. 
It  strikes  me  that  when  you  have  pro- 
vided the  possibility  of  a referendum 
vote  upon  any  question  upon  which 
there  is  a large  public  sentiment,  upon 
a reasonable  basis  (and  I maintain  that 
20  per  cent,  of  the  voters  is  a reason- 
able basis)  that  we  have  done  sufficient 
to  enable  the  people  of  Chicago  to  pass 
in  judgment  upon  the  acts  of  their 
legislature. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I do  not  want  my  position  with  refer- 
ence to  this  amendment  to  be  misun- 
derstood. In  offering  that  amendment 
I offered  it  simply  with  the  idea  of 
putting  the  proposition  before  this  as- 
sembly in  the  clearest  form,  but  I am 
personally  unalterably  opposed  to  this 
provision.  It  seems  to  me  we  would  be 
making  just  as  great  a mistake  by  hav- 
ing a simple  referendum.  In  fact,  we 
would  be  making  a still  greater  mis- 
take. From  the  arguments  of  Mr.  Hill, 
Mr.  Eidmann  and  Mr.  Snow,  I regard 
them  as  conclusive  upon  that  propo- 
sition. 

I simply  want  to  call  attention  to 
this  fact:  Anyone  who  has  observed  the 
proceedings  in  our  City  Council  the 
last  three  or  four  years  knows  that 
even  in  a body  as  good  as  that  body  is 
they  have  often  endeavored  to . shift 
the  responsibility  which  already  rests 
upon  them  to  some  other  person.  So  a 
few  years  ago  we  witnessed  the  passage 
of  an  ordinance,  or  the  passage  of  some 
appropriation  which  was  introduced  at 
the  behest  of  some  firm,  and  which  was 
| passed  at  a time  when  the  council  knew 
that  the  ordinance  could  not  be  carried 
into  effect,  and  the  council  knew  it 
I would  mean  the  bankruptcy  of  the  city, 


December  17 


420 


1906 


and  yet  it  was  passed  by  that  council 
because  they  knew  it  would  be  up  be- 
fore the  mayor  and  would  be  vetoed  by 
the  mayor,  and  instead  of  coming  out 
boldly  and  bravely  and  taking  the  re- 
sponsibility as  they  ought  to  have  done, 
they  shifted  that  responsibility  to  the 
mayor  of  the  city. 

Now,  here  we  furnish  an  additional  op- 
portunity, and,  just  as  Alderman  Snow 
has  pointed  out,  we  put  it  in  the  power 
of  a good  man  in  the  council  to  shift 
the  burden  to  the  people,  where  it  does 
not  belong,  and  take  it  away  from  the 
City  Council. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  the 

question  is  upon  Mr.  O’Donnell's 
amendment  to  strike  out  the  word 
1 ‘ such.  ’ ’ As  many  as  favor  the  motion 
of  Mr.  O’Donnell  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  The  motion  is  lost. 
The  question  is  now  upon  Mr.  Merriam ’s 
resolution  as  written  out  by  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

expense  and  cost  involved  in  a.  20  per 
cent,  referendum  petition  is  not  incon- 
siderable. If  the  City  Council  were 
empowered  to  submit  a question  upon 
which  there  was  a great  deal  of  public 
discussion  and  legitimate  public  differ- 
ence, it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a help 
to  the  City  Council  and  would  rather 
strengthen  their  hands  than  weaken 
them.  The  possibility  of  having  taken 
a stand  in  the  council  and  having  said 
what  they  thought,  and  then  having 
referred  that  question  to  the  people  and 
having  it  endorsed  by  the  people  will 
not  weaken  a member’s  backbone  nor 
hands  in  my  judgment  but  will 
strengthen  them. 

It  will  do  more.  The  worst  enemy 
of  good  government  everywhere  is  the 
lack  of  confidence  of  the  people  in 
their  representatives.  The  most  potent 
means  for  creating  that  lack  of  confi- 
dence is  false  statements  in  regard  to 
important  public  acts,  of  the  representa- 
tives of  the  people,  and  there  are  not  a 


few  representatives,  in  my  judgment,  all 
of  the  ablest  and  most  honorable  repre- 
sentatives who  have  gone  over  this  mat- 
ter but  would  be  glad  to  go  back  to  their 
wards  and  their  constituents  and  de- 
fend their  action  before  the  people. 

But  there  is  one  group  of  legisla- 
tors that  will  mightily  fear  it  and  those 
are  the  group  that  fear  they  must  de- 
fend their  action  and  who  know  if  they 
were  to  submit  them  to  the  people 
they  would  probably  be  repudiated. 
And  it  is  to  get  that  very  condition 
out  of  the  public  life,  and  those  very 
representatives  out  of  our  public  bodies 
that  some  of  us  advocate  this  measure 
in  its  large  and  general  form,  and  this 
particular  privilege  of  the  City  Council 
is  a wise  provision  to  allay  public 
sentiment  that  has  been  falsely  created 
against  able  and  honorable  representa- 
tives. The  very  best  way,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, is  if  the  sentiment  be  created, 
that  the  representatives  be  empowered 
to  discuss  that  question  before  their 
people  and  have  them  vote  their  sen- 
timents upon  it.  One  aldermen  says, 
“ I am  supported  by  my  people;”  an- 
other alderman  says,  “I  am  supported 
by  my  people,”  and  we  do  not  know 
and  the  public  does  not  know  until  some 
action  such  as  has  been  indicated  here 
and  is  provided  for  here  has  been  taken. 

Now,  upon  this  question  of  the  for- 
eign countries  I would  like  to  ask  Mr. 
Hill  whether  he  thinks  the  people  of 
the  sixteenth  ward  are  no  less  able  to 
pass  upon  questions  of  public  moment 
than  the  Honorable  Stanley  Kunz?  I 
wish  to  say  that  you  do  not  get  away 
from  the  people  in  the  last  analysis 
ever,  you  have  to  get  back  to  them,  and 
communities  that  are  able  are  apt  to 
have  ignorant  representatives  and  they 
are  apt,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  elect  those 
representatives  for  personal,  national 
and  other  reasons  and  to  be  apt  to  vote 
much  more  intelligently  and  indepen- 
dently upon  a question  than  a person. 
Such  seems  to  me  to  have  been  the 


December  17 


421 


1906 


experience  of  public  policy  wherever  it 
has  been  tried  in  this  country  or  else- 
where. 

ME.  HILL:  May  I ask  the  gentle- 

man a question? 

ME.  EOBINS:  Yes. 

MB.  HILL:  I would  like  to  ask  you 

whether  you  think  one  of  those  repre- 
sentatives that  you  refer  to,  one  of  the 
undesirable  kind,  whether  it  is  more 
desirable  to  have  him  come  up  and 
vote  directly  on  the  question,  knowing 
that  he  must  go  back  to  his  constitu- 
ents and  face  his  action,  or  to  have  him 
say,  “I  submitted  it  to  my  people  and 
I abide  by  their  decision ?”  Doesn’t 
it  leave  the  door  wide  open  for  that 
kind  of  a man  to  dodge?  It  isn’t  the 
courageous  man  who  stands  up  and 
votes  with  honest  principles,  but  it  is 
the  weak  man  who  says,  “I  will  submit 
it  on  a referendum,”  and  when  he  goes 
back  to  his  people  he  says,  “I  sub- 
mitted it  to  you,  the  blame  is  yours 
and  not  mine.” 

ME.  EOBINS:  I do  not  understand 

the  proposition  to  be  just  what  Sena- 
tor Hill  suggests.  I understand  that 
you  are  to  vote  in  your  City  Council,  if 
you  please,  for  or  against  the  measure, 
and  then,  if  you  please,  you  can  submit 
it  to  the  people. 

ME.  HILL:  Evidently  you  did  not 

quite  catch  my  idea.  Of  course  you  will 
vote  on  the  question  one  way  or  the 
other,  but  you  can  always  justify  it  by 
saying  “I  voted  that  way,  whichever 
way  it  is,  but  I knew  it  was  coming 
back  to  you,  and  it  would  have  to  re- 
ceive your  endorsement  before  it  came 
along.  The  pressure  was  such,  or  what- 
ever the  excuse  may  be,  that  I voted  to 
pass  this  bill  knowing  it  would  come  to 
you  for  your  approval.  If  it  had  not 
come  to  you  for  your  approval  I should 
have  voted  the  other  way,”  or  some 
such  answer  as  that.  That  is  the  way 
the  thing  is  worked.  That  is  the  excuse 
given.  “J  know  you  would  have  to 
pass  on  it.  It  was  coming  back  to  you 


for  you  to  settle  it.  It  would  not  be- 
come a law  until  you  had  approved  it.” 

ME.  EOBINS:  On  the  contrary,  Mr. 

Chairman,  I think  the  experience  with 
those  governments  which  have  tried  the 
referendum  has  been  precisely  the  other 
way,  that  in  cities  where  representa- 
tives knew  they  had  to  go  back  to  the 
people  with  their  action  before  it  was 
confirmed,  that  they  were  more  thought- 
ful, more  considerate  and  they  more 
certainly  voted  their  sentiment  and 
and  the  sentiments  of  their  constitu- 
ents than  the  sentiment  of  some  other 
special  interest  in  the  exercise  of  their 
delegative  power. 

It  is  a curious  lack  of  trust  in  the 
general  good  faith  and  intelligence  of 
the  people,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  if  they 
elect  a representative  and  choose  him 
that  they  cannot  pass  upon  this  particu- 
lar measure.  Are  we  so  much  taller 
than  the  people  who  sent  us  here,  or  is 
the  general  average  of  a City  Council  or 
a State  Legislature  so  much  higher  in 
grade,  intelligence  and  morals  than  the 
people?  In  my  judgment  it  is  not  so. 
In  my  judgment  the  general  experience 
of  people  everywhere  is  that  it  is  about 
as  great  if  it  is  not  a little  the  other 
way. 

ME.  HILL:  May  I ask  you  a ques- 

tion? 

ME.  EOBINS:  By  all  means. 

ME.  HILL:  I think  the  gentleman 

is  assuming  a position  that  is  not  cor- 
rect. No  man  assumes  that  a member 
of  the  legislature  or  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil is  superior  to  the  people  that  elect 
him,  nor  did  my  remarks  call  forth  any 
such  criticisms.  I resent  that  imputa- 
tion right  now.  The  point  that  I made, 
and  I think  you  will  not  deny  it,  is 
this,  if  you  are  delegated  to  certain 
duties,  and  people  come  to  you  and  lay 
the  matter  before  you  on  all  sides  and 
if  you  take  up  the  subject  and  study 
it  carefully,  don’t  you  imagine  that 
you  have  a better  idea,  a clearer  con- 
ception of  that  than  you  would  have 


December  17 


422 


1906 


if  you  passed  into  a booth  and  were 
handed  a ticket  and  voted  yes  or  no 
right  on  it? 

That  is  what  I mean.  I do  not  mean 
I am  superior  to  these  people,  or  that 
any  alderman  is,  not  by  any  means, 
but  the  responsibility  being  put  on  a 
man  he  assumes  that  responsibility  and 
because  of  that  will  look  into  it  more 
thoroughly  and  decide  it  fairly  where 
the  other  man  does  not  assume  any  re- 
sponsibility at  all  nor  is  he  accountable 
to  anybody  for  his  vote. 

MR.  ROBINS:  In  reply  to  the 

speech,  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish  to  say 
that  the  whole  argument  in  favor  of 
a referendum  is  that  it  does  educate  the 
public.  That  the  assumption  of  the 
gentleman  that  the  man  does  not  know 
what  he  is  going  to  do  until  he  goes 
into  his  booth,  in  my  judgment,  is  the 
most  false  assumption  that  has  been 
made  in  this  room.  The  wide  discus- 
sion upon  questions  of  public  policy  at 
meetings  devoted  to  such  matters  and 
the  intelligent  action  of  the  people 
which  has  been  praised  on  both  sides  of 
the  press,  that  is  in  the  press  standing 
for  both  sides  of  the  issue,  as  to  its 
vote  upon  questions  of  public  policy  is 
common  knowledge  in  this  city.  No, 
Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  the  assumption 
that  the  delegated  representative  is  the 
wise  person  to  act  as  against  the  peo- 
ple, that  is  not  the  true  assumption.  On 
the  contrary,  curiously  diverting  things 
come  in  to  affect  the  judgment  of  dele- 
gates sometimes,  and  it  truly  is  a great 
thing  that  when  you  take  the  question 
back  to  the  people  they  vote  whether 
they  want  this  thing  or  they  do  not, 
which  is  the  object  of  our  government. 

(The  question  was  called  for.) 

MR.  WHITE:  It  does  not  seem  to 

me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  contention 
of  the  last  speaker,  that  unless  this 
particular  amendment  is  passed  at  this 
particular  time  that  we  are  about  to  in- 
fringe upon  the  inalienable  rights  of 
the  people  and  correct  the  action  of 


their  representatives,  is  the  right  one. 
The  fact  is,  I think  we  have  already 
provided  by  a too  large  percentage,  as 
I think,  a way  by  which  the  people  can 
make  their  wishes  known  in  the  face 
of  any  legislation  that  does  not  please 
them,  and  it  is  absurd  to  say  because 
you  do  not  extend  that  privilege  to 
the  City  Council  it  is  in  any  sense  in- 
terfering with  the  rights  of  the  peo- 
ple. We  have  established  that  fact,  we 
have  maintained  it  on  the  floor  of  this 
Convention,  we  have  incorporated  it  in- 
to this  charter. 

As  I understand  the  principle  of  the 
referendum  clause  it  seems  to  me  its 
prime  aim  and  object  is  to  give  the 
people  at  all  times  an  opportunity  of 
correcting  wrong  or  undesirable  legisla- 
tion; that  is  all  it  is.  If  you  extend  to 
the  City  Council  by  the  amendment 
which  Mr.  Rosenthal  presents,  which, 
by  the  way  he  repudiates  as  jeopardiz- 
ing his  reputation  as  a lawyer  for  mak- 
ing a clear  statement  an  amendment, 
you  pervert,  in  my  judgment,  the  prime 
intention  and  aim  of  a referendum,  be- 
cause here  you  do  not  merely  give  the 
people  the  right  to  correct  wrong  legis- 
lation, but  you  give  your  representa- 
tives the  right  and  opportunity  and  you 
place  before  them  the  constant  tempta- 
tion to  shift  their  personal  responsibili- 
ty back  to  the  people,  which  was  never 
the  intention  of  the  referendum  so  far 
as  I know  anything  about  its  action.  I 
think  this  ought  to  be  defeated. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Gentlemen,  may  I 

be  allowed  to  make  an  explanation  in 
regard  to  a matter  of  great  importance 
to  me,  personally?  This  amendment 
seems  to  me  to  be  somewhat  in  doubt. 
The  Chairman  said  the  amendment  was 
offered  by  Mr.  Merriam  and  written  by 
Mr.  Rosenthal.  There  was  a good  rea- 
son for  this  having  been  written  out 
by  Mr.  Rosenthal.  In  the  first  place 
the  original  amendment  was  thrown  to 
the  waste  paper  basket;  in  the  second 
place,  I wished  to  have  the  resolution 


December  17 


423 


1906 


drawn  up,  and  I began  to  look  around 
this  Convention  for  the  most  suitable 
man  to  undertake  that  task,  and  I 
turned  to  Mr.  Rosenthal  as  the  man 
having  the  most  experience  in  making 
amendments,  and  on  him  the  duty  natu- 
rally fell.  (Laughter.) 

I do  not  wish  it  to  appear  that  this 
matter  was  of  such  vital  importance. 
If  I had  known  I was  lifting  off  the  lid 
to  such  an  extent  as  I appear  to  have 
done,  I never  should  have  proffered  the 
resolution  at  all.  We  seem  to  have  got 
into  apparently  what  is  a very  import- 
ant matter,  but  I do  not  take  it  that 
this  resolution  involvel  the  fundamental 
rights  of  the  people,  or  a representative 
government  in  general.  Even  if  this 
resolution  were  adopted — if  it  were 
voted  up  or  down — the  representative 
government  would  go  on,  and  the  rights 
of  the  people  would  be  still  preserved. 

I do  not  think  it  would  be  a severe 
shock  either  way.  Representative 
bodies  are  not  infallible,  and  the  peo- 
ple are  not  infallible.  The  legislature 
passed  a resolution  a short  time  ago 
declaring  that  the  sky  in  the  State  of 
Texas  was  bluer  than  in  any  other  place 
in  the  world,  including  Italy.  And  the 
legislature  of  New  York  approved  a reso- 
lution that  thirteen  oysters  should  be  in- 
cluded in  a dozen.  They  are  wise  meas- 
ures, in  my  judgment.  (Laughter.)  I 
think  the  people  occasionally  make  mis- 
takes. They  make  mistakes  in  a good 
many  ways.  The  people  made  a mis- 
take a short  time  ago.  We  had  up  a 
proposition  involving  a sum  more  or 
less — the  saving  of  a sum  of  some  $60,- 
000;  that  was  carried  by  a scratch, 
and  there  was  no  reason  why  it  should 
not  have  been  carried  unanimously. 

My  purpose  in  having  this  resolution 
was  that  of  legalizing  what  the  City 
Council  has  done.  In  times  past  they 
actually  proceeded  without  law,  and  it 
might  be  well  to  have  it  in  a case  such 
as  a traction  franchise.  T understand 
there  was  no  petition  presented  to  the 


City  Council  before  the  final  vote  was 
taken  on  the  ordinance  pending  at  all. 
The  people  were  asked  to  decide  it  yes 
or  no.  I want  to  legalize  such  a pro- 
cedure as  that.  And  in  the  cases  of 
franchise  ordinances — this  does  not  in- 
volve the  whole  question  of  the  referen- 
dum vote — in  cases  of  franchise  ordi- 
nances where  there  is  a fair  cleavage  of 
opinion,  we  should  have  it  so  that  the 
question  should  be  referred  to  the  peo- 
ple in  a legal  way  with  petition.  I 
apologize  for  taking  up  so  much  time. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I have  listened 

with  a great  deal  of  attention  to  the 
arguments  which  were  advanced  against 
the  present  proposition  before  the 
house.  I think  it  would  be  better,  with 
my  amendment,  but  in  the  present  form, 
as  it  stands,  I am  in  favor  of  it. 

The  gentlemen  who  criticized  this 
amendment,  forget  that  the  same  thing 
is  done  by  the  State  Legislature.  They 
have  submitted  now  every  referendum 
to  the  people — they  did  submit  this 
amendment  to  the  constitution,  which 
was  passed  upon  by  the  people,  so  that 
for  important  matters  of  legislature 
that  principle  is  recognized  in  this 
state;  it  is  a part  of  our  system.  I 
am  not  in  favor  of  giving  too  much 
power  to  the  City  Council,  and  this 
amendment  of  mine,  if  you  will  notice, 
is  the  first  that  I have,  is  the  first 
amendment  that  I made  to  give  the 
City  Council  any  extraordinary  powers; 
but  I feel  that  the  people  should  have 
something  to  say  about  these  questions, 
and  that  they  should  not  be  compelled 
to  get  up  monster  petitions,  if  the 
City  Council,  in  its  wisdom,  thinks  that 
the  proposition  for  a franchise  should 
be  submitted  to  the  people.  It  is  an 
easy  way  of  submitting  the  question  to 
the  people  if  the  City  Council  so  de- 
sires. The  principle  is  right.  The  prin- 
ciple is  alive  in  this  state.  We  are 
acting  under  it  in  this  present  constitu- 
tional amendment;  and  not  only,  in 
my  judgment,  should  franchises  for 


December  17 


424 


1906 


giving  away  of  the  streets,  or  the  spaces 
above  or  below,  be  submitted  to  the 
people,  but  any  ordinance,  of  any  mo- 
ment, the  people  should  speak  on  it, 
and  should  be  given  an  opportunity  to 
speak  on  it.  I sincerely  hope  that  the 
amendment  offered  by  Professor  Mer- 
riam  will  be  passed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  on  the  adoption  of  Mr. 
Rosenthal ’s  substitute. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Burke,  Carey,  Cole,  Ritter,  Dever,  Eck- 
hart,  J.  W. ; MacMillan,  McGoorty,  Mer- 
riam,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Pendarvis, 
Powers,  Rainey,  Robins,  Taylor,  Vopic- 
ka,  Werno,  Zimmer — 22. 

Nays  — Baker,  Beebe,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Church,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.; 
Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Kittleman,  Lath- 
rop,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  McKinley, 
Oehne,  Raymer,  Revell,  Rosenthal,  Shan- 
ahan, Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Swift  White,  Wilkins,  Young — 31. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  I desire 

to  have  my  vote  recorded. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  vRo- 

senthal’s  substitute  the  yeas  are  22  and 
the  noes  31,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  section  as  amended,  and 
then  the  Chair  will  state  the  question. 

The  Secretary  read  the  section  as 
amended. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  amendment  should  follow  the  word 
“ grant,”  instead  of  the  word,  “ordi- 
nance,” as  read  by  the  Secretary. 
“Granting  any  franchise.” 

THE  SECRETARY:  “Granting  any 

franchise  or,”  yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  motion  that  the  first  alterna- 
tive to  No.  2 be  substituted  for  both 
Nos.  1 and  2.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question? 


MR.  ROBINS:  I want  to  inquire 

whether  this  vote  at  this  time  will  pre- 
clude the  consideration  of  the  initia- 
tive? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chairman 

cannot  answer  that  question.  I dare 
say  that  any  further  resolution  may  be 
offered,  but  he  can  only  state  the  mo- 
tion as  it  has  been  made,  and  that  will 
relate  only  to  the  printed  record.  Those 
in  favor  of  the  motion  say  aye;  those 
opposed  no. 

MR.  DEYER:  I desire  a roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins,  do 

you  desire  a roll  call? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Yes,  I ask  for  a roll 

call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  when  a roll  call  is  desired 
you  call  for  it  before  the  call  for  the 
' vote,  in  the  interest  of  time.  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beil- 
fuss, Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Carey, 
Church,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.; 
Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Eid- 
mann, Erickson,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Lundberg,  MacMil- 
lan, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
Oehne,  Pendarvis,  Powers,  Rainey,  Ray- 
mer, Revell,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Swift, 
Taylor,  White,  Wilkins,  Wilson,  Young, 
—43. 

Nays — Burke,  Ritter,  Dever,  Linehan, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Robins,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  Zimmer — 10. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I wish  to  give  my 

reason  for  my  vote.  My  only  objection 
to  the  section  is  the  20  per  cent.  I vote 
no. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  the  percentage  is  too  high,  there- 
fore I vote  no. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  to  require  20  per  cent,  would  be 
unreasonable,  therefore  I vote  no. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  For  the  same  rea- 

son I vote  no. 


December  17 


425 


1906 


ME.  WEENO:  I vote  no  for  the 

same  reason  as  given  by  Mr.  Yopicka. 

ME.  BUEKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  vote  no. 

THE  SECEETAEY : Mr.  Burke 

votes  how? 

ME.  BUEKE:  No. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  adopt  the  yeas  are  43,  and  the 
noes  10,  and  the  motion  to  adopt  is 
carried. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  That  substitutes 

alternative  No.  2 for  the  other  two. 

ME.  SHEPAED:  Mr.  Chairman, 

that  finishes  this  chapter? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes. 

ME.  SHEPAED:  Mr.  Chairman,  rev- 

enue is  a special  order  for  tomorrow 
evening.  For  the  purpose  of  elucidating 
one  or  two  of  the  propositions  sub- 
mitted under  the  chapter  entitled 
“Bevenue,  ” I have  sent  to  the  Secre- 
tary’s desk  four  resolutions,  so  that 
they  may  go  into  the  record,  so  that 
the  members  of  the  Convention  may 
consider  them  tomorrow  evening.  I ask 
that  they  be  read  and  deferred  until  to- 
morrow evening. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  resolutions. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as 
printed  hereinafter. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  matter  will 

be  published  under  the  rules  and  de- 
ferred. 

ME.  SHEDD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I have 

sent  to  the  Secretary’s  desk  a resolution 
which  I desire  to  have  read  and  de- 
ferred and  published. 

THE  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as 
printed  hereinafter. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  This  will  be 

printed  under  the  rules  and  taken  up 
later. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  now  read  22;  a number  of  special 
orders  under  22. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I ask  that  those  be  read  one  at  a time, 
because  they  are  separate  sections. 


THE  CHAIEMAN:  They  will  be 

read  one  at  a time. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  No.  1: 

MB.  EOSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I venture  the  opinion  that  that  particu- 
lar section  would  be  invalid  if  we  were 
to  adopt  it.  Legally  1 do  not  see  how 
we  could  incorporate  anything  in  our 
charter  which  shall  be  binding,  as  this 
will  be,  upon  subsequent  legislatures.  If 
it  was  a matter  of  the  construction  of 
any  subsequent  law,  I would  say  that 
the  legislature  could  not  pass  any  law 
without  providing  for  the  enforcement 
of  the  law.  If  it  is  intended  as  an  in- 
struction upon  the  legislature  hereafter, 
that  could  not  be  incorporated  in  a law 
relating  to  the  City  of  Chicago  alone. 
I think  it  is  so  apparently  invalid  that 
it  need  not  be  referred  to  the  Law  Com- 
mittee, but  if  there  is  any  question 
about  it,  let  be  referred  to  that  Law 
Committee. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  this,  .gentlemen? 

ME.  EAYMEE:  I move  it  be  not 

concurred  in. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion  that  No.  1,  Section  22  be 
not  concurred  in. 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  It  was  drawn  up 

on  the  advice  of  competent  counsel, 
that  such  a clause  embraced  in  the  char- 
ter would  be  constitutional.  Mr.  Kosen- 
thal  has,  however,  raised  the  question 
of  whether  or  not  that  would  be  a legal 
act  or  not.  The  purpose  of  it  is  merely 
to  carry  out  such  a vote  as  we  voted 
the  other  night.  It  is  very  questiona- 
ble, even  if  that  were  not  passed  by  the 
State  Legislature,  after  granting  to  the 
charter  a specific  power,  could  by  any 
subsequent  law  affect  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. For  example,  suppose  that  if  un- 
der the  amendment  of  1894,  they  had 
fixed  the  term  of  mayor  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  for  four  years?  Suppose  now 
the  State  Legislature  would  pass  an  act 
providing  that  all  the  cities  in  this 
state — that  the  term  of  mayor  should  be 


December  17 


426 


1906 


two  years.  Would  that  apply  to  the 
City  of  Chicago,  or  would  it  not?  It 
might  be  a very  serious  question 
whether  or  not  that  would  be  applica- 
ble to  this  city,  which  has  a charter 
framed  under  a particular  constitutional 
amendment,  conferring  extraordinary 
grants  of  power.  It  was  with,  the  object 
of  obviating  any  such  difficulty  that  it 
was  proposed  to  insert  the  following 
clause  in  the  charter: 

‘ ‘ Provided,  That  any  action  of  the 
General  Assembly  hereafter  passed  re- 
lating to  a special  clause  in  the  state 
should  not  apply  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. ” 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  If  there  is  any 

serious  doubt  about  the  legality  of  that 
it  might  be  referred  to  the  Law  Com- 
mittee. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  such 

an  action  on  the  part  of  this  Convention 
were  legal,  I should  be  heartily  in  favor 
of  the  motion,  but  it  seems  to  me  to  be 
questionable.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
point  raised  by  Professor  Merriam 
would  be  all  right,  as  long  as  the  State 
Legislature  has  passed  the  specific  right 
on  the  council  through  this  charter. 
Subsequent  legislatures  will  not  respect 
this  right  unless  it  is  mentioned  in  the 
legislature.  I think  it  is  clear  an  that 
point.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  before 
going  on  record,  we  should  have  the  Law 
Committee,  which  is  composed  of  emi- 
nent lawyers,  consider  this  proposition. 
I think  the  matter  should  be  referred 
to  the  Law  Committee,  and  I move  ac- 
cordingly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 
the  motion.  All  in  favor  say  aye;  those 
opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  proposition,  as 

1 understand  it,  has  already  been  adopted, 
that  the  powers  under  the  existing  char- 
ter are  to  be  retained  in  regard  to  this 
subject. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON : I move  to  lay 

that  section  on  the  table. 


THE  CHAIRMAN : It  is  moved  and 

seconded  that  No.  2 be  laid  upon  the 
table.  All  those  in  favor  signify  by 
saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I move  a roll  rail. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Perhaps  we  can 

obviate  a roll  call  if  we  can  have  a little 
discussion  on  the  question  and  see  wheth- 
er or  not  it  is  subject  to  the  vice  Mr. 
Bennett  refers  to.  Do  you  desire  to 
discuss  it,  Mr.  Bennett? 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  is  perfectly  ap- 

parent that  we  have  passed  a resolution 
at  the  outset  retaining  the  present  char- 
ter, excepting  insofar  as  this  charter  is- 
inconsistent  with  it.  This  is  simply  a 
repetition  of  work  already  done.  It  is 
for  that  reason  that  we  have  already  in- 
corporated it,  that  I oppose  putting  it 
in  a second  time. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I think  the  provision 
is — I think  it  provides  for  retaining  the 
provisions  of  the  existing  law;  it  does 
not  give  that  as  a routine  matter;  that 
is  simply  an  instruction  of  the  Drafting 
Committee;  it  is  simply  an  instruction  to 
insert  such  provisions  in  the  law  as  now 
exists  in  the  charter. 

MR.  BENNETT : There  is  no  objec- 

tion to  it  if  it  is  a matter  of  instruction. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  It  is  purely  routine 

matter,  instructions  to  the  Drafting 
Committee. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I think  it  should 

be  adopted  as  it  is  with  this  instruction 
to  the  Drafting  Committee. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I do  not  offer  any 

objection. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  There  is  some- 

thing in  this  resolution  that  has  not  been 
acted  upon,  and  that  is  the  wording  which 
vests  in  the  City  Council  the  power  to 
amend,  which  says  “such  as  the  charter 
may  specify.”  It  may  contain  a great 
deal  more  than  that,  a person  may  have 
been  casually  reading 

MR.  BENNETT : Mr.  Chairman,  if 

this  Convention  does  not  specify  in  its 
charter,  provisions  that  are  to  be  enforced 
they  will  not  be  enforced,  and  will  not 


December  17 


427 


1906 


receive  recognition  at  the  hands  of  this 
Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  do  you 

want  to  do  with  that  section? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  that  it 

be . adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  is  moved  and 

seconded  that  this  section  be  adopted.  As 
many  as  favor  that  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

Yeas  — Badenoch,  Brosseau,  Burke, 
Crilly,  Ritter,  Dever,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Hoyne,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Linehan,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  O ’Donnell,  Oehne,  Owens,  Rai- 
ney, Revell,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Taylor, 
Yopicka,  Werno,  White — 25. 

Nays— Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Carey,  Church,  Cole,  Eidmann,  Hill, 
Hoyne,  Hunter,  MacMillan,  Pendarvis, 
Raymer,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard, 
Snow,  Swift,  Young — 20. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  the  motion 

to  adopt  No.  2 the  yeas  are  25  and  the 
nays  20;  No.  2 is  adopted;  the  motion 
is  carried.  The  Secretary  will  read  No.  3. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  seems  to  me 

almost  beyond  a doubt  that  the  third 
section  here,  as  well  as  the  fourth  section 
following,  is  invalid.  The  charter  amend- 
ment provides  that  no  local  special  law 
based  upon  this  amendment  affecting 
specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  take  effect  until  consented  to  by 
a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such 
part  of  the  city,  voting  upon  the  ques- 
tion at  any  election.  The  charter  amend- 
ment gives  the  1 ‘ General  Assembly  power, 
subject  to  the  conditions  and  limitations 
hereinafter  contained,  to  pass  any  law 
providing  for  government  for  the  City 
of  Chicago.  Now,  that  being  a legisla- 
tive power  it  cannot  be  delegated,  and 
it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  worse  than 
useless  to  attempt  to  submit  anything  of 
this  sort. 

I want  to  say  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 


in  another  form,  practically  the  same 
question  was  once  submitted  to  the  Law 
Committee,  and  the  Law  Committee  re- 
ported that  this  matter  could  not  be 
delegated  to  the  City  Council. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I move  to  refer  this 

matter  to  the  Law  Committee  for  opinion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  motion  is 

that  this  be  referred  to  the  Law  Com- 
mittee. Is  that  the  sense  of  the  meet- 
ing? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I would  like  to 

move  to  amend  that  section  by  striking 
out  the  word  1 ‘ alter  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  is  a mo- 

tion before  the  house  just  at  this  mo- 
ment, Mr.  O’Donnell. 

MR.  O ’DONNELL : Before  this  is 

referred,  instead  of  having  the  word  ‘ ‘ al- 
ter” there,  substitute  the  word  “ex- 
tended.” They  may  see  fit  to  make  the 
franchise  more  than  ten  years  or  five 
years;  it  should  not  be  extended  more 
than  twenty  years.  I think  that 
ought  to  be  submitted  in  that  form  to 
the  Law  Committee  with  the  word  “ex- 
tended” rather  than  with  the  word  “al- 
tered. ’ ’ 

MR.  YOUNG:  I suggest  that  both  the 
amendment  and  the  original  motion  be 
referred  separately,  ana  let  them  decide 
upon  both. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  that  satisfac- 

tory to  you? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Yes,  sir,  that  is 

all  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  entire 

subject  matter  be  sent  to  that  commit- 
tee. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Including  4,  because 
4 rests  upon  3. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I would  like  to 

have  it  plain,  that  I have  called  the  at- 
tention of  the  Law  Committee  to  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  so  communicate  it.  The  Secretary 
will  now  read  No.  4. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  4. 

THE-  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 


December  17 


428 


1906 


suggest  that  this  go  to  the  Law  Com- 
mittee also. 

ME.  MEKRIAM:  That  was  my  mo- 

tion before. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON : I might  suggest, 

I move  that  it  be  referred  to  the  Law 
Committee,  in  order  to  meet  the  sugges- 
tion made. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any  ob- 
jections to  this  section  going  to  the  Law 
Committee?  If  not,  all  those  in  favor 
signify  by  saying  aye. 

MR.  PEND AR VIS:  I would  like  to 

ask  a question,  and  that  is  why  the  same 
objection  that  is  raised  to  these  two  sec- 
tions, why  the  same  objection  raised  to 
these  two  sections  is  not  applicable  to 
the  latter  part  of  section  2 that  we  have 
just  adopted? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I cannot  answer 

that  question. 

MR.  BENNETT : I offered  an  amend- 

ment at  the  outset,  at  the  first  meeting, 
Section  5 to  this  paragraph,  published 
on  page  114,  in  the  copy  I have  here;  I 
now  move  the  adoption  of  that  amend- 
ment down  to  and  including  the  words 
“1889”  in  the  eleventh  line. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  resolution  as  amended. 

MR.  WERNO:  I move  we  adjourn. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I will  state  this 

portion  which  I now  offer  does  not  raise 
the  question  raised  by  Alderman  Werno. 

When  I offered  this  amendment  on 
the  floor  of  this  Convention  I supposed 
it  only  embraced  the.  annexation  laws 
relating  to  prohibition  districts.  The 
amendment  had  been  prepared  by  the 
attorney  of  the  association,  and  it  was 
handed  to  me,  and  I offered  it  with  that 
understanding.  Upon  a study  of  the 
amendment,  however,  I find  that  only  that 
part  which  I now  move  to  have  adopted 
relates  to  prohibition  districts. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  part  which  Mr.  Bennett 
moves  the  adoption  of? 

THE  SECRETARY : How  far  does 

it  go? 


MR.  BENNETT : Down  to  and  in- 

cluding the  figures  “1889,”  eleventh 
line,  page  114. 

THE  SECRETARY : Page  395,  under 
the  head  of  “Resolutions  offered  from 
the  floor  of  the  Convention  but  not  acted 
upon.  ’ ’ 

MR.  BENNETT : I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett 

moves  the  adoption  of  the  portion  of 
his  resolution  just  read.  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  order  that 

I may  vote  intelligently  on  this  proposi- 
tion I would  like  to  have  Mr.  Bennett 
state  to  us — I could  not  hear  him — just 
what  that  act  is.  I have  a general  no- 
tion what  it  is,  but  1 would  like  to  be 
clear. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman  and 

gentlemen.  Prior  to  the  annexation  in 
1889,  the  State  Legislature  passed  an 
act  wThich  provided  that  prohibition  dis- 
tricts theretofore  established  by  the  vari- 
ous towns  should  not  be  subject  to  modi- 
fication by  the  City  Council.  The  people 
of  tliese  districts — this  was  one  of  the 
issues  in  that  annexation  campaign — the 
people  of  these  districts  voted  for  an- 
nexation because  this  restriction  was  in. 
I simply  ask  to  have  this  restriction  re- 
tained, and  I move  the  adoption  of  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  WERNO:  I do  not  believe  we 

are  ready  this  afternoon  to  take  up  this 
whole  subject  matter,  this  matter . con- 
tained in  Alderman  Bennett’s  amend- 
ment, and  the  matter  contained  in  the 
resolution  relating  to  the  regulation  of 
Sunday  laws;  and  the  other  day  I under- 
stood it  was  upon  Alderman  Bennett’s 
motion  that  both  these  matters  went  over 
with  the  understanding  they  should  be 
taken  up  together. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  was 

that  they  be  taken  up  with  Section  22, 
and  that  we  have  just  disposed  of. 

MR,  WERNO:  Yes,  to  be  taken  up 

at  the  same  time;  that  was  the  motion. 


December  17 


429 


1906 


I have  no  objection  at  all  to  Alderman 
Bennett ’s  resolution,  but  I think  we 
ought  to  take  the  whole  matter  up  at  the 
same  time  as  stated  the  other  day.  I 
don’t  believe  in  doing  it  this  afternoon, 
and  therefore  I move  that  this  matter 
be  postponed  and  taken  up  in  conjunction 
with  the  other  resolution  at  our  next 
meeting,  unless  we  are  not  going  to  take 
up  any  other  matters  excepting  special 
orders  tomorrow  night. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Revenue  is  set 

for  special  order  for  tomorrow  night. 

MR.  WERNO:  Will  any  other  matters 

be  taken  up? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  depends  up- 

on how  long  they  take  getting  rid  of 
revenue.  The  Chair  is  of  the  general  im- 
pression that  probably  that  will  take  up 
at  least  a large  part  of  the  session. 

MR.  WERNO:  I move  that  we  post- 

pone this  matter,  the  further  considera- 
tion of  this  matter  be  postponed  until 
our  next  meeting,  or  until  such  meeting 
that  we  can  take  it  up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Werno  moves 
that  this  matter  be  deferred  until  some 
future  time,  when  it  can  be  taken  up. 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  WHITE:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

question  in  regard  to  paragraphs  3 and 
4,  Section  22  already  referred  to.  I notice 
that  in  regard  to  powers  of  the  City 
Council,  there  are  three  exceptions:  first, 
tax  rate;  second,  franchises;  and  third, 
municipal  courts.  I wonder  if  it  is 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  White,  will 

you  take  that  up  as  soon  as  I put  the 
pending  motion?  There  is  a motion  pend- 
ing before  the  house,  on  this  resolution 
which  Alderman  Bennett  introduced. 

MR.  WHITE : Certainly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  soon  as  that 

is  disposed  of  we  will  take  up  your  mat- 
ter. 

MR.  BENNETT:  This  amendment 

does  not  involve  Alderman  Werno ’s  pro- 
position ; I have  stricken  out  that  part 
from  my  amendment  which  involves  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 


vor the  resolution  or  the  motion  made  by 
Alderman  Werno,  to  defer  the  first  part 
of  the  resolution  introduced  by  Alderman 
Bennett,  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  The  motion  is  lost. 

The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of 
part  of  the  resolution  of  Alderman  Ben- 
nett just  read  by  the  Secretary. 

(Cries  of  “ question.  ’ ’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Those  in  favor 

of  that  will  signify  by  saying  aye;  those 
opposed,  no.  The  motion  is  carried.  The 
Chair  assumes  that  the  balance  of  the 
resolution  is  to  be  taken  up  when  this 
matter  is  taken  up.  You  will  now  read 
the  resolution  in  its  proper  form  offered 
by  Alderman  Werno,  or  by  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  WERNO:  If  there  is  nothing 

further  pending  before  the  Convention, 
I move  that  we  adjourn. 

MR.  WHITE : I do  not  think  the 

negative  of  the  proposition  was  the  mo- 
tion at  all;  I assumed  that  the  negative 
was  not  asked,  was  not  put.  I wished 
to  ask  a question  before  the  matter  was 
closed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  it  upon  this 

motion? 

MR.  WHITE:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

question;  my  point  is  that  the  motion  to 
refer  received  an  affirmative  vote ; a nega- 
tive was  not  asked  for;  Mr.  Bennett  in- 
terrupted, and  the  negative  was  not  put, 
the  motion  was  not  declared  as  I recall  it, 
the  motion  to  refer  three  and  four. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  the  mo- 

tion was  put  and  carried,  and  the  amend- 
ment was  carried,  and  I think  the  record 
will  so  show. 

MR.  WHITE : Well,  I don ’t  care  par- 

ticularly, only  I just  wanted  to  ask  a 
question ; I would  like  now  to  ask  this 
question,  and  I ask  it  for  enlightenment 
as  a lay  man,  if  the  Law  Committee,  in 
reporting  back  paragraphs  3 and  4,  Sec- 
tion 22,  will  briefly  explain  so  as  to 
enlighten  the  unenlightened,  why  those 
three  exceptions  are  made,  whether  they 
are  made  by  the  city  or  the  Convention  — 
mean  the  exceptions  in  regard  to  the 


December  17 


430 


1906 


taxes,  the  tax  rate,  franchise  and  the 
municipal  courts.  I see  some  reason  for 
the  municipal  courts,  but  I would  like 
to  know  what  reason  the  Law  Committee 
has  in  regard  to  the  two  former  excep- 
tions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  does 

not  know  why  the  exceptions  were  made 
unless  it  was  that  the  drafter  did  not 
want  this  particular  section,  those  par- 
ticular sections  fooled  with. 

The  question  is  upon  the  resolution  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Werno  and  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  WERNO:  I have  made  a motion 

to  adjourn,  and  it  has  been  seconded. 

MR.  SNOW:  I would  like  to  ask  Al- 

derman Werno  to  withdraw  the  motion 
he  made  a little  while  ago  and  to  allow 
me  to  bring  up  a resolution  which  I have 
offered,  before  the  Convention,  and  which 
in  my  opinion,  will  be  disposed  of  in 
less  than  five  minutes’  time, — simply  for 
the  purpose  of  gaining  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Snow: 

MR.  SNOW:  I desire  to  call  up  the 

proposition  which  is  printed  on  page  396, 
bottom  left  hand  column,  and  ask  the 
clerk  to  read  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

(The  Secretary  read  as  directed.)  • 

MR.  SNOW:  The  object  of  that 

amendment  is  to  prevent  the  collection 
of  a surplus  from  any  public  utility  which 
the  city  may  own  or  operate  in  the  shape 
of  an  indirect  taxation. 

In  other  words,  if  we  are  ever  going  to 
own  and  operate  public  utilities  in  Chi- 
cago they  should  be  so  owned  and  oper- 
ated as  to  furnish  the  service  for  which 
they  are  designed  at  the  least  possible 
cost  to  the  people  who  pay  for  the  ser- 
vice, and  the  people  who  wish  that  ser- 
vice should  not  be  required  to  pay  any 
more  for  it,  should  not  be  required  to 
pay  any  more  for  the  services  than  that 
wrhich  pays  for  the  cost  of  the  service; 
they  should  not  be  required  to  pay  any- 
thing that  furnishes  an  additional  revenue 
to  the  city  to  take  the  place  of  taxation. 


I presume  there  will  not  be  any  serious 
objection  to  the  matter.  I have  no  de- 
sire to  debate  it  unless  objection  is  raised. 
I move  the  passage  of  the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  resolution  introduced  by 
Alderman  Snow.  As  many  as  favor  it 
say  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

(Cries  of  “roll  call.”) 

MR.  HOYNE : Let  us  hear  the  resolu- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Read  the  resolu- 

tion again  and  the  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

MR.  REYELL:  I move  that  action 

upon  this  be  deferred  to  a later  day,  and 
the  resolution  be  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

printed. 

MR.  REVELL:  Oh,  has  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  it  has;  it 

appears  in  the  record. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  After  the  words 

“sinking  funds”  I desire  to  amend  by 
inserting  the  words  “and  requirements 
for  improvements. 1 ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  to  insert  the  words  ‘ 1 and  require- 
ments for  improvements,  ’ ’ in  the  proper 
place. 

MR.  SNOW : That  is  in  connection 

with  the  phrase  “including  all  proper 
and  reasonable  sinking  funds, f ’ to  insert 
“and  requirements  for  improvements?” 

MR.  ROSENTHAm : After  the  words 

“including  all  proper  and  reasonable 
sinking  funds,”  add  “and  requirements 
for  improvements.  ’ 1 

MR.  SNOW : You  mean  by  that  ex- 

tensions? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  For  the  exten- 

sion of  the  service  or  for  improvement 
for  the  service. 

MR.  SNOW : I think  my  language  cov- 
ers that,  but  I have  no  objections  to 
putting  that  in,  I have  no  objection  to 
its  being  made  more  specific,  if  the  gen- 
tleman thinks  it  necessary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  it  will  be  so  inserted. 


December  17 


431 


1906 


MR,  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to  ask 

a question:  What  effect  would  that  have 
upon  the  present  standing  waterworks? 
Does  that  include  those  public  utilities 
now  in  existence  and  that  may  hereafter 
come  in  existence? 

MR.  SNOW : Those  in  existence,  as 

well  as  those  to  come  into  existence 
hereafter;  and  for  that  reason  I cannot 
see  any  justice  in  collecting  from  the 
water  department  taxes  for  the  city,  for 
the  support  of  the  general  city  govern- 
ment, if  that  is  being  done. 

MR.  RAYMER : I might  say  that  the 

point  Alderman  Snow  has  just  raised  has 
been  decided  by  the  Supreme  Court  of 
this  state.  We  cannot  use  the  water  funds 
for  general  public  purposes. 

MR.  MERRIAM : How  much  of  a sur- 
plus is  there  in  the  water  fund? 

MR.  RAYMER:  There  is  not  any; 

but  if  we  had  any  we  would  not  have  a 
right  to  spend  it  in  that  way. 

MR.  LINEHAN : I would  like  to  ask 

a question ; I would  like  to  know  if  the 
sentence,  “including  all  proper  and  rea- 
sonable sinking  funds,”  is  not  for  the 
purpose  of  extension? 

MR.  SNOW : It  is  stated  so. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Before  this  ques- 

tion is  put  to  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion, I think  we  had  better  think  it  over 
a little  and  see ; the  result  of  this,  Mr. 
Chairman  and  gentlemen,  will  be  to  put 
in  the  sinking  fund  all  the  moneys  col- 
lected by  way  of  compensation  for  the 
purpose  of  acquiring  utilities  for  future 
generations.  In  other  words,  the  people 
that  are  now  here  will  pay  the  money 
and  the  people  to  come  will  derive  the 
benefits.  We  are  now  receiving — and  it 
is  of  great  assistance  to  this  city — large 
sums  in  the  way  of  compensation.  To 
pass  this  resolution  in  this  form,  tying 
up  these  funds  so  that  they  will  be  placed 
in  sinking  funds,  will  deprive  us  of  the 
use  of  all  of  this  compensation.  In  my 
opinion  it  should  not  prevail. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I want  to  ask  Mr. 

Bennett  a question.  Isn  ’t  it  a fact  that 


the  contemplated  improvements — sup- 

posed to  get  revenue  from  the  water  fund, 
will  take  what  we  make  for  the  next  fif- 
teen years? 

MR.  SNOW : Yes. 

MR.  HUNTER  : And  was  not  that 

contemplated  improvement  they  set  upon 
the  present  order? 

MR.  SNOW : Yes. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Absolutely;  and  the 

extensions,  the  water  pipe  extensions,  have 
all  been  appropriated  for  fifteen  years — ■ 
that  is  the  revenue  from  the  water  de- 
partment, for  something  that  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  to  the  City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  SNOW : Just  one  word  more, 

Mr.  Chairman.  Alderman  Bennett  has 
misjudged  the  resolution  as  reported 
here.  He  speaks  of  the  case  in  which 
compensation  is  paid  by  private  corpor- 
ations owning  and  operating  public  utili- 
ties ; my  resolution  refers  to  the  time 
when  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  own  and 
operate,  if  that  time  shall  ever  come,  its 
public  utilities,  and  is  based  upon  what 
to  me  is  a sound  principle  which  cannot 
be  controverted,  that  the  people  should 
only  pay  the  honest  cost  for  the  service 
which  is  rendered  to  them ; and  that  those 
who  ride  on  the  street  cars,  those  who 
pay  for  the  gas,  those  who  enjoy  any  of 
the  public  utilities,  should  not  be  required 
to  pay  for  what  they  get  in  addition  to 
it  and  in  direct  form  of  taxation  for  the 
support  of  the  general  government.  Any 
such  form  of  taxation  in  my  judgment 
is  absolutely  unfair,  inequitable,  unjust 
and  indefensible  from  any  standpoint. 

There  is  no  reason  why  the  man  who 
rides  upon  a street  car  should  pay  four 
cents  for  it,  four  cents  for  the  cost  of 
such  ride,  and  one  cent  for  the  support 
of  the  government  of  Chicago.  The  go- 
vernment of  Chicago  should  be  supported 
from  general  taxation,  levied  upon  the 
people  of  Chicago  in  accordance  with 
their  ability  to  pay,  and  not  placed  upon 
the  man  who  simply  rides  upon  the  street 
car.  TTncler  such  plans,  if  money  enough 
could  be  raised  to  support  the  law  and 


December  17 


432 


1906 


governmental  functions  of  the  city,  the 
man  who  did  not  ride  upon  a street  car, 
but  rode  in  his  own  carriage,  would  not 
pay  one  cent  of  taxes  towards  the  sup- 
port of  the  government.  No  such  pro- 
position can  be  defended  from  any  stand- 
point. 

Now,  so  far  as  the  alderman’s  state- 
ment that  the  placing  of  compensation  in 
the  sinking  fund  is  going  to  be  an  unjust 
burden  upon  the  present  generation,  my 
amendment  contemplates  no  such  condi- 
tions. It  only  refers  to  the  time  when 
the  city  shall  own  and  operate,  and  re- 
quires that  it  shall  be  owned  and  oper- 
ated and  the  service  furnished  at  the 
cost  of  such  service. 

MR.  HOYNE:  I am  sorry  I cannot 

agree  with  Mr.  Snow.  I am  opposed  to 
this  resolution  or  amendment.  I do  not 
know  of  any  fairer  way  to  raise  revenue 
than  to  have  it  spread  among  the  entire 
people.  How  could  it  be  fairer  with  the 
gas  for  instance;  suppose  you  pass  a 
gas  ordinance  whereby  you  save  to  the 
city  ten  cents  a thousand;  will  you  tell 
me  how  an  evener  taxation  could  be  dis- 
tributed among  the  people?  Would  not 
a man  pay  the  amount  of  gas  consumed? 
Would  not  it  be  by  the  amount  of  gas 
consumed  by  the  people?  The  laboring 
man  would  use  a small  amount  of  gas 
and  his  proportion  of  the  taxes  would  be 
small ; a large  consumer  of  gas  would  pay 
a larger  proportion  of  the  tax;  but  when 
you  say  it  is  not  a square  way  and  a fair 
way  to  raise  revenue,  I for  one  cannot 
see  it;  and  I think  the  city  and  these 
corporations,  as  I said  the  other  night, 
I believe  they  should  be  given  franchises 
and  the  corporation  should  be  made  to 
pay  a percentage  of  their  gross  receipts, 
whatever  they  may  be,  whatever  is  right, 
and  the  city  should  derive  revenue  from 
that  source. 

To  me  there  is  no  fairer  or  squarer 
way  of  spreading  the  faxes  among  the 
people  than  the  very  way  Mr.  Snow  in 
his  speech  seems  to  think  is  a foolish 


one.  Mr.  Chairman,  I am  opposed  to 
this  resolution. 

MR,  McGOORTY : Mr.  Chairman,  I . 

think  this  resolution  is  correct  in  prin- 
ciple, that  the  inhabitants  of  the  city 
should  have  the  benefit  of  good  public 
utilities  at  the  lowest  practical  cost;  but 
I do  not  think  this  is  a section  that 
should  be  incorporated  in  the  city  char- 
ter. As  Alderman  Bennett  has  indi- 
cated, matters  and  conditions  may  arise 
that  can  be  best  met  by  the  City  Council 
when  such  matters  do  arise.  And  it  is 
unnecessary,  this  Convention  standing 
for  delegation  to  the  city  of  large  powers, 
or  at  least  of  large  powers  on  special 
matters,  and  a large  measure  of  home 
rule,  that  on  any  specified  matter  of  this 
kind  that  the  City  Council ’s  hands 
should  be  tied.  There  is  no  question 
about  the  proposition  as  between  com- 
pensation on  the  one  hand  and  the  price 
of  a street  car  fare  on  the  other.  The 
two  latter  propositions  in  my  mind  are 
correct  in  principle. 

I do  not  agree  with  Mr.  Hoyne  in  re- 
gard to  his  position,  but  I do  insist  on 
the  other  hand  that  it  is  unnecessary  that 
a proposition  of  this  kind  be  adopted  be- 
cause I think  this  Convention  by  its  ac- 
tion heretofore  taken  has  safeguarded, 
and  wisely  safeguarded  the  interests  of 
the  people,  and  it  can  be  well  left  to 
the  council  to  provide  for  such  matters  as 
are  contained  in  this  resolution: 

MR.  YOUNG:  I understand  that  such 

matters  were  left  to  the  council  relating 
to  water  funds,  and  that  the  council  ap- 
propriated them,  appropriated  those 
funds  for  other  purposes,  and  that  was 
continued  until  it  was  stopped  by  the  Su- 
preme Court.  Now,  we  don’t  want  that 
situation  to  arise  again.  I think  there 
is  but  one  possible  excuse  for  a municipal- 
ity running  its  utilities,  and  that  is  they 
should  run  them  for  the  benefit  of  the 
people  who  are  using  them,  purely  and 
solely. 

MR.  BEEBE:  It  seems  to  me  that 

this  is  not  a question  hinging  upon  the 


December  17 


433 


1906 


question  of  the  water  fund,  or  the  ques- 
tion of  running  street  cars,  or  possibly 
on  the  question  of  running  gas,  but  we 
cannot  tell  what  the  city  may  engage  in 
the  future;  it  is  extremely  problematical 
and  extremely  difficult  to  tell  what  the 
city  may  engage  in.  I could  imagine  that 
some  system  of  reducing  garbage  might 
be  devised  whereby  the  city  would  be  in 
a position  to  make  considerable  money. 
It  would  seem  if  this  were  limited  to  the 
definite  things  it  would  be  a good  deal 
more  preferable. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

while  I am  in  favor  of  this  proposition 
as  a general  principle,  still,  bearing  in 
mind  the  fact  that  Mr.  Fisher  introduced 
the  original  proposition,  and  we  all  know 
that  Mr.  Fisher  unfortunately,  through 
a very  sad  calamity  cannot  be  here  today, 
I think  he  should  be  given  an  opportun- 
ity to  express  his  idea  on  this  proposition, 
as  it  is  an  amendment  to  something  that 
he  introduced;  I therefore  move  that  we 
defer  the  consideration  of  this  matter 
until  he  can  be  here. 

ME.  O ’DONNELL : I second  the  mo- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : It  has  been  moved 
and  seconded  that  this  matter  be  deferred 
until  Mr.  Fisher  can  be  here. 

MR.  SNOW:  It  seems  to  me  that 

that  is  a very  peculiar  position  to  take; 
I would  be  very  glad,  as  a matter  of 
course,  to  have  a full  attendance  of  this 
Convention,  for  the  purpose  of  discussing 
a question  of  this  kind.  In  my  opinion 
it  is  one  of  the  basic  principles  which 
should  be  incorporated  in  the  charter;  but 
if  certain  members  are  not  here  when  a 
matter  is  before  the  Convention  they 
have  their  opportunity  when  it.  comes 
back  from  the  committee  in  its  drafted 
form.  There  are  a number  of  questions 
which  some  of  us,  some  of  the  members 
of  this  Convention  would  have  been  very 
glad  to  discuss  if  they  could  have  been 
present  at  the  time  the  Convention  took 
the  matter  up,  but  some  of  us  cannot  be 
here  at  all  of  the  meetings,  and  we  will 


have  an  opportunity  to  further  discuss  it 
when  it  comes  back  from  the  committee. 
For  that  reason  I oppose  the  postpone- 
ment. 

Now,  jus$  a word  in  regard  to  the  ar- 
gument presented  by  Mr.  McGoorty,  and 
that  is  in  regard  to  the  provision  con- 
tained in  the  charter;  I would  not  change 
the  provision  in  the  charter,  because  it 
is  a basic  principle  upon  which  the  City 
of  Chicago  should  enter  into  municipal 
ownership  and  operation  if  it  is  ever 
going  to  do  so.  It  should  not  be  left 
to  the  council  to  decide  upon  the  expedi- 
ency of  some  particular  time. 

As  far  as  Mr.  Hoyne ’s  objections  are 
concerned,  there  is  certainly  a radical 
difference  of  opinion  between  those  who 
hold  to  the  same  school  that  I hold  and 
those  who  believe  as  Mr.  Hoyne  believes. 
I maintain  that  the  illustration  which  he 
gave  proves  that  there  is  no  justice  in 
requiring  a man  to  pay  taxes  to  the  City 
of  Chicago  in  accordance  with  the 
amount  of  gas  he  uses,  because  citizens 
do  not  use  gas  in  proportion  to  their 
ability  to  pay  for  it,  and  they  do  not 
use  gas  in  proportion  to  the  benefits 
which  they  derive  from  organized  go- 
vernment. I think  taxes  should  be  paid 
on  the  basis  of  the  ability  to  pay  upon 
the  basis  of  property  owned  and  upon  the 
basis  of  security  received  through  the 
establishment  of  orderly  government. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman, 

without  entering  into  the  controversy  on 
the  separate  schools,  or  different  schools, 
represented  by  Mr.  Hoyne  and  Mr.  Snow, 
at  this  time,  I move  you,  in  order  to  clear 
up  the  ambiguity  of  misunderstanding 
apparent  on  the  face  of  this  resolution, 
that  the  following  words  be  added  after 
the  word  1 1 Provided  that  ’ ’ — add  the  fol- 
lowing: “When  the  city  shall  own  and 
operate  a public  utility.  ’ ’ 

MR.  SNOW : That  is  perfectly  satis- 

factory to  me,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  that  ambiguity  will  be  cleared 


December  17 


434 


1906 


up.  Now,  gentlemen,  what  will  you  do 
with  the  motion  to  defer?” 

ME.  WEENO:  I favor  the  post- 

ponement of  this  matter,  in  accordance 
with  the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Eosenthal, 
and  not  only  for  that  reason  but  for  the 
reason  given  by  Mr.  Snow  himself.  Al- 
derman Snow  says  that  this  is  one  of  the 
basic  principles  which  should  go  into 
the  charter.  Now,  if  that  is  so,  then  it 
seems  to  me  it  is  a matter  that  ought  to 
be  given  careful  consideration,  and  should 
not  be  rushed  through  here.  We  are  not 
making  charters  for  the  City  of  Chicago 
every  day  or  every  year,  and  if  this  is 
such  an  important  matter,  why  not  let 
it  go  over  for  a day  or  two? 

THE  CHAIEMAN : The  question  is 

upon  the  motion  to  defer.  As  many  as 
favor  that  motion  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no. 

(The  vive  voce  vote  left  the  Chairman 
in  doubt.) 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL : What  is  the  ques- 
tion, Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  vote  is  upon 

the  question  to  defer  action  until  some 
future  time. 


Yeas  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett, 
Brosseau,  Burke,  Carey,  Crilly,  Eitter, 
Dever,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Hoyne, 
Hunter,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O ’Donnell,  Oehne, 
Owens,  Eainey,  Eaymer,  Eevell,  Eobins, 
Eosenthal,  Shepard,  Yopicka,  Werno, 
White— 30. 

Nays — Baker,  Brown,  Church,  Cole, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Hill,  Kittleman,  Pendarvis, 
Shanahan,  Snow,  Young — 11. 

(During  roll  call.) 

ME.  THOMPSON:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

was  not  here  when  the  original  matter 
was  brought  up.  Therefore  1 do  not  de- 
sire to  be  recorded  as  voting. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  defer,  the  yeas  are  30,  and  the  nays 
are  11,  and  the  motion  to  defer  is  car- 
ried. 

The  question  is  now  upon  Alderman 
Werno ’s  motion  to  adjourn  until  Tuesday 
evening  at  7:30  o’clock.  As  many  as 
favor  that  may  signify  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  The  motion  is  carried  and 
it  is  so  ordered. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Tuesday,  December  18,  1906,  at 
7 : 30  o ’clock  p.  m. 


I 


December  17  435  1906 

MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 


The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IY.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ate provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


December  17 


436 


1906 


Y.  CIVIL  SEE  VICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1 : a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  the  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 


The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWEES  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENEEAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality ; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state ; and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


VIII.  POWEES  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  EEGAED  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 


December  17 


437 


1906 


any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWEE. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

Section  X and  alternative  stand  as  a 
special  order. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraph  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 


December  14,  1906,  have  been  re-re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XV.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  paragraphs  of  Section  XV  are  de- 
ferred to  be  considered  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to-  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of.  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 


December  17 


438 


1906 


The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 
floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

Provided  that  when  the  city  shall  own 
and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall 
be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 
dered or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 


city’s  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 


XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 


The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

Section  XVIII  and  alternatives  stand  ^ 
as  a special  order. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 


December  17 


439 


1906 


present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 

2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 

XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN-  j 

DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 
dinance granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below  ! 
as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other  j 
public  places  for  any  public  utility,  j 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent.  | 


of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 


2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 


The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  on  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises  be  altered,  extended,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  municipal 
in  its  character. 


December  17 


440 


1906 


4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 


any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munic- 
ipal in  its  character. 


5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 
confer  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  “An 
act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages”  approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 


I Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSRS  WERNO  AND  ROSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


December  17 


441 


1906 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehieh*. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

A permanent  educational  commission 
of  advisory  capacity  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the 
council,  to  consist  of  seventeen  mem- 
bers, who  shall  serve  without  compensa- 
tion, including  the  superintendent  of 
the  public  schools  and  the  librarian  of 
the  public  library,  who  shall  be  mem- 
bers ex  officio.  Each  other  member  shall 
hold  office  until  another  person  is  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  him. 

It  shall  be  the  function  of  the  educa- 
tional commission  to  tender  advice  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  to  correlate  the 
educational  forces  of  the  city  and  to 
prevent  unnecessary  duplication  of  ac- 
tivities by  exercising  their  influence  to- 
word  co-ordinating  the  various  educa- 
tional and  scientific  institutions  of  the 
city. 


BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 


II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  Board  of  Education  shall  consist 
of  fifteen  members  who  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor  of  the  city  by  and 
with  the  approval  of  two-thirds  of  the 
City  Council  at  a meeting  subsequent  to 
that  at  which  they  shall  have  been 
nominated. 

They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a person  shall  be  at  least  thirty 
years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 
purposes,,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

IY.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip- 
pled, schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 
ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 


December  17 


442 


1906 


It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 

Y.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
months  of  the  year. 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 
money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 
provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 

VI,  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enacted  or  changed,  money  appro- 
priated or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text- 
books adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 


VII.  OFICERS. 

The  board  of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
schools  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term 
of  office  of  the  superintendent  of  schools 
and  of  the  business  manager  shall  not 
be  less  than  four  years.  And  the  sal- 
ary of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint- 
ment be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall 
not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
schools. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools,  and  a busi- 
ness manager,  and  of  such  other  princi- 
pal officers  directly  appointed  by  the 
board,  as  the  board  may  by  general  or- 
dinance designate,  shall  not  be  subject 
to  the  civil  service  law,  but  they  shall 
be  removable  only  for  cause,  by  a vote 
of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  all  the 
members  of  the  board,  upon  written 
charges  to  be  heard  by  the  board  on  due 
notice  to  the  officers  charged  therewith, 
but  pending  the  hearing  of  the  charges, 
such  officers  may  by  two-thirds  vote 
be  suspended  by  the  board. 

VIII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF 
SCHOOLS. 

(I.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  board  of  educa- 
tion, but  no  vote. 

(2.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers,  principals  and 
other  educational  and  attendance 
officers  shall  be  made,  and  text-books 
and  educational  apparatus  shall  be  in- 
troduced by  the  board  of  education  up- 


December  17 


443 


1906 


on  the  recommendation  of  the  superin-  j 
tendent,  but  upon  his  failure  to  make 
such  a recommendation  within  a reason- 
able time  after  demand,  the  board  may 
make  appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers,  and  adopt  text-books  and  edu- 
cational apparatus  by  a two-thirds  vote 
of  all  its  members, 

(3.)  He  shall  be  consulted  as  to  loca- 
tion and  plans  of  school  buildings  and 
as  to  plans  and  specifications  for  educa- 
tional supplies. 

(4.)  Text-books  and  apparatus  once 
adopted  shall  not  be  changed  within 
four  years  after  their  adoption,  except 
upon  vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion. 

(5.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  nominate  for  appointment  by  the 
board  of  education,  assistant  and  dis- 
trict superintendents  and  principals  of 
schools,  and  shall  have  power,  with  the 
consent  of  the  board,  to  remove  them 
upon  complaint  and  for  cause. 

IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 
property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

He  shall  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
board  of  education  appoint  his  subordi- 
nate officers  and  employes,  among  whom 
there  shall  be  a trained  architect  and  a 
trained  engineer. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 

X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers  shall  be  made  for 
merit  only,  and  after  satisfactory  ser- 
vice for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  the  needs  of  the  schools  require. 


(2.)  The  standing  of  teachers  for 
appointment  and  promotion  shall  be  en- 
trusted to  a bord  to  be  constituted  by 
the  board  of  education,  of  which  the  su- 
perintendent of  schools  shall  be  the 
head. 

XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XII.  PENSONS. 

The  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 
City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 
from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 
retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 
tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  bo 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


December  17 


444 


1906 


BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XVI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city, 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  SHEPARD: 

As  a substitute  for  Section  1,  Chap- 
ter X,  Revenue,  as  printed  at  page  53: 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen- 
eral taxation.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re- 
spective amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector’s  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita-  I 


tion  herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 
the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
sion. In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
funds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 
which  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him, 
upon  order  pf  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 
year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  re- 
ceipts and  expenditures  for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 
tures for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 


December  17 


445 


1906 


4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 
year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 


poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 


SPECIAL*  ORDERS 

SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53.  (Tuesday,  December  18,  at  7:30  o’clock 
p.  m. 

SECTION  XY. — Streets  and  Public  Places,  at  page  54.  (Tuesday,  December 
18,  at  7:30  o’clock  p.  m.) 

SECTION  XVII. — Education,  at  page  56.  (Thursday,  December  20,  at  7:30 
o’clock  p.  m.) 

PARAGRAPH  3. — Suffrage,  at  page  52.  (To  be  taken  up  immediately  after 
the  disposition  of  the  subject  of  Education.) 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  92, 

first  column:  Line  13,  insert  word 

“speak”  instead  of  “come.” 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  101, 

second  column:  Line  22,  after  the  word 
“then”  add  “who  shall.” 


MR.  SHEDD:  On  page  128,  first 

column,  second  line,  strike  out  “in  a” 
and  insert  therefor:  “eliminating  the.” 
Also,  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
“paper,”  insert  “but  retaining  the  par- 
ty column.  ’ ’ 


MR.  POST:  On  page  130,  second 

column,  fifth  line  from  bottom,  sub- 
stitute the  word  “constitutional”  for 
the  word  “satisfactory.” 


MR.  SHEPARD:  On  page  134,  first 

column,  last  paragraph,  fifth  line,  strike 
out  “that  is,  that  all  municipal,  officers 
and  city  officers,  including  the  municipal 


court  judges  shall  be  elected  in  the 
spring”  and  insert  therefor:  “that  is, 
that  all  city  officers  shall  be  elected  in 
the  spring  at  one  and  the  same  election, 
except  the  municipal  court  judges.” 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  159, 

first  column,  next  to  last  line,  strike 
out  “it  along”  and  insert  “about  its 
passage.  ’ ’ 


MR.  WERNO:  On  page  161,  left 

hand  column,  line  25,  strike  out  the 
word  “has”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof 
the  word  “have.” 

Also  on  page  161,  right  hand  column, 
13th  line,  strike  out  the  words  “to 
give”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  “who  gives.” 

MR.  LINEHAN:  On  page  162,  first 

column,  next  to  last  line,  strike  out 
word  “devoted”  and  insert  “di- 
vorced.” Also  same  column,  last  line, 
strike  out  word  “to”  and  insert 


December  17 


446 


1906 


“from.”  Also,  same  page,  second  col- 
umn, first  line,  strike  out  “we  are  pro- 
posing” and  insert  “a  proposal.” 


MR.  POWERS:  On  page  166,  sec- 

ond column,  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  lines, 
strike  out  “Well,  can’t  he  do  that 
without  the  consent  of  this  Conven- 
tion?” and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  “He 
cannot  do  that  without  the  consent  of  . 
this  Convention.  ’ ’ 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  170, 

first  column,  fourth  line,  after  the  word 
“entrance”  insert  the  following:  “to 
the  service  protected  by  the  law.” 


MR.  PENDARYIS:  Page  179,  first 

column;  strike  out  entire  line,  and  in- 
sert in  lieu  thereof:  “that  fact  we 
put  into  the,”  also,  same  page,  same 
column,  in  fourth  line  from  bottom, 
insert  the  word  “meet”  for  “leave.” 


MR.  RE  YELL:  Page  179,  about  cen- 

ter of  the  last  column,  strike  out  the 
four  last  words. 


MR.  REVELL:  Page  181,  strike  out 

the  sentence  or  paragraph  commencing 
with  “It  seems  to  me  if  the  duty”  and 
ending  with  “that  will  at  least  let  them 
out  of  it,”  and  insert  the  following: 

“It  seems  to  me  that  as  between  an 
appointment  by  the  judge  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  and  an  appointment  by  the 
Chief  Justice  of  that  court,  which  latter 
might  be  influenced  by  the  County  Cen- 
tral Committee — as  suggested  by  Aider- 
man  Raymer — the  latter  would  be  pre- 
ferable, as  it  would  eliminate  the  other 
twenty-seven  or  twenty-eight  judges  of 
the  Municipal  Court  from  political  in- 
fluence. It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  the 
Chief  Justice  could  be  influenced  by 
anybody  or  anyone  toward  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  incompetent  man.” 


column,  twelfth  line  of  paragraph, 
strike  out  words  “a  movement”  and 
insert  “an  improvement.” 


MR.  PENDARYIS:  Page  226,  second 
column,  line  24,  change  the  word  “po- 
sition” to  “provision”;  also,  same 
page,  same  column,  line  26,  change  the 
word  “of”  to  “by.” 

MR,  YOPICKA:  On  page  226,  sec- 
ond column,  correct  as  follows:  “Mr. 

Chairman. — If  Mr.  Rosenthal  will  change 
his  amendment  to  read  $3,500  minimum 
and  $5,000  maximum,  you  will  get  men 
of  more  intelligence  to  seek  the  office; 
make  it  a minimum  salary  of  $3,500 
and  a maximum  of  $5,000,  and  not  more 
than  that.” 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

have  inserted  in  the  records  at  page 
253,  column  2,  anywhere  there,  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph,  which  was  a part  of 
Mr.  Fisher’s  speech,  and  was  left  out 
wholly,  as  follows: 

“ * * * Mr.  Linehan,  to  speak 

plainly,  is  in  sympathy  with  the  present 
mayor,  for  this  reason.  He  is  willing 
that  the  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
should  be  four  years,  but  objects  to  the 
aldermanic  term  being  lengthened.  I 
ask  him  if  he  would  be  of  the  same 
mind  if  he  were  opposed  to  the  mayor, 
but  was  in  sympathy  with  the  city  coun- 
cil, which  had  to  seek  re-election  every 
two  years.” 

MR.  FISHER:  I must  object  to  the 

insertion  of  this  language  as  being  my 
exact  language;  that  is  not  exactly  what 
I stated.  I think  it  does  fairly  state 
the.  sense  of  what  was  stated,  but  the 
remark  which  I made  was  that  Mr.  Line- 
han was  in  favor  of  the  policies  of  the 
present  mayor.  I don ’t  know  whether 
he  is  in  favor  of  the  present  mayor  or 
opposed  to  the  present  mayor,  but  I 
do  understand  that  he  is  in  favor  of 
the  policies  of  the  present  mayor. 


MR.  YOPICKA:  Page  214,  second 


December  17 


447 


1906 


ME.  PENDAEYIS:  On  page  257, 

second  column,  line  3,  insert  the  word 
“to”  in  place  of  “on.” 

ME.  DEYEB:  On  page  299,  first  col- 

umn, fifth  line  of  the  remarks,  omit  the 
word  “not.”  Also,  after  the  word 
“certain,”  add  “general  state.” 


ME.  HOYNE:  On  page  336,  substi- 

tute the  following  remarks  of  Mr.  Hoyne : 
Mr.  Chairman,  1 passed  this  because  I 
voted  to  postpone  action  on  this  matter, 
and  because  I don ’t  think  a fair  repre- 
sentative number  of  members  is  present 
to  consider  this  matter.  I am  opposed 
to  municipal  ownership.  I do  not  be- 
lieve it  is  a good  thing.  I do  not  think 
the  city  would  get  the  best  results  out 
of  it,  and  it  has  not  been  proven  other- 
wise to  my  satisfaction.  In  my  opinion 
the  city  has  lost  $1,000,000  a year  by 
holding  up  and  using  this  traction  ques- 
tion as  a political  foot  ball.  One  million 
dollars  a year  the  city  could  and  would 


have  had  as  an  additional  revenue,  if  this 
matter  had  been  settled  right,  by  a fran- 
chise. And  so  with  other  matters.  I do 
not  think  the  electric  light  company,  or 
the  telephone  company,  or  the  gas  com- 
pany should  be  municipally  operated.  I 
believe  franchises  should  be  issued  to 
every  one  of  these  companies; — twenty- 
year  franchises.  I would  like  to  see  the 
city  get  the  revenue  that  it  deserves  from 
these  corporations.  The  city  should  no^ 
be  receiving  ten  cents  a thousand  from 
the  gas  company,  giving  the  city  an  an- 
nual income  of  a million  dollars  or  more. 
I say  the  city  is  losing  revenue  by  not 
giving  franchises.  You  never  knew  of  a 
municipal  corporation  or  any  other  city 
or  government  corporation  that  got  as 
much  money  out  of  a property  or  oper- 
ated it  as  economically  as  a private  cor- 
poration, and  for  that  reason,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I vote  “no”  on  this  proposition. 


ME.  PENDAEYIS:  At  page  384  in 

the  roll  call,  voted  “Nay,”  name  omit- 
ted. 


December  17 


448 


1906 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  thei 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may f 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  th©  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  17 


449 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1906 


(Etyiratjo  (Eljartrr  (Cmiurutinn 

Convened,  December  12,  1905 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  foreman,  ....  Chairman 
Alexander  H.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chambehlin,  asst.  Secy 


' 

. 


December  18 


453 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Tuesday,  December  18,  1906 

7:30  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

Present — Foreman,  Chairman,  and  Ba- 
ker, Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown, 
Burke,  Carey,  Church,  Clettenberg,  Cril- 
ly,  Kitten,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann, 
Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill, 
Hoyne,  Hunter,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMillan,  McCor- 
mick, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Paullin,  Pendarvis, 
Post,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins,  Shanahan, 
Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor, 
Vopicka,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zim- 
mer— 51. 

Absent  — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Cole, 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Haas, 
Harrison,  Jones,  Oehne,  Patterson,  Pow- 
ers, Rainey,  Rinaker,  Rosenthal,  Seth- 
ness,  Shedd,  Swift,  Thompson,  Walker, 
White,  Wilson — 23. 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Quorum  present. 

Are  there  any  corrections  or  amendments 
to  the  minutes? 

MR,  MacMILLAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  the  minutes  fail  to  state  that  I 
made  a motion  at  the  last  session,  fixing 
the  percentage  at  16. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I think  the  min- 

utes fail  to  show  that  I made  a motion 
at  the  last  session  fixing  a percentage 
for  the  referendum  at  16. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  records 

be  corrected. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Mr.  MacMillan, 

on  page  409  you  will  find  that  motion. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Thank  you. 

THE  SECRETARY:  It  is  there. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  send  these  motions  to  the 
desk. 

MR.  POST:  May  I make  a correc- 

tion? I will  forward  it  to  the  desk. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  resolutions  by  Mr.  Vo- 
picka. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolutions  as 
they  appear  hereinafter. 


December  18 


454 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : These  matters 

will  be  taken  up  when  the  appropriate 
subject  is  reached.  The  resolutions  of 
Mr.  Yopicka  will  be  taken  up  when  the 
appropriate  subject  is  reached. 

The  special  order  tonight  is  Section 
10,  Revenue.  The  Secretary  will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page,  53,  lower 

left-hand  column,  Section  10,  Revenue. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  last 

night  I offered  a substitute  for  Section  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Do  you  desire  to 

have  it  read  now? 

MR.  SHEPARD : I move  its  adoption 

and  I desire  to  have  it  read  at  this 
time. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman  and 

gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  Section  1 

of  this  substitute  is  offered  in  place  of 
paragraph  1 of  the  Chapter  on  Revenue, 
because  it  is  the  same,  or  supposed  to  be 
the  same  proposition,  in  its  expanded 
form.  Rather,  paragraph  1 of  the 
chapter  of  Revenue,  as  submitted  by  the 
Committee  on  Procedure,  was  supposed 
to  represent  this  section  of  the  substitute 
motion.  This  section  of  the  substitute 
motion — speaking  now  of  Section  1 — is 
the  majority  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Revenue  of  this  Convention,  with  refer- 
ence to  the  subject  of  general  taxation, 
so  far  as  that  pertained  to  the  levy  of 
the  taxes  of  the  city,  for  the  city,  park, 
school  and  library  purposes. 

In  view  of  the  appointment  by  the 
Convention,  or  by  the  Chairman  upon 
the  order  of  this  Convention,  of  a com- 
mittee to  ascertain  the  needs  and  re- 
quirements of  the  several  municipal  de- 
partments, this  substitute  is  offered  with 
the  percentage  left  in  blank.  That  per- 
centage to  be  taken  up  and  considered 
and  determined  upon  at  a subsequent 
meeting  of  this  Convention,  presumably 
after  that  committee  has  submitted  its 
report  to  the  Convention. 

With  the  permission  of  the  Chairman 
and  the  gentlemen  of  the  convention,  I 
will  take  the  liberty  of  explaining  the 


scope  of  this  section  1 of  this  substitute 
motion.  The  first  clause  provides: 

‘ ‘ The  City  Council  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago shall  annually,  in  the  first  quarter 
of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a general  tax  for 
all  city,  school,  park  and  library  purposes 
of  such  year.” 

This  follows  the  law  that  has  been  in 
force  since  1872,  at  any  rate  with  ref- 
erence to  the  levy  of  taxes  by  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  city,  school  and  library 
purposes.  Following  the  consolidation 
of  several  parks  of  this  city  and  the  cre- 
ation of  such  parks  into  a department  of 
the  city  government,  parks,  or  the  levy 
for  park  taxes,  is  also  included  in  this 
clause.  So  that  the  city  hereafter,  by 
this  clause,  shall  levy  each  year  the  taxes 
required  for  city,  school,  park  and  li- 
brary purposes.  It  is  considered  by  the 
committee,  or  at  least  a majority  of  it, 
that  the  City  of  Chicago,  through  its 
Common  Council,  should  be  vested  with 
the  authority,  as  it  has  been  heretofore, 
to  levy  for  all  of  its  subordinate  de- 
partments. We  considered  that  the  city 
could  better  afford  to  meet,  distribute 
the  funds  available  for  all  purposes,  than 
to  leave  it  for  each  department,  or  some 
of  the  departments,  so  to  act  with  ref- 
erence to  themselves,  without  relation  to 
any  needs  of  the  other  departments  of 
the  city  government.  So,  under  this  pro- 
vision, the  city  will,  through  its  Com- 
mon Council,  levy  out  of  its  available 
fund  from  general  taxes  and  will  dis- 
tribute for  the  several  departments  of 
the  city  government. 

It  is  considered  by  the  committee  that 
there  was  no  reason  why  an  exception 
should  be  made  in  favor  of  one  depart- 
ment any  more  than  should  be  made  in 
favor  of  another  department.  The  offi- 
cers in  charge  of  one  department  may 
naturally  consider  that  their  department 
is  the  most  important  of  the  municipal 
activities;  but,  however  that  may  be,  for 
the  permanent,  economical,  wise  adminis- 
tration of  the  finances  of  the  city,  it  is 
considered  that  all  of  these  matters 


December  18 


455 


1906 


should  at  some  time  center  in  one  tri- 
bunal for  distribution  and  for  the  de- 
termination of  their  various  needs. 

Under  the  present  law  which  has  pre- 
vailed for  a generation,  the  City  Coun- 
cil has  levied  its  taxes  and  allotted  the 
amounts  available  for  all  of  its  depart- 
ments : Police  Department,  Fire  De- 

partment, Department  of  Public  Works, 
Daw  Department  and  other  departments. 
It  has  also  levied  the  taxes  and  fixed 
the  amount  to  be  levied  for  library  pur- 
poses and  for  school  purposes. 

The  next  provision  takes  up  the  maxi- 
mum amount  or  percentage.  By  the 
adoption  of  this  provision  we  determine 
that  some  percentage  shall  be  fixed  in 
the  constitution  of  this  city  beyond 
which  the  tax  levying  body  may  not  go. 
We  believe  that  this  is  a necessary  pro- 
vision in  a fundamental  law  of  the  city. 
We  believe  that  it  is  necessary  for  the 
good  administration  of  the  city  govern- 
ment, and  is  a necessary  provision  for 
the  protection  of  those  who  pay  the  tax. 
The  amount,  as  I have  stated,  has  been 
left  blank,  to  be  taken  up  and  consid- 
ered at  a later  meeting  of  this  Conven- 
tion. 

The  next  provision:  “The  said  City 

Council,  in  its  annual  levy,  shall  specify 
the  respective  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  the  indebtedness  and  the 
amount  levied,  and  interest  thereon, f 1 
should  read,  the  amount  levied  for  gen- 
eral city  purposes;  the  amount  levied  for 
educational  purposes;  the  amount  levied 
for  building  purposes;  the  amount  levied 
for  park  purposes,  and  the  amount  levied 
for  library  purposes. 

Under  our  present  law,  some  of  the 
municipalities  are  required  in  their  tax 
levy  to  specify  in  detail  the  several  ob- 
jects and  purposes  for  its  levy.  The  City 
of  Chicago  is  now  so  required  to  specify 
for  its  city  purposes.  That  is,  its  cor- 
porate city  purposes,  strictly  speaking. 
Tt  is  not  so  required  to  specify  for  school 
purposes,  neither  for  educational  nor  for 


building.  It  is  not  so  required  to  speci- 
fy for  library  purposes. 

The  laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois  vary 
widely  in  this  respect.  For  instance : 
Road  and  bridge  commissioners  levy  only 
a percentage,  without  specifying  either 
the  sum  of  money  in  gross,  and  without 
specifying  any  of  the  objects  or  purposes 
for  which  the  money  shall  or  may  be  ex- 
pended. Other  taxing  bodies  may  levy 
simply  a sum,  a gross,  without  specifying 
a percentage  or  without  specifying  any 
of  the  objects  and  purposes  for  which 
the  money  is  levied. 

This  provides  that  the  city  in  its  levy 
ordinance  shall  specify  these  designated 
items,  namely,  the  amount  required  for 
the  payment  of  maturing  bonds,  the 
amount  required  for  the  interest  upon 
the  bonded  debt,  and  the  bonded  debts  of 
its  subordinate  bodies,  the  amount  re- 
quired for  general  corporate  purposes, 
that  is,  current  expenses,  the  amount  re- 
quired for  park  purposes,  the  amount  re- 
quired for  educational  purposes,  the 
amount  required  for  school  building  pur- 
poses and  the  amount  required  for  li- 
brary purposes.  That  does  away  with 
the  necessity  of  the  city  itemizing  its  tax 
levy  ordinance,  and  the  several  objects 
and  purposes  for  which  the  taxes  are 
levied.  That  is  unnecessary.  It  does  no 
good  there  to  meet  the  requirement  of 
publicity  necessary  and  demanded  in 
financial  affairs,  and  it  simply  opens 
the  door  for  some  tax  dodger  to  come  in 
on  some  one  or  more  of  the  items  of  that 
tax  levy. 

The  City  Council  in  its  annual  appro- 
priation bill,  under  the  present  law,  is 
required  to  specify  in  detail,  in  the  most 
minute  detail,  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  for  which  money  is  appro- 
priated for  its  current  year.  Beyond 
that  appropriation  bill  the  city  cannot 
expend  money,  nor  in  violation  of  the 
provisions  of  that  appropriation  bill,  so 
that  the  publicity  of  expenditures  and 
financial  transactions  is  thus  obtained 
in  the  annual  appropriation  bill  of  the 


December  18 


456 


1906 


City  of  Chicago,  that  being  published, 
and  anyone  who  desires  may  find  it  and 
read  it  and  require  the  city  to  adhere 
to  its  provisions.  Besides  that,  the 
comptroller  of  the  city,  under  the  present 
law  of  the  city  treasury,  is  prohibited 
from  authorizing  the  payment,  or  pro- 
viding the  payment  of  any  money  in  vio- 
lation of  the  provisions  of  the  annual  ap- 
propriation bill. 

The  next  provision  provides  that 1 1 The 
county  clerk  shall  extend  upon  the  col- 
lector’s warrant  all  of  such  taxes,  sub- 
ject to  the  limitation  herein  contained,  in 
a single  column  as  the  City  of  Chicago 
tax.  ’ 1 

Under  the  present  law  the  county  clerk 
extends  in  a separate  column  the  City  of 
Chicago  tax  for  city  purposes  and  city 
bond  purposes.  The  school  tax  is  in  an- 
other column.  The  library  tax  in  another 
column,  and  the  park  tax  in  still  another 
column. 

This  requires  a great  amount  of  labor 
on  the  part  of  the  County  Clerk  for 
which  the  statute  has  provided  a com- 
pensation of  two  cents  for  the  exten- 
sion of  each  tax.  That  is,  against  any 
one  parcel  of  land  there  would  be  a city 
tax,  a park  tax,  a library  tax,  and  a 
school  tax,  which  would  amount  to  eight 
cents.  There  is  no  reason  why  this 
could  not  be  extended  to  one  column  at 
a cost  of  two  cents  to  the  city  instead 
of  eight  cents  to  the  city,  thus  making 
a saving  of  from  forty  to  fifty  thousand 
dollars  in  the  expenses  of  the  extension 
of  the  city  taxes  that  do  no  good  and 
furnish  no  needful  information  to  the 
city.  The  tax  levy  itself  specified  the 
respective  amount  levied  for  each  pur- 
pose, and  the  extension  of  this  tax 
in  a separate  column  creates  confusion. 

If  there  is  any  doubt  on  that  I would 
refer  simply  to  the  fact  that  the  county 
clerk  now,  for  instance,  extends  the 
city  tax,  including  the  amount  levied 
for  bonds  in  a separate  column,  and 
the  comptroller  must  refer  to  that  tax 


levy  in  order  to  separate  the  items. 
The  present  school  tax,  both  for  build- 
ing purposes  and  for  educational  pur- 
poses, is  extended  in  a single  column, 
and  the  city  treasurer  and  the  school 
board  must  refer  to  the  tax  levies  in 
order  to  keep  the  items  separate.  The 
extension  furnishes  no  information  and 
they  need  no  information  from  the  tax 
extension  in  order  to  determine  the  re- 
spective amounts  levied  for  each  pur- 
pose. The  next  provision  states:  “In 

case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness,  and 
the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed  per  centum  of  such 

excessive  value,  such  excesses  shall  be 
disregarded,  and  the  residue  only  treat- 
ed and  certified  for  extension.” 

This  is  identical  with  the  present  law 
and  is  put  in  this  as  a matter  of  neces- 
sity. The  levies  being  made  in  the 
early  part  of  the  year,  being  filed  with 
the  county  clerk,  and  the  assessed  value 
upon  which  those  levies  are  to  be  ex- 
tended not  being  obtainable  until  later 
in  the  year,  the  tax  levying  authority 
may  levy  more  than  the  law  allows 
under  its  limitation  at  the  present  time, 
in  such  a case  the  county  clerk,  under 
the  present  law,  as  provided  in  this  law, 
shall  disregard  the  excess  and  treat  the 
residue  only  as  certified  for  extension. 
The  law  simply  asking  the  matter  to 
be  validated  and  legalize  the  amount 
authorized  to  be  levied  by  the  munici- 
pality, and  disregarding  the  surplusage 
amount  unauthorized  to  be  levied.  In 
such  a proceeding  the  act  provides: 

“In  such  cases  all  items  in  such  tax 
levy  except  those  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness,  and  the  interest  on 
bonded  indebtedness  shall  be  reduced 
pro  rata. ’ * 

For  instance,  if  the  City  of  Chicago 
should  levy  ten  million  dollars  for  city 
purposes  and  ten  million  dollars  for 
school  purposes,  and  other  sums  for  park 


December  18 


457 


1906 


and  library  purposes,  and  one  or  more 
million  dollars  was  found  to  be  in  ex- 
cess and  unauthorized,  the  county  clerk, 
under  the  provision  of  this  law,  as  he 
does  now  under  the  provisions  of  the 
present  law,  would  abate  pro  rata  from 
each  tax  levy  the  excess  found  in  the 
tax  levy. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Wait  a minute, 

Mr.  Shepard.  I assume  it  will  be  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Convention 
that  Mr.  Shepard  shall  continue  this 
explanation? 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I do  not 

rise  to  object  to  time,  but  I want  to 
raise  a point  of  order  before  time  is 
given.  If  my  point  of  order  is  not  acted 
upon,  of  course,  I will  not  object  to  Mr. 
Shepard  taking  all  the  time  necessary, 
and  my  point  of  order,  Mr.  Chairman, 
is  not  a merely  momentary  one,  but  goes 
to  the  whole  course  of  the  proceeding, 
from  now  on.  To  state  it  briefly  it  is, 
that  we  are  now  in  session,  not  for  the 
purpose  of  discussing  a code,  or  for 
specific  legislation.  We  are  in  session 
solely  for  the  purpose  of  getting  an  in- 
formal expression  of  opinion  and  a pre- 
liminary agreement  in  principle.  Now, 
we  have  from  the  committee  on  rules 
a line  of  procedure  laid  out  that  is 
eminently  fair  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing out  a full  and  free  expression  of 
opinion  with  regard  to  the  principles 
with  which  this  charter  should  be  built. 
We  have  been  drifting  gradually  away 
from  that  line  of  procedure  and  from 
the  earlier  rulings  of  the  Chair  with 
reference  to  it,  until  now  we  have 
reached  a point  where  we  are  asked  to 
take  up  and  to  consider  mere  details 
of  legislation  in  the  name  of  a substitute 
for  a principle.  Now,  if  it  were  merely 
— if  nothing  more  were  involved  than 
the  question  in  one  instance  of  intro- 
ducing a substitute  which  belongs  more 
properly  to  a future  session  of  the  Con- 
vention, I should  not  take  your  time; 
but  there  is  a great  deal  more  involved. 


All  proceedings  in  this  manner  is,  in 
fact,  preventing  the  very  culmination 
that  the  Committee  on  Rules  sought, 
and  that  we,  who  are  in  the  minority 
in  this  Convention,  believe  we  were  go- 
ing to  have  an  opportunity  to  avail 
ourselves  of.  This  substitute  that  is 
proposed,  for  example,  Mr.  President, 
will  have  the  effect  of  cutting  off  any 
fair  consideration  of  alternative  to  ten, 
Nos.  1 and  2,  and  any  fair  consideration 
of  No.  7,  under  alternative  5;  and  will 
affect  the  discussion  in  one  or  two  other 
particulars.  I submit,  Mr.  President, 
to  the  good  sense  and  fairness,  if  not  the 
courtesy  of  the  majority  of  this  Con- 
vention, for  it  ought  at  least  to  ob- 
serve the  spirit  of  the  rules  that  the 
Committee  on  Rules  have  made.  When 
this  Convention  first  organized  I talked 
with  a number  of  those  that  felt  as  I 
did;  who  felt  they  were  very  much 
in  the  minority  in  this  Convention,  how- 
ever they  might  be  in  the  municipal 
election  at  which  the  work  of  this 
Convention  is  to  be  presented  to  the 
people.  We  are  unanimous  in  the  under- 
standing that  if  we  found  the  fairness 
and  openness  in  the  majority  of  this 
Convention,  we  would  do  all  we  could, 
of  course,  to  have  our  own  views  adopt- 
ed, but  failing  in  having  our  own  views 
adopted,  and  the  spirit  of  compromise 
and  fairness  adopted,  we  would  meet 
compromise  with  compromise  and  fair- 
ness with  fairness;  and  when  the  charter 
was  adopted  by  this  Convention  and 
passed  by  the  Legislature,  we  would 
do  all  in  our  power  to  secure  its  adop- 
tion by  the  people. 

Now,  I ask  this  Convention  to  con- 
sider whether  it  is  fair  to  virtually 
cut  off  debate.  Now,  we  can  say  some- 
thing about  these  subjects,  under  that 
fairness  of  consideration  which  this 
Convention  ought  to  give  to  the  subject 
matter  presented.  If  we  proceed  now 
in  the  order  which  the  proceedings  be- 
gan we  should  have  taken  up  this  al- 


December  18 


458 


1906 


ternative  to  ten  and  decided  a principle, 
and  we  should  have  had  a discussion  of 
it,  which  would  have  drawn  attention 
from  the  whole  Convention  to  the  core 
of  that  principle.  In  that  way  we 
should  have  gotten  a discussion  and 
a decision  which  would  have  been  a 
thoughtful  decision,  and  so  we  should 
have  gone  on  backward  to  No.  7,  under 
alternative  to  5,  and  so  on  to  the  main 
question.  But  if  we  are  to  have  here 
offered  a substitute  in  detail  form,  we 
are  not  only  anticipating  the  work  of 
the  Convention  and  doing  in  this  ses- 
sion what  has  been  set  aside  for  a future 
session,  but  we  are  adopting  a course 
of  procedure  which  will  prevent  us  ar- 
riving in  an  orderly  way  to  a prelimin- 
ary agreement  on  the  principle. 

I wish  to  make  this  point  of  order, 
but  beyond  the  point  of  order  I ask 
this  Convention,  the  majority  of  those 
who  have  the  power,  to  remember  that 
they  should  consider  the  rights  of  the 
minority,  anl  give  us  an  opportunity 
for  consideration  of  the  whole  subject 
and  the  principles  involved  in  the  prop- 
ositions that  are  laid  down  by  the  Buies 
Committee  and  not  by  this  substitute 
to  cut  off  debate  on  this  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your 

point  of  order? 

MR.  POST : My  point  of  order  is  that 
we  are  in  session  solely  for  the  purpose 
of  getting  an  informal  expression  of 
opinion  and  a preliminary  agreement 
in  principle  upon  the  chief  general  out- 
lines of  the  proposed  charter,  and  that 
a specific  piece  of  legislation  is  out  of 
order  at  his  session,  and  is  out  of  order 
until  the  Committee  on  Rules  has  re- 
ported and  we  are  in  session  to  discuss 
the  final  report. 

MR.  GANSBERGEN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

rule  on  this  point  of  order  first.  The 
Chair  is  of  the  opinion  that  this  Con- 
vention is  the  sole  judge  of  what  is 
meant  by  the  words  “A  general  agree- 


ment in  principle,  ” as  laid  down  in  the 
rules,  and  there  would  seem  to  be  no 
reason  why  after  the  reception  of  Mr. 
Shepard’s  substitute  that  a motion 
should  not  be  made  to  take  up  the  sec- 
tion as  a substitute  for  that  which  Mr. 
Post  desires  to  bring  before  the  house. 
The  Chair  will  assure  the  gentleman 
that  opportunity  will  be  given  to  bring 
all  of  these  sections  before  the  house. 

MR.  POST:  May  I be  allowed  to 

suggest  one  thing  I overlooked? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  If  this  substitute  should 
be  adopted  then  it  takes  the  place,  or 
it  cuts  off  action  practically,  direct 
action  upon  three  or  four  propositions, 
because  it  provides  for  those  very  prop- 
ositions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  does  not,  Mr. 

Post,  unless  it  should  be  adopted,  and 
if  an  opportunity  is  given  to  substitute 
for  the  very  sections  proposed  by  Mr. 
Shepard,  your  sections  which  related  to 
it,  the  Chair  fails  to  see  how  they  would 
not  be  fully  recognized. 

MR.  POST:  It  is  going  to  be  rather 
difficult  for  us  in  the  minority  to  sug- 
gest amendments  to  a specific  piece  of 
legislation,  when  the  amendments  are 
in  the  form  of  abstract  statements. 

MR.  GANSBERGEN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I desire  to  state  that  I am  surprised  at 
Mr.  Post’s  statement,  because  I thought 
Mr.  Post  advocated  free  discussion  of 
every  subject,  and  I feel  that  Mr.  Shep- 
ard, who  is  very  well  informed  on  the 
subject  of  taxation,  having  been  at- 
torney in  that  capacity  for  a number  of 
years,  should  address  us  more  at  length 
on  the  matter,  and  I would  like  to  ask 
this  Convention  to  extend  the  time  to 
Mr.  Shepard  to  give  us  such  enlighten- 
ment as  he  has. 

MR.  POST:  I am  not  refusing  my 

consent  at  all,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I rise  to  a question 

of  information,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Raymer. 


December  18 


459 


1906 


MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Post  to  whom  he  is  referring  when 
he  refers  to  the  minority.  I have  failed 
to  discover  that  there  was  any  particular 
minority  in  this  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentleman 

desires  to  know  whether  there  is  con- 
sent that  Mr.  Shepard  shall  continue 
his  explanation  of  his  section? 

(Cries  of  “yes, ” and  “leave.”) 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Now,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, can  I have  a moment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell. 

MR,  O’DONNELL:  I noticed  here 

in  the  beginning  of  Mr.  Shepard’s  sub- 
stitute that  it  is  offered  as  a substitute 
for  Section  1,  Chapter  10,  Revenue, 
as  printed  on  page  53.  I want  to  know 
if  that  is  intendel  by  Mr.  Shepard  for 
every  clause  in  that 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Just  the  first  clause. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Oh,  yes.  Well, 

that  is  all  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard  has 

unanimous  leave  to  continue  his  re- 
marks. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman  and 

gentlemen:  These  are  presented  in  a 

series  of  propositions.  The  first  sec- 
tion does  follow  the  exact  draft  of  the 
bill  reported  by  the  Committee  on  Rev- 
enue, but  that  bill  is  simply  a series 
of  propositions,  and  I for  one  thought 
it  was  better  to  present  at  one  time 
that  series  of  propositions  so  that  the 
Convention  could  have  before  it  the 
whole  scheme,  rather  than  to  present 
a single  proposition  for  like  considera- 
tion, and  go  to  this  Convention  upon  a 
single  proposition  before  it  had  before 
it  the  subsequent  propositions  that 
would  bear  upon  it,  relate  to  it  or 
modify  it,  and  perhaps  be  inconsistent 
with  it. 

Take,  for  instance,  the  question  of 
the  limitation.  True,  in  this  section 
is  presented  a proposition  that  there 
shall  be  a limitation,  but  the  percent- 
age is  left  blank.  If  alternative  to  No. 


1 does  provide  that  there  shall  be  no 
limitation,  if  any  gentleman  of  this 
Convention  desires  to  amend  this  section 
by  offering  alternative  to  No.  1,  which 
provides  that  there  shall  be  no  limitation 
at  all,  I see  no  reason  why  he  cannot 
offer  that  as  an  amendment,  and  have 
the  fullest  discussion  and  consideration 
and  action  of  this  Convention  upon  it. 

The  last  clause  of  Section  1 provides: 

‘ 1 The  City  Treasurer  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  shall  keep  separate  funds  in 
conformity  to  said  tax  levy,  which  funds 
shall  be  paid  out  by  him  upon  order 
of  the  proper  authorities,  for  the  pur- 
pose only  for  which  the  same  were 
levied.  ’ ’ 

That  provides,  in  a word,  that  the 
City  Treasurer  shall  keep  the  amount 
levied  for  city  corporate  purposes  in  a 
separate  fund,  except  that  it  may  be 
modified  by  the  code,  that  that  particu- 
lar fund  shall  also  be  subdivided  to 
conform  to  the  appropriation  ordinances. 
He.  shall  also  keep  the  park  tax  in  a 
separate  fund,  the  park  bond  tax  in  a 
separate  fund,  the  interest  fund  for 
the  tax  bonds  in  a separate,  fund,  the 
educational  tax  in  a separate  fund,  the 
school  builling  tax  in  a separate  fund, 
and  the  library  tax  in  a separate  fund; 
and  that  he  shall  only  pay  out  of  these 
funds  upon  the  order  of  the  proper 
authorities.  That  proper  authority  is 
not  defined  precisely  here  in  detail,  be- 
cause it  is  thought — that  is  left  to  the 
code  to  provide. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I think  Mr.  Shep- 

ard should  either  speak  a little  louder 
or  talk  this  way.  We  cannot  hear  him. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard 

will  take  notice. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I will. 

This  contemplates  that,  for  instance: 
A school  fund  shall  only  be  paid  upon 
the  authority  of  the  Board  of  Eluca- 
tion,  and  such  further  authority  as  the 
code  may  require.  For  instance,  the 
code  may  require  that  the  warrant  so 


December  18 


460 


1906 


drawn  by  the  Board  of  Education  shall 
also  bear  the  endorsement  or  counter- 
signature  of  the  comptroller  of  the  city, 
as  well  as  the  signature  of  the  city 
treasurer.  Like  provision  is  made,  or 
the  same  provision  covers  the  funds  of 
the  other  departments  of  the  city  go- 
vernment: Park  and  Library. 

I think  that,  in  this  brief  statement, 
that  covers  Section  1 of  this  substi- 
tute. 

I call  at  this  time  the  attention  of 
the  Convention  to  Section  2,  which  pro- 
vides the  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall,  in  January  of 
each  year,  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  receipts 
and  expenditures  for  the  preceding  cal- 
endar year,  stating  therein  the  sources 
of  its  receipts  and  the  several  objects 
and  purposes  of  its  expenditures. 

This  same  provision  in  Sections  3 
and  4,  respectively,  requires  the  Board 
of  Park  Commissioners  and  the  Board 
of  Library  Directors  to  do  the  same 
thing.  And  this  is  put  in  for  the  reason 
that  publicity  is  demanded  and  required 
in  the  matter  of  accounts  and  financial 
transactions  of  all  public  officers.  At 
the  end  of  the  year,  or  during  the  first 
month  of  the  succeeding  year,  these 
departments  can  then  make  up  a state- 
ment of  their  receipts  and  of  their  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  year. 
These,  under  this  provision,  to  be 
transmitted  to  the  City  Council,  where, 
by  operation  of  the  code,  they  become 
a part  of  the  proceedings,  and  if  they 
follow  the  present  practice  they  would 
stand  referred  to  the  Finance  Commit- 
tee of  the  City  Council. 

The  publicity  desired  and  demanded 
of  public  officers  is  thus,  in  that  simple 
manner,  obtained.  Besides  any  infor- 
mation respecting  the  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures of  the  department  for  the 
preceding  year  for  the  purpose  of  qudit 
or  check,  or  for  the  purposes  of  infor- 


mation. The  needs  of  the  department 
for  the  current  year  is  also  obtained. 

For  instance,  if  a particular  depart- 
ment would  lose  any  revenue  from 
taxes  or  other  sources  it  would  become 
apparent  and  would  account  for  the 
loss  or  deficit  and  provide  information 
necessary  for  the  City  Council  to  make 
good  that  loss,  provide  for  that  loss 
during  the  next  year. 

The  section  also  provides:  “It  shall 

also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an 
estimate  of  its  expenditures  for  the 
current  calendar  year,  stating  therein 
the  several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures.”  That  is  also  put  in  for 
a double  purpose:  For  the  purpose  of 

requiring  the  departments,  namely, 
these  three  separate  departments,  the 
library,  the  park  and  the  school  to 
set  down,  as  the  city  now  is  required 
to  set  down,  in  its  annual  appropriation 
bill,  the  amount  of  money  it  expects  to 
expand  for  its  several  purposes  during 
that  current  year. 

It  is  also  put  in  this  section  to  provide 
for  and  furnish  to  the  City  Council  the 
tax  levying  body,  the  information  ne- 
cessary for  the  City  Council,  through 
its  finance  committee,  to  proceed  in- 
telligently in  distributing  the  available 
resources  derived  from  general  taxes 
upon  the  property  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  distributing  them  to  the 
several  departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

This,  like  the  other,  provides  an 
economical,  simple  way  of  obtaining 
and  publishing,  and  making  public  this 
information,  in  what  we  consider  the 
easiest  and  simplest  manner,  and  at  the 
same  time  the  most  effective  manner. 

Sections  3 and  4 simply  relate  in  the 
same  manner  to  the  Board  of  Park 
Commissioners,  and  the  Board  of  Lib- 
rary Directors,  respectively. 

This  presents,  Mr.  Chairman,  the 
scheme  for  general  taxation  as  we  con- 


December  18 


461 


1906 


sider  it  should  be  presented  and  placed 
in  the  constitution  of  our  city  govern- 
ment. It  covers  these  four  great  de- 
partments of  the  city  government,  the 
city  proper,  the  library,  the  school  and 
parks.  It  concentrates  in  the  elected 
legislators  of  the  city,  in  one  tribunal, 
the  duty  of  gathering  together  the  in- 
formation pertaining  to  the  finances, 
the  receipts  and  the  expenditures  of 
each  of  its  departments,  and  gives  that 
body  the  power  and  places  upon  that 
body  the  responsibility  to  properly  di- 
vide for  each  of  these  departments  and 
distribute  the  available  resources  of 
the  City  of  Chicago. 

Believing  that  this  is  a wise  and  a 
a good  measure,  I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  It  has  been  moved  and 
seconded  that  Mr.  Shepard’s  substitute 
be  abopted  as  a substitute  for  Section  1. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  on  this  most  important 
matter  of  revenue,  and,  considering 
the  number  of  alternatives  which  have 
been  offered  by  the  committee,  that 
this  Convention  should  have  an  oppor- 
tunity of  consider  the  different  proposi- 
tions in  their  entirety.  And  I would 
move,  in  pursuance  of  the  suggestion, 
if  not  of  a rule  formulated  by  the 
committee  on  the  general  plan,  that 
we  take  up  the  alternative  propositions, 
commencing  with  the  last  alternative, 
so  that  the  Convention  can  consider  the 
various  alternatives,  and  havq  the  bene- 
fit of  a general  discussion  upon  the  dif- 
ferent propositions  that  have  been  pre- 
sented for  our  consideration.  And  I 
would  move,  therefore,  that  we  com- 
mence with  the  last  alternative  and 
work  back  to  the  first;  the  three  dif- 
ferent alternatives  as  one,  A,  B and  C. 
There  is  another  alternative  which  re- 
lates to  sectional,  and  that  is  alterna- 
tive X on  the  bottom  of  page  7.  My 
only  purpose  of  the  motion  is  that,  this 
being  perhaps  as  important  a question 


as  will  come  before  the  Convention,  it 
may  be  felt  that  everyone  has  had  a 
fair  opportunity  of  expressing  his  views 
on  it,  and  giving  any  proposition  he  is 
interested  in,  full  consideration. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  His  motion  goes 

to  a question  of  procedure  now,  and  I 
submit  that  by  consent  the  procedure 
has  been  established  by  recognizing  my 
motion  to  adopt  Section  1,  or  this  sub- 
stitute in  place  of  Section  1 as  found 
on  page  7.  If  Mr.  McGoorty  desires 
to  move  the  adoption  of  alternative 
to  10,  which  would  be  an  alternative 
to  my  substitute,  I have  not  the  slight- 
est  objection;  or  move  the  adoption  of 
any  other  section  as  an  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  would  be 

the  method  by  which  it  might  be 
brought  before  the  house,  Mr.  McGoor- 
ty. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I don’t  know 

that  I do.  I don’t  know  but  I am 
in  favor  of  Mr.  Shepard’s  resolution. 
The  only  objection,  if  any,  is,  it  comes 
in  the  drafted  form — I think  I favor 
the  draft  as  presented  by  Mr.  Shepard; 
but,  in  pursuance  of  the  suggestion 
made  by  Mr.  Post  that  these  specific 
propositions  regarding  the  Board  of 
Education  and  Library  Board,  etc.,  it 
might  be  more  expedient  to  have  them 
discussed  separately.  I don’t  wish  to 
oppose  Mr.  Shepard ’s  matter. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  I would  sug- 

gest, Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  are  pro- 
ceeding exactly  in  accordance  with  the 
rules  of  this  Convention.  If  Mr.  Shep- 
ard had  used  the  word  * ‘ alternative  ” 
instead  of  “substitute”  this  would 
have  been  avoided.  We  are  consider- 
ing it  in  the  natural  order,  where  it 
should  be  considered. 

MR.  ROBINS:  The  thing  that  oc- 

curs to  me,  and  doubtless  to  some  other 
members  of  this  Convention,  is  that 
this  is  not  in  the  nature  of  an  alter- 
native proposition,  but  is  in  the  nature 
of  a substitute  detailed  proposition,. 


December  18 


462 


1906 


and,  as  such,  it  may  be  the  right  pro- 
vision— I don’t  know,  but  I do  know 
that  I would  like  to  hear  discussion, 
for  instance,  upon  A,  the  alternative  to 
1,  which  reads:  “The  limit  of  the  tax 

rate  fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  ap- 
ply to  taxes  levied  for  school  purposes, 
but  taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school 
building,  and  educational  purposes  as 
now  provided  by  the  law.  ’ ’ 

I have  no  definite  opinion  about  that, 
but  I have  heard  a number  of  people 
defend  that  proposition,  and  I believe 
that  is  the  present  condition  of  the 
law.  And  I don’t  see  how  that  would 
properly  be  an  amendment  to  this  pro- 
vision of  Mr.  Shepard,  because  Mr. 
Shepard  here  details  his  work  out  on 
a principle  that  assumes  that  the 
school  taxes  shall  be  included  in  the 
general  levy.  All  Mr.  Shepard  wants 
is  that  there  be  a fair  discussion  and 
then  possibly  his  detailed  statement 
will  be  the  proper  statement,  and  the 
one  we  will  all  agree  to,  but  it  does 
seem  to  me,  if  offered  as  a substitute 
at  this  time,  it  operates  to  prevent 
certain  discussion  on  certain  points 
which  doubtless  many  members  of  this 
Convention  would  be  glad  to  hear,  and 
some  participate  in. 

MR.  SNOW:  I was  going  to  say, 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  matter  offered 
by  Mr.  Shepard  is  offered  as  substitute 
for  Section  1.  If  any  member  of  the 
Convention  desires  to  discuss  any  of 
the  substitutes  or  alternatives  which 
have  been  previously  offered,  the  way 
is  open  very  clearly;  all  he  has  to  do 
is  to  offer  it  as  a substitute  or  amend- 
ment for  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion,  and 
any  member  can  bring  any  matter 
which  he  desires  before  the  house  and 
discuss  it  to  his  heart’s  content. 

MR.  POST:  How  many  substitutes 

can  we  offer  to  Mr.  Shepard’s  substi- 
tute? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  in- 
clined to  be  exceedingly  generous  in 


the  matter  in  order  that  this  entire 
matter  may  be  brought  before  the 
house  for  discussion.  The  Chair  would 
suggest  that  you  dispose  of  them  from 
time  to  time,  so  that  his  memory  will 
not  be  taxed  too  much. 

The  Chair  is  prepared  to  hear  a sub- 
stitute from  Mr.  Bennett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman, 

speaking  to  the  question  raised  by  Mr. 
Robins,  alternative  to  1,  a,  “The  lim- 
it of  the  tax  rate  fixed  by  the  charter 
shall  not  only  apply  to  taxes  levied 
for  school  purposes,  but  taxes  shall  be 
levied  for  school  building  and  educa- 
tional purposes  as  now  provided  by 
law.  ’ ’ 

The  school  taxes  are  now  limited  by 
a general  law.  There  is  now  a limit, 
so  that  this  alternative  to  1,  a,  is  con- 
tradictory in  itself,  that  the  tax  shall 
be  levied  as  now,  and  now  they  are 
limited. 

Now,  I take  it,  when  we  come  to 
fill  in  the  figures  for  these  blanks,  we 
will  provide  a sum  sufficient  to  care 
for  the  schools,  parks,  the  library  and 
the  city,  and  when  these  questions  come 
up,  the  amount  necessary  for  each  of 
these  departments  will  be  taken  into 
consideration  and  discussed  by  the 
Convention.  Then  you  will  get  before 
you  the  figures. 

The  general  scheme  as  laid  out  by 
Mr.  Shepard  is  a simple  one,  and  to 
my  mind  a very  proper  one. 

Alternative  b provides  that,  * 1 The 
limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be  fixed  by 
the  charter  shall  not  apply  to  taxes 
levied  for  library  purposes,  but  the 
City  Council  shall  annually  levy  for 
library  purposes  a tax  of  not  less  than 
one  mill  and  not  more  than  one  and 
one  half  mill  on  the  dollar  on 
all  taxable  property  in  the  city.”  Now, 
when  we  come  to  consider  the  figures 
we  will  decide  that  question. 

1 1 c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 


December  18 


463 


1906 


mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable  pro- 
perty for  a police  pension  fund. M That 
question  will  naturally  arise  in  connec- 
tion with  these  figures  and  in  connec- 
tion with  the  resolution  on  police  ques- 
tions which  is  now  pending  before  the 
Convention. 

So,  as  I understand  the  question,  the 
proposition  as  outlined  by  Mr.  Shep- 
ard does  not  foreclose  going  into  the 
question  of  the  proportion  to  give  to 
each  of  these  bodies,  if  we  shall  see 
fit  to  decide  to  have  fixed  amounts  for 
the  taxes. 

MR.  ROBINS:  May  I ask  you  a 

question?  As  the  law  is  at  the  present 
time  is  it  not  so  that  the  taxes  for 
school  purposes  are  an  exception,  and 
not  within  the  limitations  upon  city 
taxes? 

MR.  BENNETT:  They  are  not  with- 

in the  limitation  of  the  “Jlml”  law, 
but  there  is  a limitation  of  two  per 
cent. 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  is  five  per  cent., 

is  it  not? 

MR.  RITTER:  Two  and  a half  per 

cent. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Two  and  a half 

per  cent. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Two  and  a half  per 

cent,  each,  that  is,  both  buildings  and 
education.  Now,  as  I understand  it, 
under  the  substitute  as  submited  by 
Mr.  Shepard,  that  separate  exemption, 
as  it  were,  or  privilege,  will  be  abol- 
ished, and  the  school  taxes  will  come 
within  the  general  limitation  of  the 
city  taxes.  Is  that  not  so? 

MR.  BENNETT:  That  is  so  under 

this  scheme  as  laid  down  by  Mr.  Shep- 
ard. I take  it,  when  the  figures  come 
in,  if  this  Convention  sees  fit  to  separ- 
ate them  it  can  do  so. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I only  want  a dis- 

cussion. I am  not  in  my  own  mind 
clear  as  to  the  reasonableness  or  desir- 
ability of  this  separation.  There  has 
been  such  a separation  of  this  kind  in 


the  past.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  intel- 
ligently defended  by  gentlemen  who 
are  informed.  I simply  wish  this  Con- 
vention to  have  some  statement  before 
it  so  that  we  may  put  that  proposition 
to  a vote. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

just  wanted  to  ask  a question.  I 
wanted  to  ask  Mr.  Shepard  about  these 
funds,  thq  building  fund  of  the  Board 
of  Education.  At  the  present  time  the 
law  fixes  five  per  cent.,  I understand, 
for  building  purposes 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Two  and  a half 

per  cent. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I hope  some  rule 

will  be  contained  in  the  new  charter 
for  one  purpose,  and  that  is  this:  If 

we  do  not  have  that  clause  in  the 
present  law  on  that  grant  the  money 
would  be  squandered;  we  would  have 
instead  of  275  schools,  150  schools.  I 
hope,  before  this  Convention  takes 
action,  this  will  be  considered  very 
carefully. 

MR.  BENNETT:  If  I may  be  per- 

mitted to  speak  again.  Mr.  Vopicka’s 
question  is  that  we  shall  have  the 
school  fund  kept  separate.  As  one 
member  of  this  Convention  I am  equally 
desirous  of  having  the  city  rate  separ- 
ate for  this  reason:  Whenever  a re- 

quest is  made  for  an  appropriation  for 
school  purposes,  it  is  for  one  of  those 
purposes  which  the  people  are  always 
liberal  upon;  the  City  Council  is  al- 
ways liberal  upon,  and  until  we  do 
fix  a limit  for  the  schools,  in  my  judg- 
ment the  city  in  the  long  run  will 
suffer.  Whatever  the  amount  we  finally 
decide  upon  I hope  to  see  incorporated 
in  this  scheme  a provision  that  the 
city  fund  will  be  separate  from  the 
school  fund. 

MR.  RITTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Shepard,  as  a 
matter  of  information,  whether  the 
division  of  this  maximum  is  to  be 
made  and  fixed,  or  whether  the  City 


December  18 


464 


1906 


Council  Finance  Committee  is  to  make 
a division  of  the  maximum  each  year. 
I don’t  know  whether  he  understands 
that  question.  • 

MR.  SHEPARD:  This  provides  that 

the  levy  shall  be  made  by  the  City 
Council. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Yes,  that  is  what  it 

says. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  is  the  pres- 

ent law. 

MR.  RITTER:  Yes,  but 

MR.  ROBINS:  A portion  of  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  is  the  pres- 

ent law. 

MR.  RITTER:  But  I am  informed 

that  there  is  a committee  at  work  on 
the  question  of  the  division  of  this  five 
per  cent.,  or  four  and  a half  of  the 
present  maximum,  among  the  different 
bodies.  Am  I correct? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  There  is  a com- 

mitee  appointed  by  the  Chairman  of 
this  Convention 

MR.  RITTER:  Yes. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  to  gather  in- 

formation as  to  receipts  and  expendi- 
tures, or  interests  and  needs  of  the 
various  departments.  Now,  just  what 
report  they  will  make,  of  course  I 
cannot  forecast  but  the  percentage  in 
this  proposition  is  left  blank  so  that 
we  will  not  anticipate  in  any  way  their 
report. 

MR.  RITTER:  I don’t  think  you 

have  got  my  question.  Will  the  di- 
vision of  the  funds  be  fixed;  that  is, 
the  proportionate  division  of  the  funds 
be  fixed  now,  or  will  the  City  Council 
each  year  say  that  out  of  this  four  and 
a half  per  cent,  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  get  one  per  cent.,  say,  and 
the  city  shall  get  two  per  cent,  and 
another  body  a half  of  one  per  cent? 
Will  that  be  gone  through  with  each 
year,  or  will  this  charter  provide  that 
whatever  the  maximum  taxation,  the 
Board  of  Education  shall  be  entitled 


to  so  much  of  it,  and  the  other  bodies 
to  so  much  of  it? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Every  year? 

MR.  SHEPARD : This  provision 

provides  that  the  city  shall  make  a 
levy. 

MR.  RITTER:  Each  year 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Each  year.  The 

appropriation  of  the  amounts  available 
for  each  department,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  parks,  will  be  provided  for. 
The  City  Council  has  always  done  that. 

MR.  RITTER:  Thank  you. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  It  might  be  well 

for  Mr.  Shepard  to  tell  us  what  is  the 
maximum  rate  for  the  city,  for  the 
Library  Board  and  for  the  Park  Board 
at  the  present  time;  and  also  what 
limitation  of  the  local  taxes  is  for  this 
taxation  at  the  present  time. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I would  be  very 

glad  to  answer  that  question,  but  I 
suggest  that  goes  to  the  question  of  the 
maximum  limitation,  which  is  not  in- 
volved' in  this  proposition.  You  will 
notice  this  is  left  blank.  For  instance, 
it  is  to  be  four  and  a half,  four  or  five, 
or  some  other  amount.  That  is  not 
involved  in  the  motion  to  adopt  this 
proposition,  and  I cannot  furnish  that 
information. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I had  refer- 

ence to  the  present  limitation  of 
the  tax  under  the  present  revenue 
law.  What  are  the  limits  on  the  Board 
of  Education?  what  are  the  limits  on 
the  city?  what  are  the  limits  on  the 
Park  Board?  and  what  are  the  limits 
on  the  Library  Board? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  present  lim- 

itations, as  I remember  them,  are  as 
follows:  The  West  Park  Board,  $1.25 

on  each  $100.00  assessed  value,  which 
includes  all  provision  for  the  payment 
of  maturing  bonds  and  interest  on 
bonded  debt,  and  current  corporate 
purposes.  The  limitation  on  the  City 
Council,  the  present  limitation,  is  two 
per  cent,  for  corporate  purposes,  plus 


December  18 


465 


1906 


the  amount  required  for  maturing 
bonds,  and  the  interest  on  bonded  debt. 
The  limitation  upon  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation for — on  the  City  Council  for 
school  purposes,  is  two  and  a half  per 
cent,  for  building  purposes,  and  two 
and  a half  per  cent,  for  educational 
purposes;  those  items  respectively  em- 
bracing all  expenditures  under  those 
respective  heads,  including  bonds  and 
interest,  if  there  are  any.  I think  that 
is  all — oh,  the  library.  The  present 
library  limitation  is  one  mill,  or  ten 
cents,  on  each  $100.00  of  assessed  value. 

I will  again  suggest  that  that  goes 
to  the  consideration,  Mr.  Eidmann,  if 
I may  suggest  it — to  the  consideration 
of  the  maximum  rate  to  be  placed  in 
this  blank,  if  such  a rate  is  determined 
on,  or  any  rate  is  determined  on;  and 
it  should  come  up  for  consideration 
then,  and  is  really  not  apropos  to  the 
discussion  of  this  resolution. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I am  unusually  dense,  for  I have  to 
ask  another  question.  As  I understand 
it,  under  your  resolution,  the  City 
Council  has  the  power  to  divide  the 
taxes  up  in  any  way  it  sees  fit? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Well,  the  pres- 

ent status  is  that  the  present  law  fixes 
the  maximum  for  each  individual  body, 
and  even  if  the  School  Board  could  not 
use  its  full  tax  the  city  could  not  get 
hold  of  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  is  correct, 

and  under  the  provisions  of  this  draft 
the  city  could  not  get  the  use,  nor  the 
school  or  the  library,  or  the  park 
money.  The  tax  levied  is  to  be  held 
sacred  for  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  levied,  and  expended  for  no  other 
purpose.  True,  under  the  present  law 
there  are  individual  limitations;  but 
those  limitations,  while  they  are  with- 
in the  powers,  so  far  as  levying  taxes 
are  concerned,  of  the  City  Council — 
while  the  City  Council  under  these  lim- 


itations may  not  go  beyond  two  and  a 
half  per  cent,  for  educational  purposes, 
they  may  levy  as  much  less  than  that 
amount  as  it  in  its  wisdom  determines 
is  advisable. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Under  your 

plan  the  city  can  levy  three  per  cent, 
for  school  purposes  by  deducting  a half 
per  cent,  somewhere  else,  cannot  it? 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I do  not  see  how 
we  are  going  to  ge$  at  this  thing  in 
an  intelligent  way  unless  those  gentle- 
men who  are  particularly  informed  in 
the  various  branches  would  be  so  kind 
as  to  instruct  the  rest  of  us  who  are 
not  informed  in  those  branches.  For 
instance,  a few  of  us  know  a little 
about  the  finances  of  the  city,  or  such 
as  pass  through  the  annual  appropria- 
tion bill  in  the  council.  At  the  same 
time,  those  same  men  may  not  know 
very  much  about  the  situation  in  the 
schools;  they  may  not  know  very  much 
about  the  situation  of  the  Library 
Board.  It  would  give  me  a great  deal 
of  pleasure  if  the  president  of  the 
School  Board  wTould  tell  us  what  his 
situation  is-.  I do  not  know,  for  in- 
stance, how  much  money  the  School 
Board  gets  from  its  real  estate,  and 
what  changes  it  will  make  in  future 
years;  or  whether  it  will  like  to  have 
a special  accommodation  in  the  way  of 
bonded  indebtedness.  I think  we  would 
be  glad  to  hear  some  information  from 
the  members  of  the  Library  Board 
and  Park  Board  as  well. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  ( hairman,  I 

wish  to  say  that  the  Commitee  on 
Revenue  appointed  at  the  last  meeting 
has  made  up  a scheme  for  gathering 
together,  or  getting  together,  the  in- 
formation sought  for  by  Mr.  McCor- 
mick. The  various  park  boards,  the 
Library  Board  and  the  School  Board 
have  been  requested  to  furnish  this 
committee  with  information  as  to  its 
present — as  to  their  present  expendi- 
ture; and  also  as  to  their  views  upon 


December  18 


466 


1906 


the  future  needs,  the  increasing  needs 
of  these  vast  departments.  Now,  when 
these  figures  are  all  gathered  together, 
which  they  will  be  at  an  early  date, 
they  will  be  presented  to  this  Conven- 
tion in  a simple  form,  so  that  this  whole 
question  will  be  before  each  member 
of  the  Convention  in  a way  that  he 
can  understand  it  fully.  It  will  not  only 
take  into  consideration  the  present  ex- 
penditures but  the  future  needs  of  the 
city  in  all  these  departments,  both  in 
reference  to  the  ordinary  expenses  and 
to  the  permanent  improvements  which 
should  be  paid  for  out  of  bonds.  All 
that  information  will  be  furnished  you 
at  an  early  date. 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

order  to  have  this — if  this  is  in  order — 
I move  to  postpone  the  consideration 
of  the  alternative  to  1,  a,  b,  c,  until 
such  time  as  the  blank  rate  shall  be 
fixed  by  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Until  what 

time? 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  Until  such  time 

as  the  blank  per  centum  shall  be  filled 
in  on  the  recommendation  of  this  com- 
mittee for  the  action  of  the  Conven- 
tion. It  is  impossible  to  discuss  the 
matter  of  how  much  you  want  on  the 
schools,  the  park  and  the  library  in- 
telligently until  you  know  what  is  the 
maximum  rate.  Otherwise,  a discussion 
of  that  will  be  for  no  purpose  except 
to  consume  the  time  of  this  Conven- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion  that  consideration  of  alter- 
natives a,  b and  c be  deferred  until 
such  time  as  the  committee  brings  in 
its  report. 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  I would  like  to  in- 
clude in  that,  if  there  is  no  objection, 
No.  2,  which  provides  for  the  levy  of 
one  per  cent,  additional.  That  also 
would  be  along  the  lines  of  blank  dis- 
cussion until  we  know  the  rates.  We 
could  not  vote  intelligently  on  that. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  A,  b and  c and 

No.  2.  Will  you  yield  your  motion? 

ME.  SHEPARD:  I second  the  mo- 

tion and  yield  mine. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  a,  b and  e 
and  No.  2 of  Section  10  be  deferred 
until  the  report  of  the  Revenue  Commit- 
tee is  received  by  this  Convention. 

MR.  WERNO:  I would  suggest  that 

Mr.  Shepard’s  alternative  go  over  and 
be  taken  up  at  the  same  time  as  the 
substitute. 

ME.  SHEPARD:  That  is  not  in- 

volved at  all.  I may  state  to  Mr.  Wer- 
no — 

MR.  WERNO:  I thought  yours  was 

a substitute  for  this  Section  1. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  is,  but  it  does 

not  touch  upon  the  particular  proposi- 
tion involved  in  the  particular  alterna- 
tives a,  b and  c and  No.  2.  Those  go 
to  the  specific  things  with  reference  to 
the  amount,  and  you  will  notice  that 
the  amount  of  the  percentage  is  left 
blank  in  my  resolution;  so  that  those 
specific  propositions  may  be  considered 
separately. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 
like  to  suggest  that  a,  b and  c are 
really  not  alternatives  to  No.  1,  but 
they  are  really  separate  propositions,  as 
far  as  I am  able  to  read  them;  and 
No.  2 is  a separate  proposition.  They 
are  really  four  different  propositions. 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question  upon 
Mr.  Merriam ’s  motion? 

All  those  in  favor  say  aye.  Opposed, 
no.  A,  b and  c and  No.  2 are  de- 
ferred until  the  report  of  the  Revenue 
Committee. 

The  question  is  now  upon  Mr.  Shep- 
ard ’s  motion  to  substitute  his  resolu- 
tion for  No.  1. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  will  a 

substitute  to  that  substitute  be  now  in 
order? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 


December  18 


467 


1906 


MR.  POST:  Will  a substitute  to 

that  substitute  be  in  order  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  Then  I will  offer  as  a 

substitute,  in  order  that  we  may  bring 
under  discussion,  if  the  Convention  de- 
sires to  discuss  it,  alternative  X on 
page  4. 

MR.  ROBINS:  That  is  alternative 

to  10? 

MR.  POST:  Alternative  to  10  on 

page  54.  Mr.  Shepard’s  substitute  is 
for  Section  1 of  10,  so  that  alterna- 
tive to  10  would  be  in  order,  I iniagine. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  moves 

to  substitute  alternative  to  No.  10  for 
Mr.  Shepard’s  substitute  to  No.  1. 
The  Secretary  will  read  Mr.  Post’s  sub- 
stitute. 

MR.  POST:  I have  one  word  to  offer 
on  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  54,  lower 

left  hand  corner,  alternative  to  10. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I have  a 

word  or  two  to  offer,  simply  in  explana- 
tion of  the  principle  and  purpose  of  that 
proposed  substitute. 

When  the  constitutional  amendment 
under  which  we  are  acting  was  presented 
to  the  people,  the  appeal  that  was  made 
was  that  Chicago  ought  to  have  local  self- 
government.  That  was  the  cry  under 
which  the  amendment  was  carried,  and, 
without  creating  that  impression,  I doubt 
if  the  amendment  could  have  been  car- 
. ried. 

Now,  that  amendment  clearly  intended, 
if  it  intended  anything  at  all,  that  the 
City  of  Chicago  should  have  local  self- 
government,  with  regard  to  taxation 
especially.  It  was  declared  in  the 
amendment  that  its  purpose  was  to  pro- 
vide for  a scheme  or  charter  of  local 
municipal  government  for  the  territory 
now  or  hereafter  to  be  embraced  within 
the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  And 
in  order  that  there  might  be  local  self- 
government,  this  same  amendment  pro- 


vided for  the  assessment  of  property,  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said 
city  for  corporate  purposes  by  the  city 
itself,  with  only  a single  limitation,  and 
that  limitation  was  that  the  city  should 
act  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
equality  and  uniformity  prescribed  by 
the  state  constitution. 

Now,  subject  to  the  United  States  con- 
stitution, and  to  the  state  constitution, 
with  reference  to  principles  of  uniform- 
ity and  equality,  I submit  that  it  was 
the  desire  of  this  amendment  that  the 
City  of  Chicago  should  have  full  power 
of  governing  itself  with  reference  to 
taxation.  We  cannot  have  local  self- 
government  without  that.  It  would  be  a 
mere  platitude  to  say  that  the  power  of 
taxation  is  the  center  of  all  power;  that 
if  you  lodge  the  power  of  taxation  any- 
where else  than  in  the  City  of  Chicago 
itself,  you  are  depriving  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago of  local  self-government. 

It  is  upon  that  ground  and  in  harmony 
with  that  principle  that  I propose  this 
substitute  in  order  that  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago may  govern  itself  with  reference  to 
taxation,  subject  only  to  those  provisions 
which  guard  against  confiscation,  the 
provisions  of  the  constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  that  provision  still  in- 
tact of  the  constitution  of  the  State  of 
Illinois  which  requires  that  all  taxation 
shall  be  equal  and  uniform. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman, 

when  the  Convention  was  discussing  the 
matter  of  municipal  home  rule,  I think  I 
advocated  as  strongly  as  anyone  a broad 
and  liberal  grant  of  power  to  the  City 
of  Chicago  in  strictly  local  and  municipal 
affairs.  But  at  that  time  I also  indi- 
cated that  there  were  certain  things 
which  ought  to  be  excepted,  and  laid 
down  the  principle  as  I recall  it,  that 
while  the  grant  of  power  ought  to  be 
broad  and  general,  yet  there  was  room 
if  there  should  be  certain  definite  re- 
strictions and  limitations  placed  upon 
the  city.  I regard  certain  financial  re- 
strictions and  limitations  and  safe- 


December  18 


468 


1906 


guards  upon  the  power  of  the  city  as 
essential  parts  of  the  city  charter. 

I think  it  is  highly  necessary  to  have 
at  the  present  time  a minimum  of  the 
bonded  debt  incurring  power  of  the  city, 
and  in  fact  that  is  provided  for  by  the 
constitutional  amendment  of  1904.  And, 
I think  it  is  equally  desirable  to  have  at 
the  present  time  a minimum  upon  the  tax 
rate,  and  there  are  other  limitations  pro- 
vided for  in  those  resolutions  respecting 
the  financial  power  of  the  city. 

It  seems  to  me  that  these  are  wise 
and  desirable.  In  many  states  we  find 
that  the  limit  of  the  tax  rates  in  the 
cities  is  not  only  provided  for  by  the 
general  law  but  is  even  embodied  in  the 
constitution  itself  as  a fixed  and  definite 
rate  for  taxation  which  can  be  changed 
only  by  means  of  a constitutional  amend- 
ment. 

I shall  therefore  be  compelled  to  op- 
pose a proposition  to  give  to  the  City  of 
Chicago  unlimited  taxation  or  unlimited 
power  with  respect  to  certain  other  forms 
of  local  revenue.  It  seems  to  me  here 
is  a point  where  definite  restrictions  and 
limitations  of  this  character  are  desira- 
ble. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 

ther discussion  upon  Mr.  Post’s  motion? 

(The  question  was  called  for.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  not,  the  Sec- 

retary will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Post’s 
motion.  He  will  read  alternative  to  10, 
and  then  will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr. 
Post’s  motion. 

The  Secretary  read  alternative  to  10, 
1,  appearing  at  page  54. 

Yeas — Linehan,  Post,  Smulski — 3. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Church,  Clettenberg,  Crilly, 
Ritter,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart, 
B.  A. ; Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Eidmann,  Erick- 
son, Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne, 
Hunter,  Kitttleman,  Lathrop,  Lundberg, 
MacMillan,  McCormick,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  O ’Donnell,  Owens, 
Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Revell, 
Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Tay- 


lor, Yopicka,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Young, 
Zimmer — 44. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR,  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  say  something  on  this  question. 
I think  that  both  of  these  sections  differ. 
One  here  is  for  the  purpose  of  having 
the  charter  give  to  the  city  the  power 
to  raise  revenue  necessary  to  carry  on  the 
municipal  works  in  different  ways  here. 
The  other  one  points  out  merely  a rule 
for  carrying  that  into  effect.  I cannot 
see  how  they  conflict  at  all,  or  how  one 
can  supply  the  place  of  the  other. 

Now,  this  amendment  of  Mr.  Post’s, 
this  alternative  provides  the  charter  shall 
rest  in  the  City  Council,  all  power  of 
legislation  regarding  all  forms  of  reve- 
nue to  be  raised  within  the  city  for  mu- 
nicipal purposes,  that  the  General  As- 
sembly has  power  to  delegate  to  the  city. 

In  other  words,  the  forms  of  taxing, 
licensing  different  business  or  profes- 
sions ; taxing  wheeled  vehicles,  for  in- 
stance. And  such  general  powers  regard- 
ing the  forms  of  revenue  to  be  raised 
within  the  city  for  municipal  purposes, 
while  Mr.  Shepard’s  amendment  pro- 
vides what  they  shall  do,  what  reports 
they  shall  make,  what  forms  they  shall 
carry  out  in  ascertaining  the  amount 
necessary  for  the  different  municipal 
purposes. 

I can  see  wherein  the  amendment  on 
the  substitute  of  Mr.  Shepard’s  differs 
entirely  from  this  alternative  to  10. 
Both  can  be  adopted  with  a great  deal 
of  propriety,  because  they  do  not  con- 
flict in  any  way  at  all,  but  will  be  con- 
current with  one  another. 

I thought  I would  call  that  to  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention;  that  is  the 
way  those  two  sections  strike  me. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  BROSSEAU:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  be  recorded  as  voting  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Brosseau 

votes  no. 

THE  SECRETARY : Brosseau,  no. 


December  18 


469 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  Mr.  Post ’s 

motion  to  substitute  alternative  to  10, 
for  the  substitute  of  Mr.  Shepard  the 
yeas  are  3 and  the  nays  are  44,  and  the 
motion  is  lost. 

The  motion  is  now  upon  the  adoption 
of  Mr.  Shepard’s  substitute  for  No.  1. 

Upon  that  the  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

MR.  RITTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I sin- 

cerely hope  this  Convention  will  con- 
sider that  matter  a little  further  before 
deciding  to  take  the  building  fund  of 
the  schools  away  from  its  present  situa- 
tion, and  locking  it  up  with  the  other 
taxes.  I believe  that  one  of  the  wise 
provisions  of  our  present  revenue  law. 
I am  sure  without  that  restriction  there 
will  be  less  building  done,  as  Mr.  Vopic- 
ka  has  said,  less  school  building  in  Chi- 
cago. In  fact,  I know  this  year,  with 
the  pressure  for  improvements  in  the 
educational  department,  there  were  times, 
if  our  funds  had  been  in  one  general 
account,  the  building  fund  would  suffer. 

The  situation  in  Chicago  today  is,  that 
we  have  not  enough  schools  by  probably 
one  hundred  to  properly  house  the  chil- 
dren. We  are  obliged  to  put  68  in 
some,  school  rooms.  The  only  way  you 
will  ever  overcome  that  and  give  the 
children  a square  deal  is  to  properly  pro- 
tect their  building  fund.  Now,  the  pres- 
ent law  puts  that  building  fund  outside 
of  the  provisions  of  the  so-called  Juul 
law. 

I think  Mr.  Shepard  did  not  make  that 
quite  clear.  We  are  allowed  two  and  a 
half  per  cent  for  educational  purposes 
which  come  within  the  provisions  of  the 
limitation  law,  and  this  year  the  Board 
of  Education  got  one  and  six-tenths  of 
its  two  and  a half  for  strictly  educa- 
tional purposes. 

Tt  is  also  authorized  by  law  to  levy 
not  to  exceed  two  and  a half  per  cent, 
for  building  purposes.  It  has  never 
asked  for  that.  This  year  it  asked  for 
.64  of  1 per  cent,  of  the  City  Council, 
and  that  is  very  low. 


Now,  I believe  that  you  should  take 
some  account  of  that  feature  of  the 
present  situation  and  provide  for  a build- 
ing fund  separate  from  the  regular  ac- 
count. When  we  come  to  make  up  our 
annual  budget  there  is  a cry  for  this 
building  fund,  and  for  kindergarten  and 
vacation  school  and  playgrounds  and  im- 
provements to  playgrounds,  and  other 
things  that  are  gradually  putting  a big- 
ger burden  on  the  educational  account. 
The  parental  school,  for  instance,  cost- 
ing $400  a year  for  each  pupil,  and  all 
coming  out  of  that  fund. 

I think  you  should  take  action  to  pro- 
tect the  building  fund.  I am  not  well 
enough  versed  in  the  procedure  here 
to  know  how  to  go  about  getting  such 
a change  in  Mr.  Shepard’s  proposition. 

MR.  BENNETT : The  proposition 

under  discussion  by  Mr.  Ritter  is  car- 
ried over  under  alternative  to  1 a,  laid 
over  for  future  consideration  and  will  be 
considered,  as  I understand  it,  later. 

MR.  RITTER.  If  this  provision  is 
adopted,  of  Mr.  Shepard’s,  as  I under- 
stand, it  provides  that  the  building  ac- 
count and  educational  account  shall  be 
included  in  the  limited  account,  and  so 
states. 

MR.  BENNETT:  But,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, there  is  no  amount  fixed,  and  when 
this  whole  subject  is  brought  before  the 
Convention  those  blnaks  can  be  filled  in, 
and  the  question  now  raised  by  Mr.  Rit- 
ter can  be  settled  by  the  Convention. 

MR.  RITTER:  Mr.  Shepard  advised 

that  a division  of  the  fund  be  made  each 
year  by  the  City  Council.  I believe  that 
provision  is  bad,  at  least  as  far  as  it 
relates  to  the  building  fund.  I wish 
the  charter  to  distinctly  provide  that  a 
certain  amount  of  money  be  set  aside 
each  year  for  school  building  purposes, 
permanent  improvements. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I agree  with  the  posi- 

tion taken  by  the  president  of  the  school 
board,  and  under  the  assurance  that  that 
matter  is  to  come  up  Jater,  I feel  sure 


December  18 


470 


1906 


it  will  come  up,  and  I think  it  better  be 
passed  for  the  time  being. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Is  it  true,  Mr. 

Ritter,  that  there  is  now  a surplus  in 
your  building  fund  and  that  the  educa- 
tional fund  is  short,  and  that  you  are 
borrowing  money  for  your  educational 
fund  and  paying  interest  on  it,  or  vice 
versa? 

MR.  RITTER:  Absolutely  not,  Mr. 

O ’Donnell.  The  building  fund  is  as  low 
today  as  the  educational  fund.  We  are 
building  school  buildings,  thirty-five.  We 
don ’t  borrow  from  the  building  fund  at 
the  present  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further  dis- 

cussion upon  Mr.  Shepard’s  substitute? 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Clettenberg, 
Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart,  B. 
A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hun- 
ter, Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lund- 
berg,  MacMillan,  McCormick,  McGoor- 
ty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  O ’Donnell, 
Owens,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Ray- 
mer,  Revell,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Yopicka,  Werno, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 47. 

Nays — Ritter — 1. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I under- 

stand that,  so  far  as  the  points  raised  by 
Mr.  Ritter  are  concerned,  Alderman  Ben- 
nett ’s  explanation  is  the  correct  expres- 
sion of  the  body  of  the  Convention,  and 
with  that  understanding  I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  substitute,  the  ayes  are  47,  and 
the  nays  are  1.  The  motion  is  carried. 

Alternatives  to  la,  b and  c,  and  2, 
having  been  temporarily  passed,  the 
Secretary  will  read  3 a. 

The  Secretary  read  3 a. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  this  section? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I move  the  adop- 

tion of  3 a. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 


moved  and  seconded  that  3 a be  adopted. 
All  those  in  favor  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  nay.  Carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  b. 

The  Secretary  read  b. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I move  that  3 b be 

not  concurred  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  3 b be  not  con- 
curred in.  All  those  in  favor  signify  by 
saying  aye;  opposed,  nay.  The  motion  to 
non-concur  is  carried.  The  Secretary 

will  read  4 a. 

The  Secretary  read  4 a. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON : I move  the 

adoption  of  4 a. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Dixon 

moves  the  adoption  of  4 a. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I desire  to  offer  an 

amendment  and,  if  possible,  Mr.  Dixon 
may  adopt  it. 

MR.  DIXON:  If  you  make  it  strong- 

er, I will. 

MR.  SHEPARD : I offer  it  as  an 

amendment,  that  the  income  therefrom 
shall  be  used  for  the  improvement  of 
streets  and  alleys  of  the  city,  or  re- 
pair of  the  streets  and  alleys  of  the 
city. 

I make  that  at  the  request  of  some 
of  the  teaming  interests  of  the  city,  who, 
I understand,  heretofore  opposed  the 
wheel  tax,  and  joined  in  this  that  the 
income  is  to  be  used  for  the  repair  of 
the  streets  and  alleys  exclusively. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  amendment  of  Mr.  Shepard  that  the 
funds  so  derived  shall  be  used  for  the 
maintenance  of  the  streets  and  alleys  of 
this  city,  exclusively. 

MR.  DIXON : I accept  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  amendment  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  nay.  Carried  as  amended. 

Read  alternative  to  5. 

The  Secretary  read  alternative  to  5. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  the  adoption  of  the  alternative  to 


December  18 


471 


1906 


5,  and  to  fill  in  the  blank  per  cent  by  the 
insertion  of  the  figures  50. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam 

moves  the  adoption  of  the  alternative  to 
No.  5,  in  lieu  of  5,  and  that  the  blank 
be  filled  in  by  50,  to  read  50  per  cent, 
of  the  cost  of  repaving  of  streets  and 
alleys. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Who  will  pay  the 

other  50  per  cent.? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Fifty  per  cent,  by 

general  taxation. 

MR.  EIDMANN : Have  you  any  idea 

of  what  it  costs  the  City  of  Chicago  at 
the  present  time? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I was  about  to 

present  some  figures  on  that.  Mr.  Eid- 
mann  inquires  particularly  in  regard  to 
the  cost  of  such  a provision.  I have 
taken  from  the  cards  in  the  Board  of  Lo- 
cal Improvement  office  the  amount  of 
street  paving  during  the  years  1904  and 
1905.  Those  figures  are  not  contained 
in  their  published  report.  They  show 
that  the  amount  of  street  paving  figured 
in  1904  amounted  to  $3,200,000.00,  in 
round  numbers,  of  which  for  the  purpose 
of  replacing  prior  pavement,  there  was 
expended  $2,288,000.00,  or  71  per  cent, 
of  the  cost  of  street  pavement,  was  for 
pavement  that  had  already  been  laid. 
And  in  1905  the  total  work  completed  for 
street  paving  was  $3,800,000.00,  of  which 
$2,150,000.00  was  in  the  form  of  expen- 
diture for  the  relaying,  or  repavement, 
of  streets.  This  made  an  average  per- 
centage for  two  years  of  66.3  per  cent, 
of  the  entire  amount  expended  for  street 
pavement,  expended  for  the  purpose  of 
repavemnt. 

Now,  the  average  cost,  and  for  this 
period  of  two  years,  for  the  repavement, 
for  the  pavement  of  50  per  cent,  by  the 
city,  would  be  $1,109,000.00,  in  round 
numbers.  That  might  increase  the 
amount  of  the  street  paving.  The 
amount  of  street  paving  increases  as  the 
years  go  on.  It  might  also  be  true  that 
the  cost  of  paving  would  increase,  be- 
cause of  the  character  of  the  paving. 


If  the  figures  for  those  two  years  hold 
good  for  a continuous  period  of  time,  the 
annual  cost  might  perhaps  be  estimated 
at  about  $1,500,000.00.  Assuming  that 
the  city  pays  50  per  cent,  of  the  cost 
of  repaving  street  pavements.  This  does 
not  include  the  sidewalks  or  sewers,  or 
any  other  form  of  improvement,  for 
which  special  assessment  is  levied. 

I do  not  favor  very  many  restrictions 
in  the  grant  of  power  by  the  State  Legis- 
lature to  the  City  of  Chicago.  It  seems 
to  me  this  is  one  of  the  places  where 
the  law  may  well  step  in  and  compel  the 
City  of  Chicago,  under  the  circum- 
stances, to  pay  a portion  of  the  expenses 
of  repavement.  The  price  of  the  original 
pavement  and  certainly  not  all  of  the 
cost  of  the  repavement,  but  assuming 
that  the  pavement  has  once  been  laid 
practically  at  the  cost  of  the  property 
owners,  thereafter  at  least  50  per  cent, 
or  more,  if  the  city  cared  to  and  had  the 
money,  more  might  be  paid.  But  if,  for 
example,  we  were  to  provide  that  the 
city  pay  all  of  the  cost  of  repavement, 
you  would  let  loose  a carnival  of  log 
rolling,  because  all  of  the  streets  in  the 
city  would  want  to  be  repaved,  and  we 
would  have  a continuous  struggle  with 
the  City  Council  as  to  which  ones  of 
those  would  be  paved  first,  because  you 
could  not  favor  all  of  them.  That  was 
the  law  at  one  time,  as  I understand  it, 
and  was  repealed  because  of  difficulties 
that  were  experienced  with  it. 

To  my  mind,  the  matter  of  special  as- 
sessments upon  real  property  is  perhaps 
the  most  serious  part  of  the  revenue  sit- 
uation in  Chicago.  It  is  serious  in  that 
it  lays  a very  heavy  burden  upon  the 
property  owner;  not  only  heavy,  but  un- 
certain. You  know  not  when  or  where 
or  how  a special  assessment  will  strike, 
or  how  hard  it  will  strike. 

In  view  of  the  general  poverty  of  the 
city,  this  evil  has  been  further  here  ex- 
aggerated by  the  fact  that  after  a pave- 
ment is  once  laid  the  city  had  no  funds, 
or  practically  no  funds  to  appropriate 


December  48 


472 


1906 


for  the  purposes  of  repair,  and,  conse- 
quently, a pavement  having  been  laid,  it 
was  very  likely  to  rot  within  a very  few 
years.  No  sooner  does  the  pavement 
rot  or  wear  out,  than  an  additional  spe- 
cial assessment  is  levied  covering  the  en- 
tire cost,  or  part  of  the  cost  of  repaving. 
I think  the  heavy  special  assessment  and 
the  uncertainty  of  the  special  assess- 
ments, failure  of  the  city  to  appropriate 
money,  and  the  absence  of  money  for 
that  purpose  has  done  a great  deal  to 
depress,  in  the  first  place,  the  general 
level  of  the  value  of  property  in  the  City 
of  Chicago ; and  then,  in  the  second 
place,  to  depress  the  tax  rate,  because 
real  property  paying  the  bulk  of  taxa- 
tion has  felt  the  burden  of  special  as- 
sessment, and  has,  therefore,  demanded  a 
low  tax  rate.  They  have  resisted  the 
pressure  for  a higher  tax  rate,  because  it 
has  been  evident  to  them  that  they  have 
been  burdened  by  this  special  form  of 
assessment,  which  has  been  in  reality 
a source  of  an  additional  tax  rate.  So 
that  the  burden  fixed  on  a given  piece 
of  property  could  be  found  only  by  add- 
ing to  the  regular  tax  rate  this  extra  rate 
in  the  way  of  special  assessment.  So 
that  we  have  a low  valuation  of  the 
property  because  of  this  burden,  and  you 
have,  secondly,  a low  rate,  figured  on  a 
low  valuation,  and  it  leaves  the  city 
poor.  If  the  city  is  poor  it  does  not  have 
power  to  appropriate  for  repairs,  conse- 
quently our  pavement  wears  out  very 
rapidly.  So  that  we  go  round  and  round 
in  a circle,  out  of  which  we  are  unable 
to  come  except  by  the  city  bearing  the 
burden  at  large.  The  effect  of  this 
would  be  to  increase  the  budget  of  the 
city,  because  it  would  require  an  expendi- 
ture of  a considerable  sum  of  money.  In 
the  second  place,  the  effect  would  be  to 
increase,  it  ought  to  be  to  increase  the 
value  of  real  estate,  by  taking  away 
this  burden  of  special  assessment,  and 
the  burden  of  assessment  is  taken  away 
and  valuation  arises,  and  then  you  ought 
to  increase  the  taxes  on  that  very  valua- 


tion and  bring  in  a larger  revenue  to 
the  city. 

This  percentage  may  not  be  right. 
Perhaps  you  may  have  some  higher,  or 
some  lower,  but  it  seems  to  me  to  pre- 
sent fairly  the  issue  that  it  involves. 

ME.  EIDMANN:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Merriam  the  amount  the  public  has 
benefitted  from 

ME.  MEBEIAM : What  those  amounts 

are?  Alderman  Bennett  did  that;  I 
don’t  know.  Alderman  Bennett  can  tell 
you  that. 

ME,  BENNETT:  From  10  to  25  per 

cent,  of  the  cost  of  pavement. 

I have  been  in  happy  accord  with  the 
idea  of  having  the  city  stand  a larger 
proportion  of  the  cost  of  making  im- 
provements. The  figures  as  to  the 
amount  of  paving  done,  as  given  by 
Professor  Merriam,  agree  substantial- 
ly with  those  which  I have,  but  I 
don ’t  think  he  is  correct  when  he 
says  it  will  take  $1,100,000.00  per  annum 
to  keep  up  this  cost.  In  view  of  the  fact 
that  the  city  steps  in  and  pays  half  of 
the  cost  of  those  improvements  will  re- 
sult in  people  consenting  more  readily 
to  assessment. 

ME,  MEBEIAM:  I don’t  estimate  it 

at  that.  I estimate  it  at  one  million  and 
a half. 

ME.  BENNETT:  The  fact  that  the 

taxpayer  is  relieved  to  that  extent  will 
make  him  more  willing  to  submit  to  a 
special  assessment,  and  we  will  have  to 
increase  the  cost  on  that  account.  Let 
us  assume,  and  I think  it  is  a fair  as- 
sumption, that  that  sum  will  be  equal 
to  at  least  two  million  dollars  a year.  If 
we  get  a tax  rate  for  city  purposes,  just 
for  city  property,  the  2 per  cent. — that 
is,  probably  all  we  will  get  if  we  start 
to  limit  the  tax  rate— this  item  alone 
will  consume  substantially  all  that  in- 
crease. Substantially  all  the  increase  we 
get.  We  now  get  1.80,  and  that  increase 
would  be  $1,600,000.00,  if  I have  it 
right.  It  would  be  $800,000.00,  so  that 
this  item  alone  will  more  than  consume 


December  18 


473 


1906 


the  increase  in  our  taxes,  provided  we 
fix  a rate  for  the  city  at  2 per  cent.,  and 
if  we  are  talking  about  4%  per  cent, 
limit,  or  5 per  cent,  limit,  that  would  be 
all  we  will  get.  So  that  it  occurs  to  me 
that  before  filling  this  blank  we  should 
have  before  us  the  facts  from  which  we 
can  form  a reasonable  conclusion  on  this 
subject;  and  I would  therefore  suggest 
that  Mr.  Merriam  would  refer  the  fill- 
ing of  the  blank  and  pass  the  order,  as 
the  sense  of  this  Convention,  I think  that 
would  be  the  proper  order  at  the  present 
time. 

ME.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

connection  with  this  No.  5,  I believe  the 
motion  made  by  Alderman  Bennett  is 
right.  We  have  the  opening  of  the 
streets  and  we  have  the  widening  of  the 
streets  in  Chicago.  It  will  take  for  im- 
provements of  this  kind  from  five  to 
fifteen  million  dollars.  My  opinion  is 
this,  gentlemen,  that  if  a street  is  to  be 
opened,  or  widened,  for  the  benefit  of  all 
the  people  of  Chicago,  that  they  all 
ought  to  pay  toward  it,  and  for  that  rea- 
son I would  like  to  see  a clause  put  in 
the  charter  which  would  read  as  fol- 
lows: 

That  if  a public  street  should  be 
widened  or  opened,  that  we  have  a special 
tax  for  the  purpose,  and  I believe  the 
property  owners  on  that  street  ought  to 
pay  10  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  and 
90  per  cent,  should  be  spread  all  over 
the  City  of  Chicago.  Gentlemen,  you 
cannot  make  an  improvement  of  that 
kind — under  no  circumstances  can  you  do 
it — because  there  is  objection  by  the 
property  owners,  objection  by  the  court, 
and  the  law  itself  prohibits  anything  of 
that  sort. 

I would  ask  the  committee  to  consider 
it  very  carefully,  and  I hope  that  the 
gentlemen  will  see  it  in  the  same  light 
as  I do.  It  is  unjust,  gentlemen,  and 
it  should  not  be  permitted.  You  cannot 
make  distinction  and  make  one  lot  cheap- 
er and  make  another  assessment  lower. 
You  must  place  on  them  both  the  same 


assessment.  That  is  one  thing.  The 
second  is  that  there  are  so  many  inter- 
ested in  the  opening  of  the  streets  that 
they  are  always  protesting  against  an 
assessment.  It  is  just  like  a railroad 
company.  They  have  to  bear  a big  share 
of  the  expense  and  they  protest  against 
assessment.  Second,  there  is  the  division 
of  Halsted  street.  There  are  lots  in  Hal- 
sted  street  worth  $25,000  a lot  on  one 
side,  and  on  the  other  side  they  are  only 
worth  $2,000.  The  assessment  provides 
that  frontages  facing  Halsted  street 
must  pay  42  per  cent.,  and  that  means 
the  assessment  is  from  $3,000  to  $4,000 
on  each  side.  That  is  between  Sixteenth 
and  Twenty-second  streets,  on  Halsted, 
inside  lot.  So  the  $25,000  lot  is  assessed 
from  three  to  four  thousand  dollars  on 
that  lot.  You  know  how  unjust  it  is  to 
make  an  assessment  of  that  kind.  I 
hope,  gentlemen,  you  will  take  into  con- 
sideration in  this  charter  this  law  which 
I offer  here,  and  we  will  get  more  im- 
provements. In  connection  with  that  I 
offer  the  resolution.  I believe  that  the 
amount  of  assessment  for  the  widening 
of  a street  is  so  large  that  it  is  im- 
possible to  pay  for  it  in  five  years.  I ask 
that  the  whole  affair  and  my  resolution 
be  sent  to  the  committee  that  has  this  in 
charge. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  YOPICKA:  The  committee  that 

you  appointed  already. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  wish  it  de- 

ferred ? 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Referred  to  them 

and  then  bring  in  the  report,  and  when 
they  bring  in  the  report,  to  consider  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be 

printed  in  the  proceedings  and  taken 
up  on  the  report  of  the  committee. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I am  in  favor  of  the  resolution  of- 
fered by  Professor  Merriam.  I believe 
that  a certain  percentage  of  the  cost 
of  repaving  streets  and  alleys  ought  to 
be  assessed  for  the  public  benefit,  and  the 
general  public  pay  for  such  improvement 


December  18 


474 


1906 


from  the  general  fund.  I think  that  on 
the  question  of  revenue  required  to  make 
these  improvements,  considerable  will 
probably  be  derived  from  some  of  the 
provisions  that  you  propose  to  incorpor- 
ate in  the  proposed  new  charter.  For 
instance,  you  have  just  adopted  a pro- 
vision that  the  City  Council  shall  also 
have  the  power  to  tax  or  license  all  ve- 
hicles used  upon  the  streets  of  the  city, 
or  any  particular  class  of  such  vehicles. 
There  is  no  doubt  but  what  a large  reve- 
nue will  be  derived  from  that  source, 
which  can  be  used  for  the  payment  of 
these  improvements  in  our  streets  and  al- 
leys. You  have  also  adopted  here,  with- 
out any  discussion,  3 a. 

If  this  provision  which  you  have  rec- 
ommended to  the  legislature  is  embodied 
in  your  proposed  charter,  you  can  derive 
revenue  enough  to  do  almost  anything. 
You  can  pave  all  your  streets  and  alleys 
without  assessing  the  abutting  property 
owners. 

But,  aside  from  the  question  as  to  how 
you  will  provide  the  revenue  to  make 
these  improvements,  it  seems  to  me  it 
is  unfair  and  unjust  and  inequitable  to 
the  property  owners  when  he  once  pays 
for  the  improvements  of  the  street  to  re- 
quire him  in  a few,  years  thereafter  to 
again  submit  to  a special  assessment  for 
the  repaving  of  the  streets.  The  property 
owner  in  question  may  not  use  the  street 
at  all  himself.  He  may  not  pass  along 
the  street.  The  general  public  uses  the 
street  and  wears  out  the  pavement.  I 
think  that  it  is  only  fair  that  after  he 
has  paid  for  the  first  improvement  the 
general  public  ought  to  pay  a large  per- 
centage— I go  further  than  Professor 
Merriam,  I would  make  it  75  per  cent, 
of  the  cost,  instead  of  50.  The  parks 
of  this  City  of  Chicago  have  for  years 
assessed  the  property  owners  fronting  on 
the  boulevard  or  street  which  was  taken 
over  by  the  park  board  for  boulevard 
purposes,  and  after  the  first  assessment  is 
paid  for  by  the  property  owner  the  parks 
maintain  the  boulevard  and  keep  it  in 


repair,  and  repave  it  when  it  requires  re- 
paving. I think  that  principle  is  a just 
one,  and  it  ought  to  apply  to  the  streets 
and  alleys  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  HOYNE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

going  to  accept  Professor  Merriam ’s 
proposition  as  a compromise.  I am  op- 
posed utterly  to  special  assessments  of 
any  kind;  I do  not  think  they  are  fair. 
As  my  friend,  Mr.  Eekhart,  has  said, 
you  take  the  boulevards,  and  there  a 
man  pays  there  the  original  cost  of  the 
pavement  of  his  walk,  and  the  boulevard, 
and  the  commissioners  after  that  keep 
them  in  repairs.  By  the  very  fact  of 
making  those  streets  boulevards  you 
drive  off  from  the  streets  the  heavy 
teams  and  they  come  over  on  to  your 
street  who  are  not  so  fortunate  as  to 
own  a lot  upon  a boulevard,  and  these 
same  teams  and  trucks  wear  your  pave- 
ment out  for  which  you  are  assessed. 
Now,  that  does  not  look  to  me  like  a 
square  deal. 

Another  thing,  we  have  a member  of 
this  Convention  who  at  one  time  was 
city  attorney,  and  he  made  a report  to 
the  Board  of  Aldermen,  and  I would  like 
to  ask  the  aldermen  if  they  ever  read 
the  city  attorney’s  report.  In  that  re- 
port he  states  that  72  per  cent,  of  the 
damage  suits  against  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago arise  from  defective  and  ill-re- 
paired walks,  and  that  there  is  enough 
money  paid  out  in  damage  suits  to  keep 
in  repair  every  street  and  alley  and  walk 
in  the  City  of  Chicago,  so  I cannot  see 
where  this  extra  amount  is  going  to  come 
in  to  repair  these  walks  under  Professor 
Merriam ’s  amendment. 

As  I say,  I accept  it  as  a compromise; 
it  is  50  per  cent.  I was  in  favor  of 
doing  away  with  it  entirely  because  it  is 
a great  burden  upon  the  outlying  prop- 
erties. It  is  all  right  for  the  business 
property  down  town  here,  but  you  take 
the  small  owner  of  property  in  the  out- 
lying districts  and  it  is  a heavy  burden 
to  them,  and  very  often  means  confisca- 


December  18 


475 


1906 


tion.  For  that  reason  I am  in  favor  of 
Professor’s  Merriam’s  resolution. 

ME.  SMULSKI : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

wish  to  offer  a substitute  to  alternative 
to  5;  I just  scribbled  this  off  and  will 
correct  it  before  I hand  it  to  you. 

(Mr.  Smulski’s  substitute  will  be 
found  in  pending  matter.) 

ME.  SMULSKI:  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
I believe  it  is  unfair  to  the  property 
owner  to  make  him  pay  for  any  repave- 
ment or  any  re-improvement  of  any  pub- 
lic thoroughfare.  I have  had  consider- 
able experience  in  the  city  attorney ’s 
office  with  what  it  has  cost  the  City  of 
Chicago  for  damage  suits  because  of  bad 
streets  and  defective  sidewalks.  In  less 
than  six  years  I believe  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago has  paid  nearly  $5,000,000  in  dam- 
ages to  persons  who  have  been  injured 
by  virtue  of  defective  sidewalks  and  de- 
fective streets.  Now,  the  streets  are  de- 
fective for  the  reason  that  the  property 
owner  will  continue  to  fight  a special  as- 
sessment as  long  as  the  law  will  permit 
him  to.  Ninety-nine  times  out  of  a hun- 
dred the  property  owner  is  not  interested 
in  the  condition  of  the  street  except  as 
far  as  it  is  necessary  for  ingress  and 
egress  to  his  own  home,  and  a great 
many  people  who  have  vacant  property 
in  the  city  will  fight  a special  assessment 
for  years ; and  under  the  present  laws 
the  property  owners  are  able  to  fight  off 
special  assessments  year  after  year  until 
sometimes  it  takes  as  many  as  five  or  six 
years  before  a public  improvement  can 
be  made. 

T had  that  experience  in  the  City  Coun- 
cil, where  we  tried  to  pave  a certain 
street  in  the  old  Sixteenth  ward,  and  it 
took  us,  I believe,  six  years  to  accom- 
plish that  fact;  and  the  only  reason  for 
that  was  that  the  people  had  paid  for  the 
paving  of  that  street  once  before  and 
they  were  against  paying  for  it  again. 

You  take  one  thoroughfare  on  the 
northwest  side  of  the  City  of  Chicago, 
Milwaukee  avenue,  and  you  can  go  to 


the  record  of  the  Board  of  Local  Im- 
provements and  you  will  find  that  the 
street  has  been  repaved  at  least  five 
times  in  the  last  twenty-five  years.  I 
would  say  four  times,  and  I know  the 
time;  and  I remember  when  one  of  the 
property  owners  of  that  street  came  to 
me  and  showed  me  his  bills  and  he  re- 
ceived notice  of  a new  assessment  for  the 
paving  of  that  street  before  he  had  fin- 
ished paying  for  the  last  assessment  for 
the  previous  pavement.  That  is  the  rea- 
son why  property  owners  will  fight,  and 
go  to  court  and  come  back  against  the 
special  assessment  law. 

Now,  I believe  it  is  only  fair  to  the 
property  owners  of  this  city  when  they 
once  have  placed  a street  contiguous  to 
which  they  own  property  and  have 
turned  it  over  to  the  municipality  in  a 
proper  condition,  well  paved  and  in  a 
good  condition,  that  from  that  time  on 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  municipality,  or  the 
public  in  general  to  keep  that  street  in 
proper  repair. 

Now,  you  might  imagine  that  it  is  a 
great  expense.  It  would  entail  a great 
expense  to  keep  these  streets  in  repair. 
I tell  you  it  would  be  but  a small  ex- 
pense if  the  work  was  done  at  the  proper 
time,  if  you  do  not  permit  your  streets 
to  go  to  pieces.  Just  as  soon  as  a pave- 
ment was  beginning  to  decay  or  was  be- 
ginning to  show  any  wear  and  tear,  that 
the  superintendent  of  the  respective 
ward  be  instructed  to  go  and  repair  the 
break.  If  the  superintendents  of  the 
streets  had  the  authority  and  if  the  City 
Council  would  appropriate  the  necessary 
fund,  I believe  that  with  less  than  one- 
tenth  of  the  cost  of  the  present  repave- 
ment of  streets  we  would  keep  the  streets 
in  proper  condition. 

It  is  a question  that  we  must  not  pass 
over  lightly,  because  it  is  a very  grave 
question.  It  tends  to  the  physical  condi- 
tion of  our  city.  The  streets  of  Chicago 
today  are  known  throughout  the  entire 
country  as  being  the  worst  paved  streets 
anywhere,  not  only  in  this  country,  but 


December  18 


476 


1906 


in  any  other  country,  and  one  of  the  rea- 
sons and  one  of  the  causes  of  that  condi- 
tion is  the  system  of  special  assessments 
we  pursue  in  this  city,  and  the  unwilling- 
ness of  public  officials  to  attend  to  their 
duty,  the  unwillingness  of  men  who 
should  look  after  the  physical  conditions 
of  the  streets  and  alleys  of  this  city,  to 
do  their  work  properly. 

Now,  I believe  if  this  subject  is  taken 
up  by  this  Convention,  if  you  will  give  it 
more  study,  and  if  you  will  devise  some 
means  whereby  this  improvement  can  be 
had,  whereby  this  charter  will  provide 
just  for  the  very  thing  that  I asked  for 
in  my  amendment,  I believe  you  will  go 
further  towards  improving  the  physical 
condition  of  Chicago  than  anything  else 
you  can  do  in  this  Convention. 

I have  had  so  much  experience  with 
bad  streets  and  bad  sidewalks,  that  I be- 
lieve it  is  one  of  the  most  essential  works 
of  this  Convention.  As  I have  stated  be- 
fore it  has  cost  the  City  of  Chicago  mil- 
lions of  dollars  in  damages  for  no  other 
reason  than  for  the  ill-paved  and  defec- 
tive sidewalks  of  the  city.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I present  the  substitute  which  I 
have  just  read  for  alternative  to  5. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

this  is  no  new  matter  in  this  country.  It 
has  been  recognized  now  in  several  of 
the  cities.  In  little  Detroit  down  here 
I will  read  from  the  digest  of  city  char- 
ters. It  says:  “The  council  of  Detroit 
has  power  to  assess  the  cost  of  local  im- 
provements on  property  benefitted  ac- 
cording to  frontage,  but  the  city  must 
pay  for  repairing  and  repaving  out  of 
the  general  road  fund.  ’ ’ And  so  in  Den- 
ver, and  so  in  San  Francisco,  and  I 
think  in  Baltimore,  and  some  other  cities 
the  same  rule  appertains.  The  greater 
portion  where  a percentage  is  fixed  is 
paid  by  the  public. 

About  two  years  ago  I represented  the 
property  owners  on  Milwaukee  avenue 
between  Chicago  avenue  and  Ashland 
avenue.  They  were  contesting  the  pave- 
ment of  Milwaukee  avenue.  They  said 


that  it  was  paved  about  six  years  prior 
to  that  time,  and  that  some  of  them  had 
just  got  through  paying  for  the  assess- 
ment for  paving  the  street  just  the  year 
before.  An  improvement  association 
was  interested.  It  was  the  improvement 
association  that  retained  myself,  and 
there  was  a goodly  number  of  them  all 
owning  property  abutting  the  street  or 
immediately  adjoining.  We  made  a 
count;  the  committee  under  my  direction 
made  a count  as  to  the  traffic  or  travel 
on  that  street,  and  from  actual  count  we 
found  that  95  per  cent,  of  the  travel  on 
that  street  was  foreign  travel.  I mean 
by  this,  that  it  neither  begun  nor  ended 
in  that  territory.  That  up  Milwaukee 
avenue  went  lumber  wagons,  brewery 
wagons,  heavy  coal  wagons,  heavy  team- 
ing of  all  kinds.  That  they  not  alone 
blocked  the  street,  but  they  wore  out 
the  pavement.  One  wagon  wheel  on  the 
car  track  and  the  other  out  on  the  pave- 
ment, and  they  run  a gutter  and  it  is 
there  to-day  in  their  brick  and  asphalt 
and  macadam  pavement  along  Milwaukee 
avenue,  a gutter  parallel  with  the  street 
railway  tracks. 

Now,  a pavement  on  that  street  practi- 
cally is  only  good  for  five  years;  that  is 
the  life  of  it,  and  the  majority  of  people 
in  this  section  that  I spoke  of, — there 
were  only  five  horses  and  wagons  owned 
by  the  people  who  owned  property  be- 
tween those  two  streets,  and  those  were 
light  business  wagons,  grocery  wagons 
and  butcher’s  wagons.  No  heavy  team- 
ing at  all  was  done  by  any  of  the  prop- 
erty owners  there. 

Now,  we  have  been,  as  has  been  said 
here,  impoverishing  our  citizens  here  by 
this  special  assessment  taxation,  compell- 
ing them  to  pay  enormous  taxes  for  the 
repaving  of  those  streets,  and  that  has 
impoverished  them.  They  have  been 
fighting  those  taxes  and  they  have  a 
right  to  fight  them. 

This  is  along  the  lines  of  economy  in 
the  end.  I believe  that  your  property 
will  rise  in  value,  that  Chicago’s  streets 


December  18 


477 


1906 


will  be  better  paved,  and  I believe  not 
alone  that  tbe  streets  should  be  re- 
paved by  the  general  fund,  the  greater 
portion  should  be  paid  out  of  the  general 
fund,  but  I believe  also  the  sidewalks. 
The  sidewalks,  as  Mr.  Smulski  will  tell 
you,  have  been  the  cause  of  all  the  dam- 
age suits,  and  the  loss  of  $5,000,000  in 
damage  suits  by  the  City  of  Chicago  was 
due  almost  exclusively  to  the  sidewalks. 
It  was  from  people  going  through  the 
sidewalks,  falling  on  the  sidewalks  and 
breaking  their  legs  on  the  rotten  side- 
walks, sidewalks  that  were  not  graded 
properly,  sidewalks  with  steps  up  and 
down.  I think  not  alone  the  streets,  but 
the  sidewalks  should  be  included  in  this. 

But  I believe  now  from  our  amend- 
ments and  re-amendments  we  have  the 
subject  somewhat  mixed.  I think,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  this  ought  to  be  referred 
again  to  the  committee  for  a re-draft 
according  to  the  ideas  that  have  been 
brought  out  here  at  this  session  of  this 
Convention. 

I think  that  the  Convention,  if  they 
will  do  this  tonight,  merely  approve  of 
this  plan,  give  it  sanction,  and  then  let 
the  committee  put  the  ideas  contained  in 
the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Smulski 
into  form,  and  report  it  back  to  the 
Convention,  having  in  view  what  the 
other  cities  in  this  country  are  doing  and 
have  done  in  that  direction,  that  better 
results  will  be  obtained. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I would  like  to 

have  Mr.  Smulski ’s  substitute  read,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr  Smulski ’s 

substitute  will  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  substitute  as 
it  appeared  in  pending  matter. 

MR,  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I would  like  Mr.  Smulski  to  be  willing 
to  accept  one  suggestion,  and  that  is, 
that  when  a street  has  been  paved  with 
a certain  kind  of  pavement,  then  the 
property  owners  will  not  be  asked  to 
repave  it.  I make  that  suggestion  be- 


cause in  the  case  where  a street  is 
paved  with  cedar  blocks,  all  cedar 
blocks  wear  out,  and  it  would  hardly 
be  fair  to  ask  the  whole  city  to  put 
down  a granite  block  pavement. 

MR,  SMULSKI:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

answer  to  Mr.  McCormick  I would  say 
I doubt  whether  any  other  pavement 
will  be  laid  in  Chicago  with  cedar 
blocks. 

MR.  DEVER:  You  cannot  get  cedar. 

MR,  SMULSKI:  My  proposition 

provides  that  no  special  assessment 
shall  be  levied,  but  one.  After  we 
have  adopted  the  charter  we  still  have 
the  right  to  levy  one  assessment  in  or- 
der to  put  the  street  in  better  con- 
dition, and  from  that  time  on  no  special 
assessment  shall  be  levied  against  that 
same  property,  and  now  I take  it  that 
the  local  board  of  improvements,  nor 
the  City  Council  will  ever  again  com- 
mit the  crime  against  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago of  permitting  any  other  street 
pavement  of  cedar  blocks  within  the 
boundaries  of  our  city. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Under  that  un- 

derstanding I am  in  entire  har- 
mony with  Mr.  Smulski ’s  standpoint. 

MR,  SMULSKI:  I believe  that  the 

property  owners  of  the  city  will  be  very 
glad  to  pay  for  one  improvement  as- 
sessment. They  will  not  object  to  that 
if  they  know  that  is  the  last  one. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I had  in  mind  when  I spoke  of  two 
streets  in  my  own  ward  with  cedar 
block  pavement.  Nothing,  I consider, 
could  be  more  fair  than  Mr.  Smulski ’s 
substitute.  When  I was  the  representa- 
tive of  the  Twenty-first  Ward  in  the 
City  Council,  there  came  up  for  re- 
paving two  streets:  Dearborn  avenue 
and  Rush  street,  from  the  river  north 
to  Chicago  avenue.  Those  streets  are 
traveled  over  by  every  wagon  that 
crosses  the  river,  traveled  over  by  aM 
the  wagons  and  carriages  which  came 
to  my  ward,  which  come  to  the  Twenty- 


December  18 


478 


1906 


fifth  Ward  and  the  Twenty-sixth  Ward, 
and  which  go  up  the  North  Shore.  No 
longer  ago  than  yesterday  I saw  an 
enormous  van  from  one  of  the  down 
town  retail  shops  which  was  bound 
north  into  a North  Shore  town,  Glencoe 
or  Winnetka.  Now,  the  houses  along 
Rush  street  and  Dearborn  avenue,  and 
along  a great  many  streets  on  the  West 
Side  and  the  South  Side,  which  lie 
between  the  center  of  the  city  and  the 
outside  of  the  city,  are  occupied  by 
poor  people.  The  houses  are  generally 
boarding  houses.  No  carriages  ever 
drive  up  to  one  of  those  doors,  unless 
it  be  for  a funeral.  The  people  who 
have  automobiles  run  their  automobiles 
over  the  street;  the  people  who  have 
large  orders  for  furniture  and  coal  and 
dry  goods  and  other  merchandise,  will 
be  on  those  streets;  and  those  streets 
are  mere  connecting  links  between  the 
users  and  the  dealers;  and  it  is  not 
fair  to  ask  the  people  who  derive  no 
benefit  from  the  paving  to  pave  it 
again  and  again.  It  should  be  paid  for 
by  the  whole  city.  I am  therefore 
very  much  in  harmony  with  Mr.  Smul- 
ski’s  motion. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I am  also 

in  harmony,  once  at  least,  with  Mr.  Mc- 
Cormick. 

MR.  McMILLAN:  Good. 

MR.  POST:  I do  not  think  that  the 

people  who  derive  no  benefits  from 
those  improvements  should  be  com- 
pelled to  pay  for  them.  I do  think 
that  the  people  who  derive  financial 
benefits  from  those  improvements 
should  be  compelled  to  pay  for  them; 
and  I hold  that  that  principle  applies 
not  only  to  the  original  improvement, 
but  also  to  repairs. 

Now,  I wish  to  offer  as  a substitute, 
I guess,  to  Mr.  Smulski  ’s  substitute, 
Mr.  President,  as  it  is  now,  as  it  is 
in  nay  own  handwriting,  I will  take  the 
liberty  of  reading  it  myself  to  avoid 
embarrassment  later  on. 


(Mr.  Post  read  the  substitute  as  now 
shown  in  pending  matter.) 

I understand,  probably,  that  the  first 
objection  to  be  raised  to  that  is  that 
it  is  impracticable.  You  cannot  draft 
any  plan  whereby  it  can  be  carried 
out.  I won’t  discuss  that  phase  of  the 
proposition  at  this  session,  because 
when  that  proposition  is  raised  in  the 
committee  it  can  be  demonstrated  that 
it  is  entirely  feasible  and  entirely 
practical,  and  that  it  has  virtually 
been  done  more  than  once. 

MR.  DEVER:  I should  like— I beg 

pardon. 

MR.  POST:  Do  you  wish  to  inter- 

rupt? I wish  to  say  a word  or  two 
more  about  that.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman, 
why  should  the  contiguous  property 
owners  be  charged  with  the  expense 
either  for  original  improvements  or  re- 
pairs? What  is  the  fairness?  There 
is  no  fairness  about  it  at  all,  unless  the 
improvement  or  the  repairs,  add  to  the 
value  of  the  property  that  is  so  as- 
sessed; and  I take  it  that  one  of  the 
great  and  principal  grounds  that  have 
been  raised  to  special  assessments  in 
this  city  is  that  the  assessments  have 
not  been  made  with  reference  to  the 
financial  benefit  that  has  been  con- 
ferred. If  the  special  assessments  are 
to  be  levied  without  regard  to  the 
financial  benefit  that  is  derived  by  the 
assessed  property  owners,  then  I stand 
as  strongly  against  it  as  anyone.  But, 
I believe  it  is  really — at  any  rate  I 
believe  that  it  is  possible  to  ascertain 
whether  there  is  an  financial  benefit, 
and  that  in  those  cases  the  charge 
should  be  imposed  on  the  owner  of  the 
property  who  is  benefited. 

Now,  we  have  heard  a great  deal 
tonight  about  the  trucks  and  automo- 
biles and  carriages,  etc.,  wearing  out 
the  streets.  I would  like  to  get  a 
referendum  vote  of  the  property  owners 
of  the  streets  through  which  these 
trucks  pass,  on  the  proposition  to  put 


December  .18 


479 


1906 


a gate  at  each  end  and  intersection  of 
those  streets  so  that  no  traffic  could 
pass  through.  I am  inclined  to  think 
that  you  would  find  your  property 
owners  very  strenuously  objecting  to 
the  stoppage  of  traffic  through  those 
streets.  In  other  words,  traffic  which 
wears  out  the  streets  also  wears  out 
the  carriages  and  wagons  that  go 
through  them,  and  that  very  traffic 
tends  to  add  value  to  the  contiguous 
property  because  the  traffic  goes 
through  the  street.  Not  always,  of 
course.  That  is  the  reason  I put  in 
my  motion  the  proposition  that  the 
added  value  should  be  taken  into  con- 
sideration. We  have  been  told  by  one 
of  the  speakers  today,  my  good  friend 
Mr.  O’Donnell,  that  if  the  city  would 
pay  for  all  those  improvements,  you 
would  find  your  property  rising  in 
value.  I would  not  find  mine  rising 
in  value.  Some  of  you  gentlemen  might 
find  yours  rising  in  value,  because  you 
are  holding  some  of  the  property  that 
a special  assessment  would  touch,  and 
the  kind  of  property  that  generally 
escapes  when  repairs  and  improvements 
are  made  at  the  general  expense. 

Another  thing,  if  a stranger  could 
have  dropped  into  this  room  tonight, 
he  would  have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  everybody  here  is  a property 
owner,  and  that  everybody  represented 
here  is  a property  owner.  And  that 
property  owners’  interests  are  the  only 
ones  to  be  considered.  Now,  if  there 
is  nobody  else  in  this  room  to  repre- 
sent the  tenant  class  in  this  city,  I, 
however  inadequately,  will  try  to  re- 
present that  tenant  class.  I noticq 
this:  That  there  is  a very  large  class 

in  this  city,  perhaps  the  largest  class 
not  composed  of  property  owners.  There 
is  a class  that  is  not  composed  of  the 
owners  of  the  site  on  which  this  city 
rests,  and  whose  property  is  in  a dif- 
ferent form.  I notice  also  that  when 
we  go  to  find  places  to  live  in  this 


city,  we  go  to  the  flat  house,  or  to  rent 
a dwelling,  and  we  are  told  that  the 
rent  may  be  a little  high:  “But  look 

at  the  street;  see  what  good  repair  this 
street  is  in.”  And  we  find  that,  other 
things  being  equal,  we  can  get  our 
accommodations  for  living  purposes 
cheaper  in  the  places  where  repairs 
are  gone  down,  in  a street  where  the 
street  is  not  improved.  And  the  point 
of  that  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  when- 
ever you  make  public  improvements  of 
this  kind  and  add  to  the  value  of  your 
property,  you  thereby  add  to  the  living 
expenses  of  the  tenant  who  must  occu- 
py your  property. 

Now,  I do  not  claim  that  this  special 
assessment  method  is  not  the  best 
method  of  reaching  these  values  that 
public  improvements  give  to  the  pri- 
vate property  in  the  street,  but  I do 
believe  that  this  assessment  is  right 
in  principle,  however  crude  it  is  in  its 
present  form,  and  however  badly  ad- 
ministered it  is  at  the  present  time.  I 
believe  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Charter 
Convention  to  try  to  formulate  a plan 
whereby  we  can  impose  the  cost  of 
the  improvements,  and  the  maintenance 
of  the  improvements  in  the  streets 
upon  the  interests  and  the  persons  who 
derive  financial  benefit  from  those  im- 
provements, as  far  as  we  may  be  able 
to  do  so.  And  if  we  adopt  the  sub- 
stitute that  I propose  and  there  is  an 
intelligent  effort  made  to  formulate  it 
properly  for  legislation  we  can,  I be- 
lieve, in  a degree  arrive  at  such  a con- 
clusion; so  that  when  we  make  im- 
provements and  when  we  repair  the 
streets  we  can  impose  the  cost  on  the 
people  who  derive  financial  benefit  from 
them. 

Why  should  we  adopt  Mr.  Smulski’s 
proposition  to  charge  the  property  own- 
ers for  the  first  improvement?  It  takes 
no  account  of  the  value,  if  you  adopt 
his  substitute,  you  are  going  to  impose 
those  expenses  upon  the  property  own- 


December  18 


480 


1906 


ers  regardless  of  the  benefit  of  the  im- 
provements; and  you  will  take  the  pro- 
perty owners  in  one  part  of  the  city, 
just  as  Mr.  Hoyne  remarked,  and  you 
will  make  improvements  there  and  do 
them  no  good  financially  and  benefit 
them  materially,  if  at  all  in  no  pecuni- 
ary way.  You  make  similar  improve- 
ments elsewhere  and  the  contiguous 
owners  of  property  are  very  consider- 
ably benefited.  What  fairness  is  there 
in  that?  We  had  better  do  away  with 
special  assessments  altogether;  and  I 
would  be  in  favor  of  that  rather  than 
adopt  the  plan  which  does  not  take 
into  account  at  all  the  financial  benefit 
derived  by  the  contiguous  property 
owners.  But  it  is  possible  to  take  that 
benefit  into  account,  and  so  to  levy 
and  so  to  distribute  the  expenses  of 
making  the  original  street  improve- 
ments and  of  maintaining  those  im- 
provements, that  the  owners  of  con- 
tiguous property  may  be  made  to  bear 
the  expenses,  and  to  bear  it  fairly,  not 
arbitrarily,  and  not  in  a confiscatory 
way;  but  as  a quid  pro  quo  as  pay- 
ment for  something  for  which  they 
are  getting  a fair  result.  That  is  the 
purpose  of  my  proposed  substitute. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

motion  of  Mr.  Smulski  is  very  good 
any  very  nice.  It  looks  very  nice  in 
theory  and  it  seems  to  me  that  every- 
body must  be  in  favor  of  it.  But  we 
must  take  into  consideration  other  mat- 
ters; we  must  take  into  consideration 
whether  the  city  will  be  able  to  pay 
for  it.  Furthermore,  Mr.  Smulski  says 
that  the  laws  will  come  into  effect 
after  the  charter  is  adopted.  Now, 
here  are  property  owners  who  had 
streets  paved  last  year,  this  year  or  the 
year  before.  If  any  law  is  adopted 
which  should  make  it  taking  in  all  these 
streets  which  are  paved  during  this 
special  law,  so  long  as  this  assessment 
law  is  in  force,  about  five  or  six  years, 
it  seems  to  me  that  we  should  not 


adopt  these  propositions,  but  we  should 
turn  them  over  in  our  minds  tonight, 
and  the  resolutions  offered,  and  leave 
it  to  the  committee,  and  the  commit- 
tee should  report  tomorrow.  I make  a 
motion,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  adjourn  un- 
til tomorrow. 

MR.  ROBINS:  There  are  two  or 

three  practical  considerations,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  seem  to  me  to  argue 
against  the  substitute  offered  by  Mr. 
Smulski.  We  have  just  heard  from  the 
last  speaker  a suggestion  that  there  is 
a great  deal  of  street  paving  to  be  done 
for  the  first  time.  There  is  a great  deal 
of  street  paving  that  has  been  done 
a number  of  times.  There  will  be  a 
clear  disadvantage  to  the  property  own- 
ers under  those  circumstances  under 
Mr.  Smulski  Js  proposition.  But  there 
is  a larger  consideration,  in  the  fact 
that  as  soon  as  you  open  street  paving 
entirely  to  the  action  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil, you  would  put  the  City  Council 
under  a system  of  log  rolling  such  as 
the  City  Council  has  never  suffered 
from  in  the  past,  if  I am  any  judge  of 
the  situation.  You  will,  at  the  same 
time,  give  to  certain  special  interests 
an  advantage,  unquestionably,  because 
they  are  more  able  to  represent  their 
case;  they  can  afford  to  spend  more 
time  and  more  money  in  making  out 
their  case  before  the  City  Council.  And, 
in  my  judgment,  you  will  find  the  City 
Council  paving  large  areas  in  the  out- 
lying districts  which  would  be  simply 
for  speculative  purposes  for  a particu- 
lar lot  holder  or  tract  holder,  as  it 
might  be  in  those  areas.  I do  not  wish 
to  take  up  the  time  of  the  Convention, 
but  there  is  a further  consideration 
which  I would  like  to  submit,  and  that 
is  a consideration  which  has  not  been 
touched  upon  in  the  discussion  tonight, 
Mr.  Chairman.  I have  had  something 
to  do  in  securing  street  pavements  in 
certain  parts  of  the  city;  in  helping 
certain  bodies  of  the  people  who  live 


December  18 


481 


1906 


in  certain  streets,  to  secure  street  pav- 
ing as  against  certain  other  people. 
The  best  guarantee  that  the  street  will 
be  reasonably1  put  clown  under  specifica- 
tions— that  those  specifications  will  be 
to  some  degree  lived  up  to — is  the  fin- 
nancial  interest  of  the  lot  owners  who 
live  along  the  street.  I have  had  oc- 
casion, and  every  alderman  in  this 
room  has  had  occasion,  and  there  is  no 
person  familiar  with  street  paving  in 
the  city  that  has  not  had  some  occa- 
sion to  know  something  about  the 
complaint  of  lot  owners  that  some  part 
of  a specification  for  street  paving,  as 
to  the  asphalt  on  the  street,  and  so 
forth,  is  not  being  lived  up  to.  You 
have  the  live  personal  interest  of  the 
lot  owners  along  that  street  in  the 
character  of  the  improvement,  to  see 
that  that  improvement  is  put  down  in 
accordance  with  the  law.  Every  one 
is  entirely  familiar  with  how  inefficient 
and  unsatisfactory,  as  a matter  of  fact, 
street  paving  throughout  this  city  has 
been.  Now,  if  you  take  away  that 
very  considerable  personal  interest  in 
seeing  that  the  improvement  is  made 
according  to  the  specification,  and  that 
value  is  given  to  the  city  when  the  lot 
owner  can  say  himself:  “Oh,  well,  the 
city  is  putting  down  this  street  paving; 
let  her  go, 11  I believe  that  you  will 
pile  up  a very  great  expense  on  the 
city,  and  that  the  condition  of  the 
street  paving  not  only  will  not  be  bet- 
ter, but  it  will  be  worse  than  it  is  at 
the  present  time. 

MR.  SUNNY:  Mr.  Chairman  and 

gentlemen,  I think  that  Mr.  Smulski’s 
proposition  is  theoretically  right,  but 
that  it  is  impracticable  from  a financial 
standpoint.  Now,  within  the  next  five 
years  I think  this  matter  that  we  have 
up  ought  to  be  left  entirely  to  the  City 
Council.  I doubt  if  the<re  are  five  men 
— I am  sure  there  are  not  ten  men  in 
this  room  who  are  familiar  with  just 
what  the  problem  of  re-paving  Chicago 


would  cost.  I can  imagine  it  might  be 
enough  in  the  next  five  years  to  bank- 
rupt it.  I regard  Prof.  Meriram’s  pro- 
position as  entirely  safe  and  covering 
the  proposition,  inasmuch  as  that  it 
goes  to  the  City  Council  and  gives  the 
City  Council  the  right  to  assess  pro- 
perty for  re-paving  not  to  exceed  50 
per  cent.  If  this  City  Council  should 
find,  in  operating  this  provision,  that 
they  could  afford  to  p^y  60  per  cent. — 
that  the  city  could  afford  to  pay  60  per 
cent,  or  70  per  cent.,  the  50  per  cent, 
provided  for  in  the  paragraph  would 
be  cut  down  accordingly.  Perhaps  in 
the  operation  of  such  a condition  over 
a series  of  years  the  amount  could  be 
cut  down  so  that  the  entire  percentage 
would  be  borne  by  the  city  and  the 
citizens  altogether.  For  those  reasons 
I think  I am  in  favor  of  Prof.  Mer- 
riam’s  proposition,  and  I hope  it  will 
be  carried. 

MR.  CRILLY:  I have  had  some  ex- 

perience on  the  lines  of  Mr.  Smulski’s 
resolution.  The  South  Park  Commis- 
sioners have  been  taking  over  certain 
streets  for  their  own  purposes,  and  they 
have  got  up  specifications  of  their  own; 
in  fact,  wherever  they  could  do  the 
work  themselves  they  did  it;  they  got 
up  first  class  specifications  for  first 
class  streets.  And  the  property  own- 
ers pay  for  those  streets.  The  specifi- 
cations are  for  such  good  streets  that 
they  know  that  they  won’t  have  to 
do  very  much  repairs  on  them  for  some 
years.  We  have  just  taken  over  Prairie 
avenue  a month  ago  to  boulevard  a part 
of  that  street,  and  it  was  completed  in 
a year  by  the  property  owners.  A 
portion  of  it  was  considered  sufficiently 
well  done,  and  it  was  accepted,  and  the 
rest  of  it  that  was  not  sufficiently  well 
done  and  paid  for  by  the  property 
owners.  I think  if  the  citizens  of  Chi- 
cago know  that  they  have  got  to  pay 
for  this  pavement  when  it  is  worn  out, 
they  will  see  that  the  specifications  are 


December  18 


482 


1906 


gotten  out  for  first  class  streets,  and 
the  streets  will  last  some  time  and 
will  not  cost  so  much  to  repair. 

MR.  SMULSKI:  If  I may  be  per- 

mitted to  say  a few  more  words,  briefly, 
I think  I can  answer  some  questions 
that  have  been  raised  here.  In  the 
first  place,  the  theory  of  special  assess- 
ment is  that  the  property  along  the 
street  where  the  improvements  is  made 
is  benefited  to  the  amount  of  the  as- 
sessment. That  is  the  theory  of 
special  assessments.  Now,  in  my  pro- 
position you  are  going  to  repave  the 
streets  of  Chicago,  not  at  the  expense 
of  the  city,  but  at  the  expense  of  the 
contiguous  property  owner.  He  is  to 
put  it  in  proper  condition,  and  after 
he  has  once  put  it  in  proper  condition 
all  that  the  city  has  to  do  is  to  keep 
it  in  proper  repair.  He  gets  the  value — 

MR.  DEVER:  I want  to  ask  a ques- 

tion about  the  property  owner. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A little  louder, 

please. 

MR.  DEVER:  You  spoke  about  the 

property  owner  paving  the  street  and 
turning  it  over  in  good  condition;  do 
you  mean  the  first  paving  of  the  street? 

MR.  SMULSKI:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  DEYER:  Then  the  streets,  for 

instance,  which  have  been  paved  with- 
in the  last  two  or  three  years  would 
not  come  within  that  proposition? 

MR,  SMULSKI:  You  take  a street 

paved  today  with  granite  blocks,  and 
if  it  is  in  good  condition  it  will  last 
in  good  condition  for  25  or  30  years. 

MR.  ROBINS:  How  about  the  gas 

company? 

MR.  SMULSKI:  The  city  will  get 

after  the  gas  company,  and  they  will 
do  their  duty.  That  is  another  point. 
The  question  has  been  raised  that  the 
city — what  the  cost  for  the  next  few 
years  would  be  to  the  city.  The  cost 
for  the  next  few  years  would  be  noth- 
ing to  the  city  except  to  keep  those 
streets  that  are  in  good  condition  in 


good  condition;  and  those  that  are  in 
bad  condition  would  be  paid  for  by  the 
property  owners.  And  from  the  time 
they  have  been  paid  for  by  the  pro- 
perty owners  and  placed  in  good  con- 
dition, from  that  time  the  city  would 
keep  it  in  good  condition. 

Now,  Mr.  Post  talks  about  getting 
a cheaper  rent  on  streets  that  are  badly 
paved,  or  on  streets  that  are  in  bad  con- 
dition. There  should  be  no  such  thing 
in  the  City  of  Chicago,  that  you  could 
get  better  rent  because  of  the  condi- 
tion of  the  street.  That  only  speaks  to 
the  poverty  that  exists  in  our  city.  There 
should  not  be  any  such  discrimination. 
All  streets  should  be  good,  and  they 
will  be  good  if  this  proposition  goes 
through,  because  when  they  are  once 
placed  in  proper  repair,  in  proper  con- 
dition, it  will  not  take  a great  amount 
of  money  to  keep  them  in  proper  condi- 
tion forever. 

Now,  as  to  the  specifications,  the  prop- 
erty owner,  now,  after  the  adoption  of 
this  amendment,  the  property  owner  will 
have  to  pay  for  the  next  improvement. 
He  will  be  interested  in  the  specifications 
just  as  much  now  as  he  was  before,  and 
he  will  see  that  the  improvement  is  in 
accordance  with  the  specification. 

What  have  we  public  officials  for? 
Isn’t  it  their  duty  to  look  to  the  specifi- 
cations ? If  they  have  not  looked  at  it 
heretofore,  they  have  been  derelict  in 
thir  duties.  Let  us  get  such  officials  as 
will  see  that  the  streets  are  properly 
paved,  and  that  the  citizens  get  value 
for  their  money.  This  system  operates 
on  the  boulevard,  I believe,  as  Mr.  Crilly 
has  said.  It  operates  well.  Why  should 
not  it  operate  well  on  all  streets  in  Chi- 
cago. I believe  the  time  has  come,  and 
it  has  come  during  the  discussion  of  this 
Charter  Convention  that  this  matter 
should  be  taken  up  in  its  proper  light, 
that  we  should  forever  afterwards  wipe 
out  the  special  assessment.  The  man 
pays  for  his  improvement  once,  and  he 


December  18 


483 


1906 


is  called  upon  to  pay  for  it  over  and 
over  again,  and  so  far  as  the  man  is 
concerned  who  has  got  to  pay  rent  as 
he  pays  for  it  the  same,  whether  he  pays 
it  in  the  shape  of  rent,  whether  he  pays 
it  in  the  shape  of  taxes,  he  is  the  man 
who  has  got  to  pay  for  it.  I don’t  be- 
lieve the  so-called  poor  man  who  has  no 
property  is  going  to  bear  the  burden  of 
this  improvement.  He  bears  it  now  in 
his  proportion,  and  he  will  bear  it  in 
the  same  proportion  whether  we  do  it  by 
special  assessment  or  whether  as  general 
taxation,  or  at  the  expense  of  the  public 
treasury. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I would  not  insist  upon 
having  this  question  go  to  a vote  this 
evening.  Perhaps,  the  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention  would  like  to  think  it  over. 
It  is  a very  deep  subject  ,and  I believe 
it  ought  to  go  over  until  the  next  meet- 
ing. 

MR.  RAYMER : I think  there  has 

been  enough  points  brought  out  here  to- 
night to  give  us  all  food  for  thought, 
and  I move  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  this 
matter  be  deferred  until  the  next  meet- 
ing,  and  that  we  take  an  adjournment 
until  tomorrow  afternoon. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I move  that  all 

unfinished  business  be  a special  order  for 
tomorrow,  after  revenue.  Of  course  that 
don’t  take  in  education.  Education  is 
a special  order  for  Thursday  night.  It 
takes  in  all  unfinished  business. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  unfinished 

business  excepting  education. 

MR.  HOYNE : I would  like  to  ask 

that  it  go  over  until  Friday. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : We  have  a ses- 

sion on  to-morrow. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 
vor of  Mr.  Shanahan ’s  motion  

MR.  POST : I would  like  to  under- 

stand whether  this  motion  is  a revoca- 
tion of  orders  made.  We  have  made 
certain  special  orders,  and  I want  to 
know  whether  this  motion  revokes  all 
excepting  the  ones  specifically  named. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  It  does  not  re- 

voke any  special  order.  Simply  takes 
up  unfinished  business. 

MR.  POST:  Is  a special  order  unfin- 

ished business? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  take  up, 

according  to  the  way  the  Chair  under- 
stands Mr.  Shanahan’s  motion,  there 
will  be  an  attempt  made  to  dispose  to- 
morrow of  all  business  except  the  topic 
of  education. 

MR.  POST:  I move  that  all  special 

orders  be  excepted  from  that  motion. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I desire  to 

make  a report  on  behalf  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules,  on  procedure  and  gen- 
eral plan. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  report  will 

be  received  and  read. 

MR.  POST:  My  motion  is  to  except 

all  special  orders. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  we  except 

all  special  orders. 

MR.  ROBINS : The  matter  of  wo- 

man’s  suffrage,  we  don’t  want  to  con- 
sider that  to-morrow  unless  there  is  no- 
tice of  it.  That  I do  not  understand  Mr. 
Shanahan  to  include. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : As  I understand, 

woman ’s  suffrage  is  a special  order  after 
education,  and  could  not  be  included 
in  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir.  Ex- 

cept all  special  orders.  There  is  a com- 
munication the  Secretary  has  which  he 
will  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  report  of  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and  Gen- 
eral Plan. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be  printed 
in  the  record  and  taken  up  to-morrow. 
Is  there  any  further  business?  If  not, 
the  Convention  stands  adjourned. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Wednesday,  December  19th, 
1906,  at  2 o’clock  p.  m. 


December  18 


484 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION*. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the.  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council.- 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 


The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to ' 1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ate provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
wdrich  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 

* 

The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


December  18 


485 

Y.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  tne  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 

The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 


1906 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powTers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter ; it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state ; and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 


December  18 


486 


1906 


any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  ■ the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen- 
eral taxation.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re- 
spective amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector’s  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tion herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 


the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
sion. In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
ffinds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 
which  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him^ 
upon  order  of  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 
year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  re- 
ceipts and  expenditures  for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 
tures for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 

4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 


December  18 


487 


1906 


year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 


Action  on  the  following  propositions 
has  been  deferred  pending  the  report 
of  the  special  commitee  on  revenue  in- 
formation. 

Alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 
taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  City  Council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 

3.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either,  any 
trade,  occupation  or  business  carried  on 
wholly  or  in  part  within  the  city  limits, 
and  all  persons,  firms  or  corporations 
owning  or  using  franchises  or  privi- 
leges. 


4.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles.  The  income  therefrom  shall 
be  used  in  the  repair  and  improvement 
of  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  ex- 
clusively. 


The  following  is  under  discussion: 

5.  The  city  shall  have  power  to 
make  local  improvements  by  special  as- 
sessment, or  by  special  taxation  of  con- 
tiguous property,  or  otherwise. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 
by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 
50  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 
any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  contiguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 
and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 


BY  MR.  SMULSKI:  After  the  adop- 
tion of  the  new  charter  for  the  City 
of  Chicago,  no  special  assessment  shall 
be  levied  for  paving  or  improvement 
of  public  streets,  except  for  one  im- 
provement, and  thereafter  the  munici- 
pality shall  keep  such  streets  in  proper 
repair;  on  the  theory  that  after  the 
owner  of  contiguous  property  once 
pays  for  the  public  improvement  of  a 
street  and  turns  it  over  to  the  munici- 
pality, from  that  time  on  such  street 
shall  be  kept  in  proper  repair  at  public 
expense. 


BY  MR.  POST:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements and  repairs  thereof  by 
special  assessments  or  by  special  tax- 
ation of  contiguous  property,  or  other- 
wise, in  proportion  approximately,  to 


December  18 


488 


1906 


the  added  value  of  such  property  due  i 
to  such  improvement  or  repairs. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraph  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 
December  14,  1906,  have  been  re-re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan.  The  com- 
mittee report  will  be  found  under  “Res- 
olutions. ’ ’ 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIY.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XY.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  paragraphs  of  Section  XV  axe  de- 
ferred to  be  considered  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 


XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to1  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 
The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 


December  18 


489 


1906 


But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 
floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

Provided  that  when  the  city  shall  own 
and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall 
be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 
dered or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 
city’s  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 


XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 


vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 


The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

Section  XVIII  and  alternatives  stand 
as  a special  order. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 


December  18 


490 


1906 


ing  houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 

2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 
dinance granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below 
as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other 
public  places  for  any  public  utility, 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 


of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 


2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 

The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  at  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchise  be  altered  [extended],  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 


December  18 


491 


1906 


confer  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
•of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  “An 
act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 


cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages’ ’ approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be. retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSRS  WERNO  AND  ROSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicb*. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

A permanent  educational  commission 
of  advisory  capacity  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the 
council,  to  consist  of  seventeen  mem- 
bers, who  shall  serve  without  compensa- 
tion, including  the  superintendent  of 


December  18 


492 


1906 


the  public  schools  and  the  librarian  of 
the  public  library,  who  shall  be  mem- 
bers ex  officio.  Each  other  member  shall 
hold  office  until  another  person  is  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  him. 

It  shall  be  the  function  of  the  educa- 
tional commission  to  tender  advice  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  to  correlate  the 
educational  forces  of  the  city  and  to 
prevent  unnecessary  duplication  of  ac- 
tivities by  exercising  their  influence  to- 
word  co-ordinating  the  various  educa- 
tional and  scientific  institutions  of  the 
city. 

BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  Board  of  Education  shall  consist 
of  fifteen  members  who  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor  of  the  city  by  .and 
with  the  approval  of  two-thirds  of  the 
City  Council  at  a meeting  subsequent  to 
that  at  which  they  shall  have  been 
nominated. 

They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a person  shall  be  at  least  thirty 


years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 
purposes,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

IY.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip- 
pled, schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 
ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 

It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 

V.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
months  of  the  year. 


December  18 


493 


1906 


The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 
money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 
provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 

VI.  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enacted  or  changed,  money  appro- 
priated or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text- 
books adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 

VII.  OFFICERS. 

The  board  of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
schools  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term  | 
of  office  of  the  superintendent  of  schools 
and  of  the  business  manager  shall  not 
be  less  than  four  years.  And  the  sal- 
ary of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the  j 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint-  [ 
ment  be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall  J 


not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
schools. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools,  and  a busi- 
ness manager,  and  of  such  other  princi- 
pal officers  directly  appointed  by  the 
board,  as  the  board  may  by  general  or- 
dinance designate,  shall  not  be  subject 
to  the  civil  service  law,  but  they  shall 
be  removable  only  for  cause,  by  a vote 
of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  all  the 
members  of  the  board,  upon  written 
charges  to  be  heard  by  the  board  on  due 
notice  to  the  officers  charged  therewith, 
but  pending  the  hearing  of  the  charges, 
such  officers  may  by  two-thirds  vote 
be  suspended  by  the  board. 

VIII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF 
SCHOOLS. 

(1.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  board  of  educa- 
tion, but  no  vote. 

(2.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers,  principals  and 
other  educational  and  attendance 
officers  shall  be  made,  and  text-books 
and  educational  apparatus  shall  be  in- 
troduced by  the  board  of  education  up- 
on the  recommendation  of  the  superin- 
tendent, but  upon  his  failure  to  make 
such  a recommendation  within  a reason- 
able time  after  demand,  the  board  may 
make  appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers,  and  adopt  text-books  and  edu- 
cational apparatus  by  a two-thirds  vote 
of  all  its  members, 

(3.)  He  shall  be  consulted  as  to  loca- 
tion and  plans  of  school  buildings  and 
as  to  plans  and  specifications  for  educa- 
tional supplies. 

(4.)  Text-books  and  apparatus  once 
adopted  shall  not  be  changed  within 
four  years  after  their  adoption,  except 
upon  vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion. 

(5.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  nominate  for  appointment  by  the 
board  of  education,  assistant  and  dis- 


December  18 


494 


1906 


trict  superintendents  and  principals  of 
schools,  and  shall  have  power,  with  the 
consent  of  the  board,  to  remove  them 
upon  complaint  and  for  cause. 

IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 
property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

He  shall  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
board  of  education  appoint  his  subordi- 
nate officers  and  employes,  among  whom 
there  shall  be  a trained  architect  and  a 
trained  engineer. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 

X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers  shall  be  made  for 
merit  only,  and  after  satisfactory  ser- 
vice for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  the  needs  of  the  schools  require. 

(2.)  The  standing  of  teachers  for 
appointment  and  promotion  shall  be  en- 
trusted to  a bord  to  be  constituted  by 
the  board  of  education,  of  which  the  su- 
perintendent of  schools  shall  be  the 
head. 

XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XII.  PENSIONS. 

The  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 


City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 
from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 
retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 
tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  be 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XYI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney's  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


December  18 


495 


1906 


BY  ME.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  ME.  VOPICKA: 

Eesolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  ME,  VOPICKA: 

Eesolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  ME.  VOPICKA: 

Eesolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 


10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
propert}'"  in  Chicago. 

Report  of  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan — B.  A.  Eck- 
hart,  Chairman. 

CHICAGO  CHARTER  CONVENTION, 

Gentlemen:  Your  committee  on 

Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan,  to 
whom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions which  were  introduced  for 
consideration  at  the  meeting  of  Decem- 
ber 14th,  1906, 

XIII.  PROPERTY. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city 
limits  for  any  municipal  purpose. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Shanahan: 

* * * that  the  city  may  acquire 

property  by  purchase  outside  as  well 
as  within  the  city  limits  for  any  mu- 
nicipal purpose,  and  not  have  the  right 
to  condemn  outside  property. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Brown: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side of  the  city,  or  purchase  and  con- 
demn property  for  municipal  purposes 
within  the  city. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
B.  A.  Eckhart: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side as  well  as  within  the  city  limits, 
either  by  purchase  or  condemnation,  for 
park  and  boulevard  purposes. 

would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject-mat- 
ter, and  recommends  the  adoption  of 
the  following: 

The  city  may  acquire  by  purchase 


December  18 


496 


1906 


outside  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  and  may 
acquire  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits  by  purchase  or  condemnation  for 


park,  boulevard  or  forest  preserve  pur- 
poses. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART, 
Chairman. 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

SECTION  X. — Revenue,  at  page  53.  Wednesday,  December  19,  at  2:00  o’clock 
p.  m. 

SECTION  XV. — Streets  and  Public  Places,  at  page  54.  (Tuesday,  December 
18,  at  7:30  o’clock  p.  m.) 

SECTION  XVII. — Education,  at  page  56.  (Thursday,  December  20,  at  7 :30 
o’clock  p.  m.) 

PARAGRAPH  3. — Suffrage,  at  page  52.  (To  be  taken  up  immediately  after 
the  disposition  of  the  subject  of  Education.) 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  92, 

first  column : Line  13,  insert  word 

‘‘speak”  instead  of  “come.” 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  101, 

second  column:  Line  22,  after  the  word 
“then”  add  “who  shall.” 


MR.  SHEDD:  On  page  128,  first 

column,  second  line,  strike  out  “in  a” 
and  insert  therefor:  “eliminating  the.” 
Also,  in  the  third  line,  after  the  word 
“paper,”  insert  “but  retaining  the  par- 
ty column.” 


MR.  POST:  On  page  130,  second 

column,  fifth  line  from  bottom^  sub- 
stitute the  word  “constitutional”  for 
the  word  “satisfactory.” 


MR.  SHEPARD:  On  page  134,  first 

column,  last  paragraph,  fifth  line,  strike 
out  “that  is,  that  all  municipal  officers 
and  city  officers,  including  the  municipal 
court  judges  shall  be  elected  in  the 
spring”  and  insert  therefor:  “that  is, 
that  all  city  officers  shall  be  elected  in 
the  spring  at  one  and  the  same  election, 
except  the  municipal  court  judges.” 


MR.  SHANAHAN : On  page  159, 

first  column,  next  to  last  line,  strike 
out  “it  along”  and  insert  “about  its 
passage.  ’ ’ 


MR.  WERNO:  On  page  161,  left 

hand  column,  line  25,  strike  out  the 
word  “has”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof 
the  word  “have.” 

Also  on  page  161,  right  hand  column, 
13th  line,  strike  out  the  words  “to 
give”  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
words  “who  gives.” 


MR.  LINEHAN:  On  page  162,  first 

column,  next  to*  last  line,  strike  out 
word  “devoted”  and  insert  “di- 
vorced.” Also  same  column,  last  line, 
strike  out  word  “to”  and  insert 
“from.”  Also,  same  page,  second  col- 
umn, first  line,  strike  out  “we  are  pro- 
posing” and  insert  “a  proposal.” 


MR.  POWERS:  On  page  166,  sec- 

ond column,  fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  lines, 
strike  out  “Well,  can’t  he  do  that 
without  the  consent  of  this  Conven- 
tion?” and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  “He 
cannot  do  that  without  the  consent  of 
this  Convention.  ’ ’ 


December  18 


497 


1906 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  On  page  170, 

first  column,  fourth  line,  after  the  word 
“entrance”  insert  the  following:  “to 
the  service  protected  by  the  law.” 


MR.  PENDARYIS:  Page  179,  first 

column;  strike  out  entire  line,  and  in- 
sert in  lieu  thereof:  “that  fact  we 
put  into  the,”  also,  same  page,  same 
column,  in  fourth  line  from  bottom, 
insert  the  word  “meet”  for  “leave.” 


MR.  REYELL:  Page  179,  about  cen- 

ter of  the  last  column,  strike  out  the 
four  last  words. 


MR.  REYELL:  Page  181,  strike  out 

the  sentence  or  paragraph  commencing 
with  “It  seems  to  me  if  the  duty”  and 
ending  with  “that  will  at  least  let  them 
out  of  it,”  and  insert  the  following: 

“It  seems  to  me  that  as  between  an 
appointment  by  the  judge  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  and  an  appointment  by  the 
Chief  Justice  of  that  court,  which  latter 
might  be  influenced  by  the  County  Cen- 
tral Committee— as  suggested  by  Aider- 
man  Raymer — the  latter  would  be  pre- 
ferable, as  it  would  eliminate  the  other 
twenty-seven  or  twenty-eight  judges  of 
the  Municipal  Court  from  political  in- 
fluence. It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  the 
Chief  Justice  could  be  influenced  by 
anybody  or  anyone  toward  the  appoint- 
ment of  an  incompetent  man.” 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Page  214,  second 

column,  twelfth  line  of  paragraph, 
strike  out  Words  “a  movement”  and 
insert  “an  improvement.” 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  Page  226,  second 
column,  line  24,  change  the  word  “po- 
sition” to  “provision”;  also,  same 
page,  same  column,  line  26,  change  the 
word  “of”  to  “by.” 

MR.  VOPICKA:  On  page  226,  sec- 
ond column,  correct  as  follows:  “Mr. 


Chairman. — If  Mr.  Rosenthal  will  change 
his  amendment  to  read  $3,500  minimum 
and  $5,000  maximum,  you  will  get  men 
of  more  intelligence  to  seek  the  office; 
make  it  a minimum  salary  of  $3,500 
and  a maximum  of  $5,000,  and  not  more 
than  that.” 

MR.  POST: 

On  page  252,  first  column,  lines 
twelve  and  thirteen,  strike  out  “gov- 
ernments are  usually  maintained  in 
form  republican.”  Also  in  the  first 
column,  line  17,  substitute  word  “rep- 
resentative” for  “republican.” 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

have  inserted  in  the  records  at  page 
253,  column  2,  anywhere  there,  the  fol- 
lowing paragraph,  which  was  a part  of 
Mr.  Fisher’s  speech,  and  was  left  out 
wholly,  as  follows: 

((  * * * Mr.  Linehan,  to  speak 

plainly,  is  in  sympathy  with  the  present 
mayor,  for  this  reason.  He  is  willing 
that  the  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
should  be  four  years,  but  objects  to  the 
aldermanic  term  being  lengthened.  I 
ask  him  if  he  would  be  of  the  same 
mind  if  he  were  opposed  to  the  mayor, 
but  was  in  sympathy  with  the  city  coun- 
cil, which  had  to  seek  re-election  every 
two  years.” 

MR.  FISHER:  I must  object  to  the 

insertion  of  this  language  as  being  my 
exact  language;  that  is  not  exactly  what 
I stated.  I think  it  does  fairly  state 
the  sense  of  what  was  stated,  but  the 
remark  which  I made  was  that  Mr.  Line- 
han was  in  favor  of  the  policies  of  the 
present  mayor.  I don’t  know  whether 
he  is  in  favor  of  the  present  mayor  or 
opposed  to  the  present  mayor,  but  I 
do  understand  that  he  is  in  favor  of 
the  policies  of  the  present  mayor. 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  On  page  257, 

second  column,  line  3,  insert  the  word 
“to”  in  place  of  “pn.” 


December  18 


498 


1906 


MR.  DEYER:  On  page  299,  first  col- 

umn, fifth  line  of  the  remarks,  omit  the 
word  “not.”  Also,  after  the  word 
* 1 certain,  ’ ’ add  1 ‘ general  state.  ’ ’ 


MR.  HOYNE:  On  page  336,  substi- 

tute the  following  remarks  of  Mr.  Hoyne : 
Mr.  Chairman,  1 passed  this  because  I 
voted  to  postpone  action  on  this  matter, 
and  because  I don’t  think  a fair  repre- 
sentative number  of  members  is  present 
to  consider  this  matter.  I am  opposed 
to  municipal  ownership.  I do  not  be- 
lieve it  is  a good  thing.  I do  not  think 
the  city  would  get  thei  best  results  out 
of  it,  and  it  has  not  been  proven  other- 
wise to  my  satisfaction.  In  my  opinion 
the  city  has  lost  $1,000,000  a year  by 
holding  up  and  using  this  traction  ques- 
tion as  a political  foot  ball.  One  million 
dollars  a year  the  city  could  and  would 
have  had  as  an  additional  revenue,  if  this 
matter  had  been  settled  right,  by  a fran- 
chise. And  so  with  other  matters.  I do 
not  think  the  electric  light  company,  or 
the  telephone  company,  or  the  gas  com- 
pany should  be  municipally  operated.  I 
believe  franchises  should  be  issued  to 
every  one  of  these  companies; — twenty- 
year  franchises.  I would  like  to  see  the 


city  get  the  revenue  that  it  deserves  from 
these  corporations.  The  city  should  no^ 
be  receiving  ten  cents  a thousand  from 
the  gas  company,  giving  the  city  an  an- 
nual income  of  a million  dollars  or  more. 
I say  the  city  is  losing  revenue  by  not 
giving  franchises.  You  never  knew  of  a 
municipal  corporation  or  any  other  city 
or  government  corporation  that  got  as 
much  money  out  of  a property  or  oper- 
ated it  as  economically  as  a private  cor- 
poration, and  for  that  reason,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I vote  “no”  on  this  proposition. 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  At  page  384  in 

the  roll  call,  voted  “Nay,”  name  omit- 
ted. 


MR.  YOUNG: 

Page  426,  first  column,  fifth  line  of 
remarks,  commencing  with  words  “It,” 
strike  out  to  word  “legislature”  in 
twelfth  line,  inserting  in  lieu  thereof: 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  point  raised 
by  Professor  Merriam  is  all  right. 
When  the  State  Legislature  has  con- 
ferred a specific  right  through  this  char- 
ter, subsequent  legislation  will  not 
affect  this  right,  unless  it  is  specifically 
provided  in  such  legislation. 


December  18 


499 


1906 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  thei 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may/ 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness! 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursi diction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  18 


500 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1906 


(Eljartrr  (Emiurnttou 

Convened,  December  12,  190S 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4677 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Rcvcll,  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Sarrctt  Chamberlin,  asst.  Secy 


. 


December  19 


503 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Wednesday,  December  19,  1906 

2:00  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke,  Carey, 
Church,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Guerin, 
Hoyne,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Goortv,  McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Don- 
nell, Oehne,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post, 
Powers,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins,  Seth- 
ness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Smul- 
ski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Swift,  Taylor,  Vo- 
picka,  Werno,  White,  Zimmer — 52. 

Absent — Clettenberg,  Ritter,  Dever, 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Gra- 
ham, Haas,  Harrison,  Hill,  Lundberg, 
McCormick,  Paullin,  Patterson,  Rainey, 
Rinaker,  Rosenthal,  Thompson,  Walk- 
er, Wilkins,  Wilson,  Young — 22. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  pres- 

ent. 

MR,  PENDARVIS:  I have  sent  to 

the  clerk’s  desk  a resolution  which  I 
desire  to  offer  now,  and 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that, 

sir? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I have  sent  to 

the  clerk’s  desk  a resolution  which  I 
desire  to  offer  and  have  read  and 
printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

corrections  or  amendments  to  the  min- 
utes? The  Secretary  advises  me  that 
in  some  copies  the  printer  made  a slip, 
but  probably  in  the  majority  of  them 
they  are  correct.  If  there  are  no  cor- 
rections, we  will  let  the  minutes  stand 
approved  as  the  minutes  of  the  last 
meeting.  The  Secretary  will  read  the 
resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Pendarvis. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Pen- 
darvis: Resolved,  That  the  charter 

shall  contain  a provision  preserving 
the  integrity  of  prohibition  districts 
established  by  ordinance  of  the  city, 
and  providing  that  the  City  Council 
shall  have  no  power  to  modify  or 


December  19 


504 


1906 


abolish  any  such  prohibition  district 
until  the  proposition  to  so  modify  or 
abolish  any  such  district  shall,  upon 
petition  of  not  less  than  twenty  per 
cent,  of  the  legal  voters  then  residing 
within  any  such  district,  be  submitted 
to  and  be  approved  by  a majority  of 
all  the  legal  voters  residing  in  said 
prohibition  district. ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  will 

be  taken  up  when  the  appropriate  sub- 
ject is  reached. 

Upon  the  adjournment  of  the  Con- 
vention last  night  there  was  under  dis- 
cussion No.  5 of  Section  10  of  the 
revenue  act  relating  to  special  assess- 
ments, upon  which  there  were  a num- 
ber of  amendments.  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  section  and  the  amendments 
thereto,  and  the  matter  will  then  be 
before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  is 

before  the  house. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  will 

the  Secretary  again  state  the  page? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  487,  con- 

tinuing to  488. 

MR.  WHITE:  May  I call  the  at- 

tention of  the  Secretary,  if  it  is  neces- 
sary, to  some  of  these  minutes?  They 
are  paged  improperly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Several  of  them 

have  accidentally  been  paged  wrong. 

The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of 
Mr.  Merriam  to  adopt  alternative  to 
No.  5,  amended  by  Mr.  Smulski,  and 
amended  by  Mr.  Post.  The  amendment 
of  Mr.  Post  is  before  the  house,  being 
the  last  amendment  offered. 

MR.  COLE:  Read  the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Post’s  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Post ’s  amend- 
ment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  the  amendment? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman  and 

gentlemen,  this  is  simply  a restatement 
of  the  present  law  on  special  assess- 
ments. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  mo- 
tion? 

MR.  BENNETT:  I move  to  lay  the 

amendment  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion  that  has  been  made  and 
seconded. 

MR.  POST:  I ask  a roll  call  on 

that. 

Yeas  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Carey,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Erick- 
son, Gansbergen,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam, O’Donnell,  Oehne,  Pendarvis, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Sethness,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Swift, 
Taylor,  Zimmer — 31. 

Nays — Church,  Guerin,  Owens,  Post, 
Robins,  White — 6. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  lay  Mr.  Post’s  substitute  on  the  ta- 
ble, the  yeas  are  31  and  the  nays  are 
6,  and  the  motion  is  carried.  Mr. 
Smulski ’s  amendment  is  now  before 
you. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  you  that  Mr.  Smulski ’s  amend- 
ment be  laid  upon  the  table. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

hope  that  the  fate  asked  for  by  Mr. 
Robins  will  not  prevail  in  regard  to 
this  resolution.  Mr.  Smulski  called  me 
on  the  ’phone  a few  moments  ago  and 
explained  that  he  was  tied  up  and  un- 
able to  come  here  for  a few  moments, 
but  he  would  be  here  a little  later. 
However,  I do  not  ask  for  delay  on 
that  account  unless  it  is  the  desire  of 
the  Convention  that  delay  should  be 
granted  without  request  being  made. 
He  did  not  ask  for  delay;  he  said  he 
would  like  to  have  an  opportunity  to 
discuss  the  matter  a little  further. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I did  not  dis- 
cuss this  question  at  all  last  evening 
for  the  reason  that  the  ground  had 
been  well  covered,  I thought.  I want 
to  say,  however,  that  as  far  as  I am 
personally  concerned,  that  I fully  ap- 


December  19 


505 


1906 


prove  of  the  resolution  that  Mr.  Smul- 
ski  has  introduced.  I have  had  this 
notion  about  the  method  of  improving 
the  streets  of  Chicago  for  many  years. 
I believe  it  to  be  the  fair  and  equitable 
method,  and  it  has  been  demonstrated 
that  it  is  fair  and  right  in  relation  to 
our  boulevards  in  Chicago.  If  that 
system  works  well  in  connection  with 
the  parks  and  boulevards,  why  should 
it  not  work  well  in  regard  to  the  bal- 
ance of  the  streets  of  this  city? 

The  system  also  works  well  in  many 
of  the  cities  of  this  country,  and  in 
cities  where  it  is  in  vogue  those  cities 
are  known  to  be  the  best  paved  cities 
in  the  United  States.  They  have  the 
best  kept  streets,  and  I do  not  know 
that  the  rate  of  taxation  is  greatly  in 
excess  of  what  it  is  in  Chicago,  but, 
if  it  is,  it  is  not  because  of  the  meth- 
ods which  the  city  has  adopted  in  re- 
gard to  those  improvements. 

Mr.  Smulski’  resolution,  if  you  will 
read  it  carefully,  requires  that  before 
the  city  commences  to  pay  for  these 
improvements  that  the  property  owner 
shall  once  more  pay  for  an  improve- 
ment of  t lie  street  on  which  the  prop- 
erty is  located;  so  that  the  expense,  as 
far  as  the  City  of  Chicago  is  concerned, 
would  not  take  effect  for  some  years 
to  come. 

For  instance,  as  I read  the  resolution 
and  understand  its  meaning,  I under- 
stand that  streets  paved  during  this 
year,  or  for  the  next  two  years,  if  you 
please,  the  repaviug  of  these  streets 
will  not  be  done  by  general  taxation, 
but  it  should  be  done  by  the  property 
owners.  But  the  next  pavement  shall 
be  laid  by  the  city  out  of  general  taxa- 
tion. 

The  only  thing  that  seems  to  me  to 
possibly  interfere  with  the  successful 
carrying  out  of  this  proposition,  and, 
in  my  judgment,  while  it  might  at  the 
outset  seem  a little  expensive,  I am 
satisfied  that  in  time  it  would  prove 
to  1 e the  most  economical  method  of 


improving  our  streets,  and  that  is  the 
question  of  our  present  indebtedness 
and  the  amount  which  we  would  be 
permitted  under  tine  present  limita- 
tion, or  proposed  limitation.  I regard 
this  question  as  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant as  regards  the  physical  con- 
dition of  this  community,  and  I cannot 
help  but  endorse  every  line  of  the  res- 
olution. I believe  that  it  is  fair  and 
right  and  would  prove  to  be  the  best 
thing  that  was  ever  done  in  regard  to 
taking  care  of  the  physical  condition 
of  the  City  of  Chicago.  I hope  that 
the  resolution  to  lay  on  the  table  will 
not  prevail. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  if 

this  were  an  entirely  new  community, 
with  unlimited  means,  and  if  the  prop- 
erty owners  on  the  various  streets  had 
not  already  and  recently  paid  for  the 
improvements  of  their  streets  by  spe- 
cial assessment,  the  theory  of  Mr.  Smul- 
ski’s  resolution  would  be  the  correct 
one.  That  is,  that  the  city  should  pay 
out  the  general  fund  for  all  improve- 
ments. But  when  you  stop  to  think 
of  the  fact  that  we  have  in  this  city 
over  3,000  miles  of  streets  of  which 
to-day  only  750  miles  are  well  paved, 
and  750  miles  poorly  paved,  and  the 
balance  not  paved,  you  will  realize  how 
stupendous  the  work  of  street  paving 
is.  When  Professor  Merriam  offered 
his  resolution  T doubted  that  the  pay- 
ment by  the  city  of  50  per  cent,  would 
embarrass  the  city.  I am  not  clear 
that,  at  least,  it  would  have  that  effect. 
Today  we  are  only  paving  about  one 
hundred  miles  of  streets  per  annum. 
If  we  attempt  to  do  this  paving  out 
of  the  general  fund  there  will  be  a 
general  rush  for  the  improvements  of 
streets,  and  the  mileage  paved  will  be 
doubled  and  trebled  and  probably 
quadrupled  before  many  years  pass. 
The  result  will  be  to  cripple  the  finances 
of  the  city  beyond  any  possibility  of 
our  meeting  thorn. 

Now,  Mr.  Merriam ’s  resolution  cm- 


December  19 


506 


1906 


braces  all  of  tbe  essential  features  of 
Mr.  Smulski’s  to  this  extent.  It  pro- 
vides that  after  the  street  is  once 
pave(j — n0  paving  shall  be  put  down 
where  the  property  owner  shall  be  as- 
sessed more  than  50  per  cent. — that  in- 
sures to  the  property  owner  a saving 
of  at  least  50  per  cent.  If  in  the  fu- 
ture we  find  that  the  finances  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  warrant  increasing  the 
burdens  of  the  city  so  that  we  can  re- 
lieve the  property  owners  of  60  or  65 
or  100  per  cent.,  it  will  then  be  in 
the  power  of  the  City  of  Chicago  to  do 
it;  it  will  leave  our  funds  untram- 
meled  by  restrictions.  The  great  trou- 
ble we  are  now  under  is  the  restric- 
tion that  is  placed  upon  the  manage- 
ment of  the  city  finances. 

I,  therefore,  favor  the  passage  of 
Prof.  Merriam’s  resolution,  and  the 
placing  of  this  resolution  upon  the  ta- 
ble. 

MR.  GUERIN:  Mr.  Chairman 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  a question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  Guerin  has 

the  floor,  unless  he  yields  to  Mr.  Re- 
vell  on  his  question. 

MR.  REYELL:  I yield  to  Dr. 

Guerin. 

MR.  GUERIN:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

question  has  already,  perhaps,  been 
sufficiently  discussed  so  that  we  all  un- 
derstand it,  but  there  are  two  or  three 
points  that  I think  have  not  been 
touched  upon  at  all.  One  is  that  when 
paving  is  done  according  to  Mr.  Smul- 
ski’s  resolution  we  will  have  to  pave 
streets  less  often,  because  the  streets 
will  be  taken  care  of  from  the  very  be- 
ginning, and  as  soon  as  they  get  out  of 
repair  in  the  slightest  degree  they  will 
be  taken  care  of,  and  they  will  last 
from  two  to  three  times  longer  than 
they  do  now. 

I notice  from  experience  of  what  I 
have  seen  in  other  cities  where  this 
has  been  done.  I know  that  by  re- 
pairing the  street  in  that  manner — in 


other  words,  the  maintaining  and  re- 
pairing of  the  streets  when  they  first 
begin  to  be  defective,  will  cost  much 
less  for  repairing  than  when  those 
streets  are  let  go  for  a longer  period. 
Therefore,  it  would  be  more  econom- 
ical to  keep  the  streets  in  proper  re- 
pair in  that  manner  than  if  you  let 
them  go  and  build  them  up  in  five  or 
six  years. 

Another  thing  is,  as  Mr.  Smulski  says, 
damage  suits  will  be  much  less.  There 
will  be  scarcely  any.  They  will  be  re- 
duced. Now,  then,  it  will  be  more 
economical  to  have  fewer  damage  suits, 
and  it  will  be  economy  also  to  pave 
the  streets  continually  all  the  time — 
that  is,  to  repair  the  streets  contin- 
ually. 

Now,  for  example,  I was  in  a city  in 
Europe  for  two  years — in  the  city  of 
Paris,  and  I found  that  the  boulevards 
there  were  being  constantly  repaired. 
The  moment  a simple  repair  was  neces- 
sary a man  would  come  along  with  a 
little  thing  like  a cart — not  one  man, 
but  two  or  three  men — and  they  would 
repair  that  street  at  once.  There  is 
no  inconvenience  to  the  traffic  or  the 
public  when  the  thing  is  done  at  once. 
The  street  is  always  in  perfect  repair. 
Those  who  have  been  there  will  find 
the  boulevards  of  Paris  always  in  per- 
fect repair  because  they  are  kept  in 
constant  repair. 

Then,  another  matter.  You  will  find 
there  how  very  seldom  a street  is 
blocked  up  because  of  its  being  re- 
paired. You  will  find  the  streets  open 
nearly  all  the  time.  I knew  only  one 
street  that  was  blocked;  I remember 
one  that  was  blocked  up  a short  time 
where  they  were  putting  down  granite 
blocks.  That  is  the  only  case  I remem- 
ber of  in  two  years,  and  I took  partic- 
ular notice  of  that.  The  streets  are  con- 
stantly kept  in  repair,  and  it  costs  less 
to  keep  them  in  that  condition 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  moment. 

Gentlemen  who  are  not  members  of 


December  19 


507 


1906 


this  Convention  will  please  take  seats 
in  the  galleries.  Proceed,  Mr.  Guerin. 

MR.  GUERIN : I saw  the  same  thing 
in  Berlin  the  short  time  I was  there. 
I took  occasion  to  observe  it  particu- 
larly because  of  my  experience  in 
Paris.  I saw  the  same  thing  in  the 
City  of  Rome,  and  you  will  find  it  so 
generally  where  the  streets  are  repaired 
out  of  public  funds  that  it  costs  a great 
deal  less  to  repair  them  and  keep  them 
in  repair  constantly;  and  I venture  to 
say  they  have  very  few  damage  suits 
of  that  kind.  Therefore,  I am  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Smulski ’s  resolution. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr  Chairman,  I 

merely  wish  to  ask  one  of  the  aldermen 
a question  as  to  whether  the  thought 
had  ever  come  to  them  of  classifying 
the  different  streets  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. I can  see  a very  great  injustice 
that  may  be  given  to  contiguous  proper- 
ty on  a street  which  might  be  termed 
a thoroughfare  like  Milwaukee  avenue; 
and  I can  see  no  great  injustice  in  a 
street  in  an  outlying  position  which 
might  not  be  considered  a thoroughfare. 
I can  also  imagine  the  lobbying  that 
will  come  on  if  we  pass  this  resolution, 
in  conection  with  wards,  by  aldermen 
who  will  seek  pavement  and  repave- 
ment of  their  streets  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  the  man  in  the  next  ward  is 
getting  a larger  number  of  streets 
paved. 

I would  like  to  ask  if  it  might  not 
be  well  to  present  here  a classification 
of  the  different  streets.  I would  like 
to  vote  for  Mr.  Smulski ’s  resolution, 
but  I dislike  to  under  the  thought  I 
have  just  given. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  when  Dr.  Guerin  spoke  he  had 
reference  to  cities  that  were  hundreds 
of  years  old,  and  this  is  somewhat  of  a 
frontier  town,  just  beginning  to  know 
it  is  alive. 

What  I wanted  to  call  attention  to 
particularly  was  that  in  some  of  the 
districts,  outlying  wards  that  were  an- 


nexed to  the  City  of  Chicago,  there 
are  miles  and  miles  of  streets,  and  I 
can  name  the  streets,  and  between  the 
streets  which  they  lay,  that  are  re- 
garded as  having  been  improved  and 
improved  within  a year  or  two,  but  that 
were  paved  before  they  were  voted  into 
the  City  of  Chicago,  and  you  couldn’t 
tell  that  there  was  ever  any  improve- 
ment put  on  them  today,  absolutely 
none.  I can  conceive  of  outlying  dis- 
tricts where  they  have  these  subdi- 
visions, that  they  would  be  able  to  do 
a great  deal  of  damage  to  the  city’s 
finances  if  this  were  to  prevail.  They 
not  only  have  already  run  street  cars 
round  a great  many  portions  of  the 
outlying  districts  to  sell  their  property, 
but  if  they  could  come  in  and  get  this 
insurance  that  once  paved  it  would  be 
paved  forever,  that  would  make  them 
improve  the  property,  and  they  could 
sell  the  property  very  quickly. 

I do  not  believe  that  the  city  can 
afford  to  stand  for  that  system  of  once 
paved  to  be  kept  up  forever,  as  Aider- 
man  Bennett  says,  and  I have  just  had 
a little  conversation  with  a man  who 
has  been  years  and  years  taking  care 
of  the  physical  needs  of  the  City  of 
Chicago,  and  he  said  it  would  absolute- 
ly bankrupt  the  city  if  it  prevailed. 
That  it  was  impossible  on  account  of 
the  financial  condition  that  existed  at 
this  time.  Therefore,  I am  not  in  fa- 
vor of  that  proposition. 

MR.  JONES:  If  I understand  Mr. 

Smulski ’s  proposition,  it  provides  that 
property  owners  can  be  assessed  for 
one  paving  of  the  street  and  that  then 
for  all  time  the  city  must  pay  not  only 
for  the  repairs,  but  for  the  repaving 
of  the  street.  I assume  that  a street 
has  a life  of,  say,  twenty  or  thirty 
years,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  when  a 
street  has  outlived  its  regular  length  of 
usefulness  the  property  owner  should 
be  called  upon  to  bear  some  part  of  the 
expense  of  repaving.  I understand  un- 
der the  present  law  the  repairing  of  a 


December  19 


508 


1906 


street  is  carried  on  by  the  city  within 
the  available  means  that  it  has  at  its 
disposal.  It  seems  to  me  if  the  Smul- 
ski  resolution  were  amended  to  provide 
that  but  one  special  assessment  would 
be  levied  within,  say,  twenty  years  or 
thirty  years,  or  some  period  which 
would  represent  the  life  of  the  street, 
that  then  the  resolution  would  not 
be  objectionable.  As  it  now  stands, 
an  assessment  can  be  levied  for  paving 
a street  once,  and  after  that  for  one 
hundred  years  or  five  hundred  years, 
or  whatever  the  life  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago may  be,  the  property  owner  can 
never  be  assessed  again. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  property 
owner  should  bear  some  proportion  of 
the  expense  necessary  for  repaving  the 
street,  and  that  could  be  secured  either 
by  requiring  that  but  one  special  as- 
sessment should  be  levied  within  a cer- 
tain definite  period  of  years,  or  else  we 
must  go  to  the  proposition  as  presented 
by  Prof.  Merriam,  permitting  repaving 
to  take  place  at  any  time  within  the 
discretion  of  the  proper  authorities,  and 
then  assess  the  city  a certain  percent- 
age of  that. 

I would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Raymer,  who 
apparently  represents  Mr.  Smulski, 
whether  or  not  it  would  be  objection- 
able to  amend  Mr.  Smulski ’s  resolution 
and  to  limit  it  to  one  improvement 
within  the  period  of  blank  years,  what- 
ever it  may  be? 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  hardly  be 

competent  to  speak  for  Mr.  Smulski  in 
the  matter,  for  I have  not  been  dele- 
gated by  him  to  do  so.  But  I want  to 
say  this  word  in  connection  with  the 
resolution,  that  it  would  be  at  least 
ten  years  before  the  city  would  have 
to  commence  to  pave  any  streets  out  of 
the  general  fund.  Talk  about  the 
city’s  financial  coundition.  Are  we  al- 
ways going  to  be  a pauperized  com- 
munity? Is  this  city  not  large  enough 
to  raise  revenue  to  take  proper  care  of 
its  physical  needs?  If  we  are  going 


to  assume  that  that  is  going  to  be  the 
permanent  condition  of  Chicago,  the 
sooner  we  take  heed  of  that  matter  and 
arrange  our  rate  of  taxation  in  this 
bill  so  that  we  can  put  Chicago  among 
the  first  cities  of  the  land  the  better. 
The  property  owner  today,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, is  carrying  a burden  in  connec- 
tion with  special  assessments.  It  was 
well  said  by  Mr.  O’Donnell,  I believe, 
that  it  almost  represented  confiscation 
of  their  property.  I think  it  is  time  to 
get  away  from  that  situation.  My 
judgment  is,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
members  of  this  Convention,  or  at  least 
those  I have  heard  discuss  the  ques- 
tion, have  not  sufficiently  posted  them- 
selves on  this  proposition,  and  I do  not 
believe  it  should  be  acted  upon  today 
unless  every  man  here  feels  absolutely 
competent  to  vote  on  it.  Of  course,  it 
is  up  to  the  convention.  But  personally 
I do  not  think  that  this  question  has 
been  sufficiently  considered,  and  the 
financial  proposition  in  connection  with 
it  has  not  been  sufficiently  considered. 
It  is  easy  to  see  it  will  be  at  least  ten 
years  before  the  City  of  Chicago  will 
be  called  upon  to  pay  anything  out 
of  the  general  fund  for  the  pavement 
of  streets. 

MR.  SNOW:  In  answer  to  the  ques- 

tion asked  by  Mr.  Revell,  I desire  to 
say  that  that  point  is  considered  at 
the  present  time  in  fixing  the  public 
benefits  which  the  city  must  pay 
towards  the  cost  of  any  paving  im- 
provement. The  County  Court  endeav- 
ors as  best  it  can  to  determine  how 
much  the  paving  ordered  for  a certain 
street  is  ordered  for  the  benefit  of 
through  traffic  which  neither  originates 
nor  ends  on  that  street,  and  the  rate 
of  public  benefit  assessed  varies  from 
« — I think  I have  seen  cases  as  low  as 
6 per  cent.,  and  up  as  high  as  25  per 
cent.,  which  at  the  present  time  is  paid 
by  the  public,  on  the  theory  which  Mr. 
Revell  advances. 

Now,  if  we  had  in  the  municipal  ad- 


December  19 


509 


1906 


ministration  a systematic,  business- 
like method  of  administration,  one  of 
the  first  things  which  would  be  deter- 
mined by  the  City  of  Chicago  through 
its  public  works  department  would  be 
the  character  and  amount  of  traffic  for 
which  each  street  is  needed,  in  order 
that  paving  might  be  ordered  with  an 
eye  to  the  traffic  conditions  of  that 
street.  Instead  of  permitting  proper- 
ty owners,  or  practically  permitting 
them  under  the  present  practice,  to 
come  in  and  determine  what  character 
of  paving  they  are  willing  to  pay  for 
or  are  willing  to  stand  for,  a proper 
business  administration  would  prescribe 
the  character  of  paving  which  the  traf- 
fic of  the  street  required,  and  insist 
upon  the  laying  of  that  class  of  pave- 
ment. But  we  have  not  that  condition, 
we  have  not  any  definite  knowledge  ex- 
cept by  the  merest  observation  of  the 
character  of  traffic  for  which  a street 
is  being  paved. 

Now,  I have  peculiarly  in  mind  the 
condition  of  pavement  in  the  ward  I 
in  part  represent,  on  Sixty-third  street. 
The  property  owners  of  the  street  ob- 
jected very  strenuously  to  being  re- 
quired to  pay  the  full  cost  of  the  pav- 
ing, alleging  that  only  a small  part  of 
the  traffic  of  the  street  either  origi- 
nated or  ended  on  it.  I took  the  mat- 
ter up  with  the  then  judge  of  the  Coun- 
ty Court.  There  was  no  data  available, 
and  His  Honor  requested  that  I make 
some  kind  of  investigation  in  order  that 
he  might  have  information  upon  which 
to  base  a reasonable  public  charge. 
The  result  of  the  investigation  was  that 
we  were  given  one  of  the  highest  pub- 
lic benefits  which  had  ever  been 
awarded, — as  I recall  it  now,  it  was  25 
per  cent.,  or  a trifle  more. 

So  much  for  that.  The  discussion  of 
this  whole  question  yesterday  and  so 
far  today  indicates  very  clearly  that 
the  members  of  this  Convention  recog- 
nize the  fact  that  the  system  which 
has  been  in  vogue  heretofore  in  Chi- 


cago has  been  unfair  and  unjust  to  the 
property  owners.  I am  peculiarly  grat- 
ified to  find  this  feeling,  because  I have 
not  only  thought  of  this  condition  for 
a number  of  years,  but  I have  been 
endeavoring  to  transmit  those  thoughts 
into  concrete  action,  and  for  the  last 
four  or  five  years  I have  hammered 
away  in  the  City  Council  and  in  the 
committee  rooms  of  the  City  Council — 
hammered  away  upon  the  proposition 
that  it  was  unfair  to  the  property  own- 
ers to  compel  them  to  build  streets  and 
the  city  to  then  allow  them  to  get  into 
disrepair,  and  then  to  compel  the  prop- 
erty owner  to  come  in  and  rebuild  those 
streets.  In  that  time,  in  season  and 
out  of  season,  I stood  for  that.  During 
that  time  the  City  Council,  largely — I 
may  say  this  without  egotism — upon 
my  initiative  put  in  a stone  crushing 
plant  at  the  Bridewell  where  is  manu- 
factured now  some  sixty  to  eighty 
thousand  cubic  yards  of  crushed  stone 
each  year  and  for  the  last  two  years 
the  City  Council  has  made  a small  ap- 
propriation— too  small — but  it  has  made 
a small  appropriation  for  the  purpose 
of  transferring  that  stone  manufac- 
tured in  the  city  quarry  on  the  streets, 
for  the  purpose  of  repairing  them.  One 
year  $35,000,  a mere  bagatelle  for  the 
beginning,  but  more  important  on  ac- 
count of  the  principle  involved  than 
on  account  of  the  money  expended; 
the  next  year  $50,000,  and  with  that 
appropriation,  small  as  it  is,  and  with 
the  use  of  the  stone,  in  the  ward  I 
represent,  at  least,  it  is  very  evident 
there  will  not  be  a necessity  for  com- 
plete repaving  as  often  as  heretofore. 

Now,  I refer  to  that  in  order  that  it 
may  be  said  when  I take  my  position 
on  the  Smulski  resolution — in  order 
that  it  may  be  understood  that  I am 
as  much  in  earnest  and  as  much  inter- 
ested in  the  merits  of  this  proposition 
as  any  member  of  this  Convention  can 
be. 

Now,  as  to  the  Smulski  proposition, 


December  19 


510 


1906 


we  want  to  consider  it  from  a practical 
standpoint.  What  is  that?  That  in- 
stead of  raising  by  special  assessment 
some  two  and  a half  million  dollars  a 
year,  two  to  two  and  a half  million, 
for  the  purpose  of  repaving  streets 
which  have  gone  out  of  repair,  we  pro- 
pose to  raise  that  sum  by  a different 
form  of  taxation,  by  a general  form  of 
taxation.  The  money,  of  course,  in  the 
last  analysis  comes  from  the  same 
source,  from  the  property  owner;  the 
only  difference  will  be  that  the  cost  is 
equally  distributed  instead  of  being 
unequally  distributed,  and  would  save 
the  cost  of  levying  special  assessments. 
But  unless  you  are  ready  now  to  pro- 
vide a tax  rate  which  shall  be  high 
enough  to  not  only  meet  the  require- 
ments of  your  general  city  government 
and  your  educational  department,  or  de- 
partments of  government,  you  have  got 
to  add  to  your  tax  rate  a percentage 
sufficient  to  raise  this  additional  money 
to  take  place  of  what  is  now  raised  by 
special  assessment.  If,  as  we  have  been 
led  to  believe,  an  assessment  of  4*4 
per  cent. — a limit  of  4*4  per  cent. — 
is  a proper  limit  to  fix,  beyond  which 
the  City  Council  shall  not  go  in  its  tax 
levy,  then  above  that  you  must  pro- 
vide for  a sum  sufficient  to  keep  these 
streets  repaired  and  repaved,  to  repair 
and  repave  these  streets. 

If  you  don’t,  you  are  up  against  this 
practical  proposition,  either  the  streets 
will  be  repaved  at  the  expense  of  other 
departments  of  government,  or  else  they 
will  not  be  paved  at  all. 

Now,  the  only  reason  that  Chicago 
has  not  been  keeping  the  streets  in  re- 
pair heretofore  has  been  because  of 
the  fact  that  taxation  was  not  suf- 
ficiently large  to  raise  a revenue  which 
would  permit.  The  theory  no  one  has 
objected  to  and  no  one  can  object  to  it. 

So  that,  bearing  in  mind  if  you  adopt 
the  Smulski  resolution,  that  at  some 
time,  whether  it  is  this  year  or  ten 
years  from  now,  as  Mr.  Raymer  sug-  I 


gests,  at  some  time  you  have  got  to 
have  a tax  rate  high  enough  to  pro- 
vide that  money  or  else  you  are  going 
to  cripple  every  other  branch  of  admin- 
istration by  using  for  street  repairs  the 
money  which  is  needed  for  the  police  de- 
partment, the  fire  department  and  for 
the  various  activities  of  government. 

Now,  there  is  another  practical  ob- 
jection to  the  Smulski  plan.  It  pro- 
vides that  after  the  first  paving  has 
been  laid  the  city  shall  repave  when- 
ever the  pavement  is  worn  out.  Now, 
the  character  of  paving  laid,  as  I have 
indicated,  is  not  always  based  upon  the 
requirements  of  that  street,  and  not 
only  is  that  true,  but  the  use  and  re- 
quirements of  paving  in  a street  vary 
as  the  conditions  of  traffic  and  condi- 
tions of  population  change.  A street 
which  may  have  been  laid  with  the 
cheapest  form  of  pavement  which  it  is 
possible  to  lay  in  the  beginning,  may, 
in  the  meantime,  become  a street  of 
great  traffic  and  require  the  most  ex- 
pensive form  of  paving. 

Now,  that  is  a legitimate  case  in 
which  the  city  will  be  required  to  lay 
a very  expensive  form  of  pavement  in 
place  of  a very  cheap  form  originally 
paid  for  by  the  property  owner.  With 
that  probability  in  mind  it  is  very  easy 
to  see  the  danger  that  property  owners, 
knowing  that  the  next  pavement  will 
be  laid  by  the  city,  through  political 
influences,  through  all  the  forms  of  in- 
fluence which  can  be  brought  upon  gov- 
ernmental matters,  will  secure  an  orig- 
inal cheap  form  of  paving,  with  the  ex- 
pectation and  intention  that  it  shall 
wear  out  in  a short  time  and  be  re- 
placed by  general  taxation  with  a char- 
acter of  pavement  which  is  better  than 
that  laid  in  the  first  place. 

Now,  the  boulevard  system  has  been 
referred  to  as  an  illustration  of  a sen- 
sible manner  in  which  a plan  of  this 
character  may  be  worked.  The  gentle- 
men who  make  that  reference,  who 
l make  that  comparison,  overlook  the 


December  19 


511 


1906 


very  important  fact  that  we  have  spe- 
cial provisions  by  which  we  levy  a spe- 
cial tax  for  the  maintenance  of  the 
boulevards,  and  the  money  required  to 
maintain  them  after  they  have  been 
laid — after  they  have  been  turned  over 
to  the  park  commissioners  is  not  ab- 
stracted from  any  general  fund,  and  is 
not  secured  at  the  cost  of  any  other 
governmental  function.  The  people  are 
directly  taxed  for  that  purpose.  If  we 
are  to  adopt  the  scheme  of  the  Smul- 
ski  resolution  we  certainly  should  go 
the  full  limit  and  provide  for  a spe- 
cial form  of  taxation  for  that  particu- 
lar purpose. 

Now,  in  comparison  with  the  substi- 
tute offered  by  Prof.  Merriam,  we  are 
all  agreed  upon  the  principle  that  the 
people  who  wear  out  the  streets,  that 
is,  the  general  public,  should  be  taxed 
with  that  portion  at  least  of  the  dam- 
age that  they  have  done  by  the  use  of 
those  streets  for  traffic  purposes.  We 
are  all  agreed  upon  that.  Now,  if  Mr. 
Merriam >s  substitute  shall  be  adopted, 
it  follows  that  it  rests  with'  the  City 
Council  to  determine  how  much  above 
50  per  cent,  the  general  fund  shall 
pay.  The  provision  is  that  it  shall 
pay  50  per  cent.  If  the  City  Council 
has  available  money  there  can  be  no 
question  but  that  with  the  sentiment 
which  exists  on  that  the  council  will 
appropriate  a larger  amount  than  that, 
and  might,  in  extreme  instances,  pro- 
vide the  full  costs.  But  if  the  Smulski 
resolution  was  statute  law,  you  could 
not  make  any  improvement  unless  the 
money  was  available  for  the  full 
amount.  Now,  under  the  Merriam  res- 
olution the  city  has  got  to  stand  for 
only  50  per  cent,  of  it  in  all  cases,  and 
can  stand  for  the  full  100  per  cent,  if  it 
has  the  funds  available.  It  is  all  very 
well  to  stand  here  and  declaim  that  the 
time  is  coming  when  Chicago  is  going 
to  have  money.  It  may  be  that  it  is. 
But  the  very  earnest  debate  that  is 
brought  out  on  this  question  is  ample 


evidence  that  the  people  of  Chicago  at 
all  times  will  hold  the  purse  string  just 
as  tight  as  they  possibly  can.  And  the 
requirements  of  the  ordinary  functions 
of  the  government  are  increasing  year 
by  year  with  greater  rapidity  than  is 
increasing  the  tax  fund  out  of  which 
those  requirements  are  met. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chai  rman,  I rise 

to  move  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
Convention  that  Alderman  Snow  be  al- 
lowed to  continue  his  remarks. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no  ob- 
jection Alderman  Snow  has  that  unani- 
mous consent. 

( Cries  of  11  Agreed.  ’ ’ ) 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  I had 

intended  to  close  at  that  point.  I do 
not  believe  that  there  is  anything  further 
that  I care  to  bring  out.  I think  every 
other  point  has  been  covered,  and  pos- 
sibly some  that  I have  attempted  to 
cover.  But  it  certainly  seems  to  me 
that  it  would  be  the  height  of  folly  for 
the  Convention  at  this  time,  to  adopt 
the  Smulski  resolution. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I fully  agree  with  the  arguments 
just  made  by  Mr.  Snow.  I would 
like  to  vote  for  the  resolution  of 
Mr.  Smulski  if  it  would  contain  two 
provisions,  one  is  that  the  amendment 
should  differentiate  from  the  time  the 
special  assessment  law  went  into  effect. 
In  other  words,  that  those  people  who 
paid  for  paving  in  the  last  five  years 
should  have  the  benefit  of  that  law.  That 
is  one. 

The  second  one  is  that  the  city  must 
first  provide  funds  out  of  which  the  pav- 
ing appropriations  could  be  met.  For 
those  reasons  I vote  for  the  amendment 
of  Mr.  Smulski,  if  those  two  provisions 
are  put  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question  on  Mr.  Smulski ’s  sub- 
stitute? As  many  as  favor  it  say  aye; 
opposed  no.  It  is  lost. 

The  next  question  is  upon  Prof.  Mer- 


December  19 


512 


1906 


riam’s  substitute  for  No.  1.  All  who 
favor — 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON : Will  you  please 

have  that  read? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Merriam ’s  substitute  to 
No.  1. 

Mr.  Merriam ’s  substitute  was  read. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  the  rules 

are  somewhat  liberal,  but  I want  to  ask 
a question.  I would  like  to  know  if  a 
motion  to  lay  the  resolution  on  the  table 
is  in  order? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  Then  I move  to  lay  on 

the  table  all  that  part  of  this  resolution 
that  follows  the  word  ‘ ‘ otherwise.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  move  to 

strike  out? 

MR.  POST : Or  lay  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  that  portion  which  Mr.  Post 
moves  to  strike  out. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  after 
the  word  1 1 otherwise.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

upon  the  question  off  Mr.  Post ’s  motion 
to  strike  out? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  You  have  that  in 

alternative  5,  that  mentions  the  amounts. 
That  is  alternative  to  5 itself.  I ask 
ion  a point  of  order  whether  it  is  in  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  alternative 

5 with  the  word  “fifty”  in. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  He  moves  to  strike 

out  all  that  part  to  make  it  identical 
with  5. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  favor 
of  Mr.  Post’s  motion  say  aye;  opposed 
no.  It  is  lost. 

MR.  SUNNY:  I would  like  to  offer 

an  amendment  to  alternative  5.  I think 
the  original  measure  is  open  to  conjecture 
as  to  whether  the  City  Council  has  the 
right  to  vary  the  percentage  with  refer- 
ence to  one  part  of  the  city  compared 
with  another,  or,  in  one  case  or  another. 
I do  not  think  it  is  the  intention  of  the 
alternative  to  5,  and  I think  that  the  City 


Council  would  be  embarrassed  by  hav- 
ing any  authority  either  real  or  imagin- 
ary to  make  percentage  different  in  one 
part  of  the  city  as  compared  with  another. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Sunny: 
Provided  that  the  percentage  of  the  cost 
of  repaving  to  be  imposed  upon  the 
contiguous  property  shall  be  uniform 
throughout  the  city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any  ob- 
jections to  this  amendment?  If  not,  all 
those  in  favor — 

MR.  LINE-HAN:  I object. 

MR.  SNOW:  If  there  is  objection,  if 

Mr.  Linehan  is  going  to  object,  I wish 
to  object.  I do  not  want  to  take  up  the 
time  of  the  Convention  all  the  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  matter  is  be- 

fore the  house  for  discussion. 

MR.  SNOW : It  seems  to  me  that  it 

is  based  upon  an  entirely  erroneous 
theory.  There  may  be,  and  is  a differ- 
ence between  the  interest  which  a prop- 
erty owner  upon  one  street  may  have  in 
an  improvement  as  compared  with  a prop- 
erty owner  upon  another.  To  illustrate 
broadly,  you  take  a quiet  residence  street 
in  which  the  only  traffic  is  the  milk  man, 
the  baker  and  the  grocery  wagon  de- 
livering to  the  people  living  on  that  street, 
and  the  interest  of  the  property  owner 
on  that  street  is  larger  in  that  prop- 
erty than  would  be  the  interest  of  the 
property  owner  on  a street  perhaps  sim- 
ilar in  character  so  far  as  residence  prop- 
erty or  buildings  is  concerned,  but  which 
is  a through  artery  of  travel,  and  which 
is  used  for  the  benefit  of  all  the  City  of 
Chicago  for  transacting  its  commerce. 
For  that  reason  there  might  very  easily 
be  a difference  in  the  value  to  the  prop- 
erty owner  for  that  pavement. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  just 

one  thought  occurs  to  me  in  connection 
with  that  proposition;  I do  not  know  that 
I entirely  agree  with  Mr.  Snow.  I know 
that  in  some  residence  neighborhoods  you 


December  19 


513 


1906 


find  one  street  nicely  paved  and  you  find 
all  of  the  rest  of  the  streets  in  the  im- 
mediate neighborhood  in  a very  bad  con- 
dition. The  consequence  is  that  every 
coal  wagon  and  every  vehicle  of  every 
kind  and  description  that  has  to  do  busi- 
ness in  that  neighborhood  uses  the  one 
well  paved  street  to  get  through. 

Now,  under  Mr.  Snow’s  proposition, 
everybody  would  get  an  equal  benefit 
out  of  this  public  benefit  fund.  If  you 
had  a well  paved  city  in  its  entirety  ob- 
jection to  the  resolution  would  be  all 
right,  but  until  you  have  a well  paved 
city  I do  not  believe  that  you  should 
discriminate. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Snow’s  amendment. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  that  that  matter  ought  to  be  left 
in  the  original  form  before  it  was  amend- 
ed. It  is  a well  known  fact  that  the 
necessity  of  paving  streets  like  Milwau- 
kee avenue  and  Blue  Island  avenue  is 
greater  than  what  it  is  in  the  case  of  the 
streets  in  a residence  portion.  For  that 
reason  f do  not  see  why  the  council 
should  not  be  in  a position  to  grant  those 
privileges  to  streets  like  Milwaukee  ave- 
nue, Halsted  street  and  Blue  Island  ave- 
nue and  give  a greater  percentage  of  the 
city ’s  money  towards  their  repair  than 
what  they  give  to  the  residence  dis- 
tricts where  the  streets  are  scarcely  used 
at  all  by  the  wagons  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. 

MR.  SHEDD:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems 

to  mo  there  is  one  point  which  has  not 
been  brought  out  in  the  discussion,  and 
that  is  the  revenue  to  be  derived  from  I 
the  street  which  is  used.  It  seems  to  me 
that  , the  rentals  accruing  from  a street 
which  is  used  as  a great  through  street 
like  Milwaukee  avenue  and  our  other  main  ; 
thoroughfares  make  the  property  much 
more  valuable  ami  much  more  able  to  pay  i 
the  tax  than  is  the  case  with  residence 
property.  1 ain,  therefore,  very  much  in 
favor  of  the  resolution.  It  is  true  that 


in  all  large  thoroughfares  throughout  the 
city,  as  I believe,  the  rental  is  far  and 
away  enough  more  to  pay  the  added  cost 
of  the  improvements  necessary  to  keep 
those  streets  in  repair,  and  I think  there 
is  hardly  any  one  in  this  room  who  is  not 
willing  to  exchange  their  property  on 
residence  streets  for  property  on  a 
through  thoroughfare  with  the  added 
rental.  For  that  reason  I am  very  much 
in  favor  of  the  amendment  offered  . by 
Mr.  Snow. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question — 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  may 

I ask  one  question  of  Mr.  Merriam  or 
Mr.  Snow:  Does  this  include  or  will  it 

include  the  present  boulevard  system  of 
the  City  of  Chicago? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I do  not  get  the 

question. 

MR.  WHITE:  As  I understand  it, 

they  are  now  maintained  out  of  the  gen- 
eral park  taxation.  Will  they  remain 
as  they  are,  or  will  this  include  the 
boulevard  systems? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Oh,  no,  this  is 

simply  affecting  the  present  special  as- 
sessment law'.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with 
that. 

All  those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Snow’s 
amendment  will  signify  by  saying  aye; 
opposed  no. 

(The  viva  voce  vote  left  the  Chairman 
in  doubt.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Burke,  Church,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; 
Eekhart,  J.  W. ; Gansbergen,  Lathrop, 
McGoorty,  O’Donnell,  Oehne,  ‘ Powrers, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Sethness,  Shedd,  Sunny, 
Swift,  Vopicka,  White,  Zimmer — 19. 

Nays  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Carey,  Cole,  Erickson,  Guerin, 
Hunter,  .Tones,  Kittleman,  Linelnin,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Rob- 
ins, Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow — 20. 

(During  roll  call.) 


December  19 


514 


1906 


MR.  POST:  I desire  to  pass  my  vote 
on  that  question,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  adopt  Mr.  Snow ’s  amendment,  the 
yeas  are  19  and  the  nays  are  20,  and  the 
motion  is  lost. 

MR.  BURKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I desire 

to  offer  an  amendment  and  desire  just  a 
moment  to  explain  it.  The  amendment, 
Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  which  I have  just  offered — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  amend- 

ment be  read  first,  please. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Burke: 

Amend  the  pending  proposition  by  in- 
serting the  word  ‘ 1 sidewalk  ’ ’ after  the 
word  ‘ ‘ street  ’ ’ wherever  the  same  ap- 
pears. 

MR.  BURKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the 

resolution  which  was  offered  by  Prof. 
Merriam  the  word  ‘ ‘ sidewalk  ’ ’ is  left 
out.  I do  not  know  whether  it  was  done 
intentionally  or  not,  but  we  have  heard 
a great  deal  concerning  the  expense  of 
damage  suite  and  the  cost  to  the  City  of 
Chicago  with  reference  to  accidents  upon 
sidewalks,  and  I therefore  offer  the 
amendment  just  read  for  the  purpose  of 
curing  what  may  possibly  be  an  over- 
sight. I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Burke ’s  amend- 
ment. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  will  you 

please  have  that  read? 

The  Secretary  re-read  Mr.  Burke ’s 
amendment. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  that  is 

open  to  the  objection  that  it  is  too  broad 
altogether.  We  have  sidewalks  in  Chi- 
cago built  of  lumber,  wooden  sidewalks, 
and  the  council  is  taking  them  out.  Cer- 
tain^ the  property  owner  should  not  put 
in  a wooden  sidewalk  and  expect  the 
city  to  come  along  and  give  him  a cement 
sidewalk  immediately. 

MR.  BURKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

answer  to  Alderman  Snow,  I desire  to 
say  that  I take  it  that  the  City  of  Chi- 


cago, unless  the  ordinance  is  violated, 
provides  for  cement  sidewalks. 

MR.  SNOW:  We  have  cinder  walks, 

have  wTe  not? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Sidewalks  was  not 

left  out  unintentionally,  but  purposely 
left  out.  Sidewalks  involves  quite  a dif- 
ferent condition  and  an  outlay  almost 
as  much  as  under  the  fifty  per  cent,  di- 
vision. The  outlay  on  sidewalks  figured 
by  the  city  under  the  special  assessment 
involves  a million  and  a half,  and  under 
the  fifty  per  cent,  division  that  would  add 
$750,000  to  the  burden  which  was  in- 
volved in  the  original  resolution.  You 
have  to  start  somewhere,  you  have  to  make 
a start,  and  that  is  all  .very  well  after 
the  city  gets  enough  money  on  hand,  if 
such  a thing  is  possible,  or  conceivable; 
then  they  can  start  out  and  pay  fifty 
per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  sidewalks.  It 
does  not  seem  to  me  under  the  present 
financial  condition  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago that  it  could  expend  any  more  than 
the  fifty  per  cent,  that  is  contemplated 
in  the  original  resolution;  there  is  an 
absolute  financial  limit  to  it. 

MR.  LATHROP : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  very  much  opposed  to  the  inclusion  of 
sidewalks  in  this  proposition.  We  all 
know  that  if  you  take  a piece  of  land 
in  the  outlying  districts  it  is  subdivided 
and  put  into  lots  for  sale,  and  the  first 
thing  done  is  to  put  in  a sidewalk.  It 
is  not  necessary  in  many  instances  to  get 
a street  in  there,  but  a sidewalk  is  ab- 
solutely essential  to  the  sale  of  the  land 
and  lots,  and  I think  we  are  opening 
up  a vista  of  expenditure  which  is  be- 
yond our  present  realization.  I therefore 
hope  that  this  resolution  will  not  pre- 
vail. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  upon 

Mr.  Burke’s  amendment,  do  you  desire  a 
roll  call? 

(A  roll  call  was  demanded.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre  - 

tary call  the  roll. 


December  19 


515 


1906 


ME.  KOBINS:  What  is  the  question, 

on  Mr.  Burke’s  resolution? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Burke’s 
amendment. 

MR.  ROBINS : No. 

Yeas — Burke,  O’Donnell,  Oehne,  Pen- 
darvis,  Powers,  — 5. 

Nays — Beebe,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Carey, 
Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart,  B. 
A. ; Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Erickson,  Gans- 
bergen,  Guerin,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty,  Merriam, 
Owens,  Post,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard, 
Snow,  Sunny,  Swift,  Yopicka,  White, 
Zimmer — 34. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  adopt  Mr.  Burke ’s  amendment, 
the  yeas  are  5 and  the  nays  are  34  and 
the  motion  is  lost.  The  Secretary  will 
read  No.  6. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  has 

alternative  to  5 been  adopted? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

(Cries  of  “no. ”) 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  We  have  had  no 

vote  yet. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Oh,  I beg  pardon. 
The  question  now  recurs  upon  the  adoption 
of  alternative  to  No.  5 as  amended  by 
Mr.  Merriam.  As  many  as  favor  it  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye — 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  be  recorded  no. 

MR.  POST:  I desire  to  be  recorded 

no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke, 
Carey,  Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eck- 
hart, B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W. ; Erickson, 
Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hunter,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Oehne, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Powers,  Revell,  Rob- 
ins, Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard, 
Snow,  Swift,  Vopicka,  White,  Zimmer 
—37. 


Nays — Beilfuss,  Post,  Raymer,  Sunny 
— 4. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  the  motion 

to  adopt  alternative  to  No.  5 in  place 
of  5,  yeas  37 ; nays  4 ; the  motion  is 
carried. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to  call 

up  Chapter  15,  which  was  deferred  until 
Revenue,  and  which  now  should  properly 
be  considered,  Chapter  15  on  streets  and 
public  places,  it  involves  the  matter  of 
compensation  for  space  below  sidewalks. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  desire  to  take 
that  up  before  finishing  the  rest  of  this 
section? 

MR  MERRIAM:  Yes;  Section  16  is 

a sort  of  a residuary  clause.  We  should 
take  up  the  specific  point  first.  I move 
the  adoption  of  No.  1 under  15. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I offered  some  reso- 

lutions last  night  that  I think  should  be 
taken  up  now  in  preference  to  the  special 
assessment  laws.  I think  they  should  be 
taken  up  now,  motions  presented  last 
night  by  me;  they  are  on  page  495. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  I understand 

you,  you  want  to  take  that  up  now?  I 
understood  you  were  to  take  that  up 
later,  that  it  was  to  be  deferred  until 
the  Revenue  Committee  reported. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I think  it  ought  to 

be  taken  up  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  Mr.  Yo- 

picka ’s  resolution  be  read. 

The  Vopicka  resolutions,  page  495, 
left  hand  column,  were  read. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  the  adoption  of  the  first  resolution, 
which  extends  the  entire  time  of  the 
bonds  which  the  city  has  the  right  to 
issue,  according  to  the  present  law,  from 
10  to  20  years.  My  resolution  offered 
was  for  this  purpose : In  case  of  a 

large  assessment  for  widening  or  for 
opening  a street,  when  the  assessment 
may  amount  to  from  five  to  fif- 
teen million  dollars,  that  that 
amount  should  be  assessed  over 
a period  of  five  years.  It  would  be 


i 


December  19 


516 


1906 


less  hard  upon  the  people  in  general.  For 
that  reason  I offer  the  resolution  that 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  have  the  right 
to  issue  bonds  for  twenty  years,  and 
then  the  property  owners  would  pay 
for  the  assessment  without  noticing  it 
in  the  taxes.  I know  that  if  you  adopt 
this  resolution  it  will  be  something 
popular,  and  it  certainly  will  be  very 
well  accepted  by  the  people  generally, 
and  will  get  more  friends  for  the  adop- 
tion of  the  charter  by  adopting  this 
resolution  than  anything  else. 

I further  move  the  adoption  of  reso- 
lution No.  2.  We  have  already  talked 
about  this  matter  and  of  course 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chairman 

would  suggest  that  the  motions  be  put 
one  at  a time. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I understood 

you  to  move  the  adoption  of  the  first 
suggestion. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Yes,  that  the  bonds 

be 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  reads  as  fol- 

lows : 

(The  Chairman  hereupon  read  the 
first  paragraph  of  Mr.  Vopicka ’s  resolu- 
tions. ) 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I wish  to  state 

further,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  bonds 
for  opening  and  widening  the  streets  are 
to  be  made  out  and  sold  before  the 
opening  is  accomplished,  because  when 
a contract  is  given  out,  the  contractors 
are  expecting  their  money,  and  unless 
you  have  money  in  the  treasury  for  the 
widening  or  the  opening  of  such  streets 
it  cannot  be  paid  out.  For  that  reason 
a fund  is  to  be  created  and  out  of  that 
fund  the  money  is  to  be  paid. 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  there  is  a good  deal  in  what  Mr. 
Vopicka  says.  I do  not  feel  qualified 
to  vote  on  this  matter  today,  however. 
And  as  the  committees  have  been  dis- 
pensed with  it  seems  to  me  that  all 
four  of  these  amendments  should  be 


referred  to  the  Committee  on  Plan  and 
Procedure,  and  they  should  come  back 
here  with  a recommendation  from  that 
committee.  As  it  is  now,  if  this  matter 
comes  to  a vote  I should  refuse  to  vote 
upon  it  because  I do  not  know  what 
the  situation  is  in  that  connection.  I 
suggest  that  Mr.  Vopicka  make  such 
a motion. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I made  a motion 

last  night,  and  the  Chairman  promised 
something  should  be  done,  but  nothing 
was  done.  For  that  reason  I call  it 
up  now.  I move  that  the  matter  be 
deferred  until  the  report  of  the  Revenue 
Committee,  for  consideration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Deferred  until 

the  report  of  the  Revenue  Committee? 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam 

calls  up  Section  15,  streets  and  public 
places. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I move  the  adop- 

tion of  Section  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam 

moves  the  adoption  of  Section  1.  The 

Secretary  will  read  section. 

(Section  1 was  read.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire 

to  have  the  alternatives  read  before  this 
is  voted  upon? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Yes,  we  would  like  to 

have  them  all  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  all  of  the  alternatives. 

(The  Secretary  then  read  the  alterna- 
tives contained  in  pages  54  and  55.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  be- 

fore the  house  is  upon  Mr.  Merriam ’s 
motion  to  adopt  No.  1.  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor the  motion  will  signify  by  saying 
aye. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I would  like  to 

have  something  to  say  upon  this  sub- 
ject. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I would  like  to 


December  19 


517 


1906 


have  something  to  say.  I would  like 
to  say  a few  words  upon  this  proposi- 
tion. Is  it  intended  by  this  section  to 
give,  for  instance,  along  the  right  of 
way  of  the  elevated  railroad,  permission 
to  have  private  entrances  to  stores  and 
places  of  business  along  the  elevated 
structure,  to  the  detriment  of  other  like 
places  of  business  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago? Every  business  place  in  the  city 
is  not  so  fortunate  as  to  be  on  the  loop, 
and  I am  opposed  to  having  public  util- 
ity corporations  given  the  power  of  the 
privilege  of  allowing  the  use  of  their 
platforms  to  act  as  feeders  of  the  stores 
alone  the  line  of  the  elevated  railroad. 
I am  opposed  to  the  power  of  the  city 
to  grant  such  special  privileges. 

Now,  if  this  section  means  that,  that 
the  City  Council  shall  have  that  power, 
it  is  a very  vicious  section.  We  do  not 
want  to  have  the  charter  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  discriminating  in  favor  of  some 
businesses  or  some  people  in  business  as 
against  the  others.  I want  to  read  it : 

‘ ‘ Provision  shall  be  made  for  enabling 
the  city  to  exact  compensation,  at  a rate 
to  be  fixed  by  general  ordinance,  for 
licensing  the  temporary  use  by  private 
parties  of  space  below  as  well  as  above 
the  level  of  the  surface  of  streets,  alleys 
and  other  public  places.  ’ ’ 

* 1 The  temporary  use,  ’ ’ what  could  be 
the  purpose  of  a temporary  use,  I can- 
not imagine.  I do  not  know  how  to 
describe  it;  to  put  a fruit  stand  on  a 
street,  would  that  be  a temporary  pse? 
To  put  in  these  runways  into  these  de- 
partment stores,  would  those  be  tempor- 
ary uses?  The  little  business  man  in 
the  City  of  Chicago  has  a hard  time 
to  exist.  The  little  business  men  are 
benefactors  of  the  people  of  the  city, 
in  the  little  communities  around  these 
small  places  of  business;  they  have  sup- 
ported the  community;  they  have  trust- 
ed the  laboring  man,  the  poor  man ; they 
have  given  him  an  account  for  groceries 
and  for  goods  in  the  butcher  shop;  they 


are  doing  a great  work  in  this  com- 
munity; and  now  let  us  not  discriminate 
against  him  in  favor  of  the  department 
store  fellow,  and  give  the  department 
store  fellow  a chance  to  have  a runway 
into  his  store  from  one  of  these  struc- 
tures— call  it  for  temporary  purposes,  or 
otherwise. 

I feel,  and  I fear,  that  this  section  as 
it  is  written  will  just  give  that  power. 
It  may  be  said  in  favor  of  it  that  there 
are  many  uses  to  which  the  streets,  the 
stub  ends  of  the  streets  and  so  forth, 
might  be  put,  that  they  could  be  utilized 
by  the  city  to  build  up  the  revenue  of 
the  city.  All  right.  But  let  it  not  dis- 
criminate in  favor  of  some  giant  busi- 
ness here  as  against  the  small  business 
man.  Probably  those  who  understand 
this  section,  probably  Prof.  Merriam  can 
explain  it  in  such  a way  that  it  may 
seem  to  be  proper.  But  I am  afraid  of 
it;  I am  afraid  to  give  that  power  to 
the  City  Council  in  this  charter. 

MR.  HUNTER:  May  I ask  you  a 
question,  Mr.  O’Donnell? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  With  pleasure. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Would  you  have  the 

same  idea  of  a bridge  going  into  a 
passenger  depot — for,  instance,  into  the 
Rock  Island  and  Lake  Shore  depot? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Yes,  sir,  I 

would  have. 

MR.  HUNTER:  It  is  a great  con- 

venience to  the  traveling  public. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I know,  but  I 

would  not  discriminate  in  favor  of  any 
of  those  people;  these  may  benefit  the 
traveling  public,  but  it  would  establish 
a precedent  that  is  wrong.  The  prece- 
dent is  wrong.  I would  not  want  to 
make  fish  of  one  and  fowl  of  the  other. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  May  I suggest,  Mr. 

O’Donnell,  if  the  precedent  is  wrong,  why 
not  classify  it?  If  the  depot  is  right 
it  should  not  be  set  out,  excluded,  if  it 
is  right. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  There  are  some 

things  that  might  be  said  in  favor  of 


December  19 


518 


1906 


the  railroad  depot;  but  all  railroad  de- 
pots are  not  ■ on  the  loop,  and  the  line 
of  distinction  is  probably  pretty  finely 
drawn  in  that  case.  But  the  same  prin- 
ciple runs  through  the  entire  matter. 

Now,  a few  days  ago  the  Supreme 
Court,  I am  glad  to  say,  condemned  this 
business  of  a venal  City  Council  get- 
ting through  their  order  here  giving  the 
department  store  the  privilege,  that  they 
knocked  out,  one  of  their  entrances;  but 
it  took  the  Supreme  Court  to  do  it.  One 
of  the  weak  points  of  this  council  has 
been  that  it  has  always  discriminated  in 
favor  of  some  rich,  powerful  fellow  that 
does  not  pay  his  taxes  in  this  commun- 
ity. 

Now,  let  not  this  Charter  Convention 
make  this  mistake  of  giving  special  privi- 
leges to  any  man.  Let  every  business 
be  entered  into  from  the  street;  let  all 
businesses  have  a chance  here,  so  that 
we  will  not  impoverish  one  portion  of  the 
city  and  make  the  other  portion  all  mil- 
lionaires, so  that  they  are  masters  here. 
These  men  have  always — I want  to  see 
some  of  those  great  enterprises  do  some- 
thing for  the  people,  the  plain  people  of 
the  City  of  Chicago,  that  have  made 
them  rich.  They  have  stopped  their 
street  cars  in  front  of  their  very  stores; 
they  could  not  go  any  further;  they  had 
to  stop  there. 

I think  this  is  a very  vicious  section, 
and  I sincerely  trust  it  wrill  get  a good 
airing  in  this  Convention,  and  that  this 
Convention  may  be  right.  I certainly 
am  opposed  to  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  POST : May  I ask  wrhether  Mr. 

O ’Donnell  is  opposed  to  the  principle 
of  the  thing,  or  whether  he  is  opposed 
to  the  language,  that  it  is  so  broad,  or 
that  the  principle  should  be  refused? 
Because  if  it  is  in  the  language  we  can 
well  regulate  that  at  some  future  ses- 
sion, when  the  form  comes  in.  I did 
not  infer  from  what  he  said — I do  not 
understand  from  what  he  has  stated 


whether  it  is  the  principle  or  the  broad 
language  that  he  objects  to. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

might  explain  very  briefly  the  purpose 
of  this  section  here;  I thought  every- 
body here  was  conversant  with  it  al- 
ready. This  resolution  is  not  to  be  con- 
ceived— it  goes  without  saying — in  a 
spirit  of  hostility  to  a rich  man  or  to  a 
poor  man,  or  the  large  storekeeper  or  the 
small  storekeeper.  It  is  offered  pri- 
marily in  the  interests  of  the  public. 
There  is  a large  space  along  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets  occupied  by  private 
users.  Also  a space  above  the  street 
level.  By  the  act  of  1905  the  legisla- 
ture authorized  the  City  of  Chicago  to 
exact  compensation  for  space  above  the 
level  of  the  streets,  for  at  least  twelve 
feet  above.  What  we  are  asking  for 
now  is  authority  to  exact  compensa- 
tion for  the  use  of  space  by  private 
owners  below  the  streets.  That  is  an 
evident  proposition,  that  the  streets 
are  public  property,  covering  not  only 
the  surface  of  the  streets,  reaching  as 
far  as  up  to  the  heavens,  but  as  far 
down  also,  as  far  as  the  equator,  as 
far  dowm  as  you  can  go.  So  that  the 
streets  cover  not  only  the  surface,  but 
the  spaces  above  and  below.  The  space 
below  and  above  is  public  property. 
That  has  never  been  disputed  by  any 
one,  as  far  as  I know.  The  only  diffi- 
culty that  has  arisen,  as  far  as  I know, 
is  that  the  courts  declare  this  space 
below  the  level  of  the  streets  and  above 
is  held  by  the  City  of  Chicago  in  trust 
for  the  State  of  Illinois.  Therefore, 
without  the  special  grant  of  power  from 
the  legislature,  it  will  not  be  possible 
for  us  to  exact  compensation  for  the 
use  of  them.  Neither  is  it  possible,  as 
I understand,  under  the  existing  law, 
for  anybody  to  use  any  such  space,  or 
for  the  city  to  grant  a license  to  do  so 
temporarily  or  otherwise.  The  word 
‘ 1 temporary  ’ ’ has  no  particular  sig- 
nificance here,  because  it  will  be  im- 
possible for  the  city  to  grant  a per- 


December  19 


519 


1906 


manent  right  to  obstruct  a street,  either 
above  or  below.  It  cannot  permit  such 
a license  permanently — that  is,  other- 
wise than  temporary.  I think  if  you 
strike  out  the  word  * ‘ temporary ’ ’ the 
legal  effect  of  the  clause  would  be  pre- 
cisely the  same  as  it  is  now.  The 
broad,  general  principle  upon  which 

MR.  LATHROP:  I want  to  ask  just 

one  question:  Is  it  the  intention  that 

the  provision  means  that  the  license 
should  be  granted  to  the  abutting 
property  owners  when  it  says  11  private 
person  ?”  Will  there  be  any  objection 
to  making  that  clear,  if  that  is  the 
intention? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I should  say  the 

permit  would  be  granted  to  the  abut- 
ting property  owners.  I suppose  that 
is  the  intention. 

That  is  the  desire,  to  grant  power 
to  the  city  to  exact  compensation  for 
the  use  of  the  streets  by  private  own- 
ers below  the  surface  of  the  street. 
That  is  public  property,  and  the  public 
property  cannot  be  used  for  private 
purposes  without  paying  compensation 
to  the  city.  The  people  of  the  State 
of  Illinois  cannot  very  well  exact  com- 
pensation, therefore  if  compensation  is 
going  to  be  exacted  it  must  be  exacted 
in  the  City  of  Chicago.  If  the  people 
of  Illinois  have  this  property  held  in 
trust  for  them,  the  city  will  authorize 
it  and  we  shall  have  the  power  to  ex- 
act compensation  to  a measure  that  we 
think  is  sufficient,  and  that  will  be 
provided  by  a general  ordinance  uni- 
form in  its  character. 

MR.  HOYNE:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

further  question.  Does  this  provision 
carry  the  right  of  the  city  to  impose 
licenses  for  space  above  the  sidewalks? 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  Will  Mr.  Hoyne 

speak  up? 

MR.  MERRTAM:  Public  streets,  al- 

leys and  public  places. 

MR.  HOYNE:  Will  that  cover  side- 

walks? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Yes. 


MR.  HOYNE:  Then,  if  that  is  the 

case  I am  in  favor  of  Mr.  O ’Donnell's 
motion. 

' THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  was 

not  aware  that  Mr.  O’Donnell  had 
made  a motion. 

MR.  HOYNE:  I thought  he  made  a 

motion  to  lay  this  upon  the  table. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I did  not  make 

a motion,  Mr.  Chairman.  I thought  I 
would  allow  it  to  be  discussed,  as  I 
\yanted  to  raise  a few  objections  to  it. 

MR.  SIIEDD:  I think,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, there  are  a good  many  objections 
to  this  resolution  as  offered,  and  per- 
sonally I am  very  much  in  favor  of  al- 
ternatives—the  second  alternative  to 
No.  1.  I think  that  if  this  space  is 
allowed  to  be  used  by  any  owner,  large 
or  small,  that  compensation  should  be 
exacted  for  it.  "E  do  not  believe  there 
is  any  user  of  sidewalk  space  either 
above  or  below  the  street  level — that 
he  should  have  the  privilege  of  using 
that  space  without  paying  compensa- 
tion for  it.  The  resolution  as  it  ap- 
pears to  me — and  I think  the  question 
has  been  raised  by  Mr.  Hoyne — would 
indicate  that  the  City  Council  would 
have  the  right  to  rent  any  sidewalk 
space.  That,  I think,  would  be  very 
objectionable  in  the  clause.  I do  not 
believe  there  is  any  one  in  this  Con- 
vention who  would  desire  the  City 
Council  to  have  the  privilege  of  rent- 
ing sidewalk  space,  or  any  portion  of 
the  street.  Personally  I am  very  much 
afraid  that  it  might  be  construed  that 
the  City  Council  should  allow  any  one 
to  encroach  on  the  sidewalk  space,  and 
that  would  be  a very  objectionable 

feature.  I don’t  think  that  the of 

course,  persons  erecting  buildings 
should  not  be  compelled  to  place  their 
cornice  line  back  to  the  street  level. 
That  would  be  a hardship  upon  the 
property  owner  and  would  lessen  the 
enterprise  of  architects  in  erecting 
buildings.  I do  believe  that  no  other 
erection  except  such  as  might  be  ap- 


December  19 


520 


1906 


proved  by  a proper  ordinance  should 
be  allowed  over  the  sidewalk  space. 
The  streets  are  at  present  disfigured 
now  with  all  kinds  of  signs  and  disfig- 
urements. I object  to  it  very  much,  that 
the  City  Council  should  have  the  right 
to  rent  space  on  the  streets,  either 
above  or  below  the  sidewalk. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman, 

will  you  permit  a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  permit 

a question? 

MR.  SHEDD:  Yes. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  You  understand 

that  this  act  will  permit  the  city  to 
exact  compensation  for  the  surface  of 
the  sidewalk — for  space. 

MR.  SHEDD:  I so  read  it. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  The  present  law 

gives  us  the  power  to  exact  compensa- 
tion for  a space  of  twelve  feet  above, 
and  this  adds  to  that  the  power  to  exact 
compensation  for  the  space  below  the 
surface  of  the  street. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  all  the 

difference. 

MR.  SNOW:  I do  not  think is 

Mr.  Shedd  through? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  through, 
Mr.  Shedd? 

MR.  SHEDD:  I should  have  some 

hesitation,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  voting  up- 
on this  question,  because,  as  is  well 
known  in  this  Convention,  I have,  you 
might  say,  a direct  financial  interest. 

I would  be  voting  in  one  sense  against 
myself  by  voting  for  compensation,  al- 
though I believe  in  it.  I believe  com- 
pensation should  be  exacted;  and  I also 
believe  in  the  right,  if  it  should  be  dele- 
gated to  the  City  Council,  to  remedy 
the  evils  of  old  subdivisions  in  this 
city.  This  city  was  subdivided  by  real 
estate  agents  years  ago  who  had  little 
idea  of  the  future  growth  and  needs 
and  interests  of  the  users  of  space.  If 
the  City  Council  did  not  have  the  right 
to  grant  the  powers  as  indicated  es- 
specially  by  the  second  alternative  to 
No.  1,  it  would  really  limit  the  progress  I 


of  business  in  this  city  to  a very  serious 
extent,  and  in  a way  which  I do  not  be- 
lieve this  Convention  is  ready  to  do. 
It  is  a fact,  and  I believe  that  every 
man  in  this  Convention  is  anxious  to 
see  every  business  in  this  city,  whether 
large  or  small,  expand.  I do  not  be- 
lieve that  this  Convention  would  want 
to  put  its  stamp  of  approval  upon  any 
suggestion  from  any  member  of  this 
Convention  that  there  was  any  busi- 
ness, be  it  large  or  small,  which  should 
not  expand,  and  expand  naturally.  I 
believe  that  if  there  is  no  constitution- 
al objection,  you  understand there 

will  be  some  difficulty  to  getting  even 
the  city  the  right  to  rent  space,  but 
it  has  been  done.  I hope  and  believe 
it  is  for  the  best  interests  of  the  city 
to  continue  to  do  it,  and  I believe  that 
every  user  of  such  space  should  be 
compelled — not  that  the  council  may 
have  the  privilege — but  they  should  be 
compelled  to  exact  compensation  for 
every  such  space.  I therefore  move, 
Mr.  Chairman,  as  a substitute  for  Mr. 
Merriam ’s  motion  that  the  second  al- 
ternative to  No.  1 be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shedd 

moves  as  a substitute  the  adoption  of 
second  alternative  to  No.  1,  and  the 
Secretary  will  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  second  alterna- 
tive to  No.  1,  as  it  appears  on  page  55 
of  the  printed  proceedings. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I was 

not  here  last  evening  and  I only  read 
hastily  in  the  papers  what  was  said 
here,  but  in  view  of  the  fact  that  my 
friend,  Mr.  Shedd,  and  my  friend,  Mr. 
O ’Donnell,  joined  together  and 
knocked  out  something  that  was  intro- 
duced by  my  friend,  Mr.  Merriam,  I 
would  like  to  inquire  what  has  become 
of  the  minority  and  majority  of  this 
Convention.  I don ’t  see  just  exactly 
where  it  comes  in.  It  seems  to  me 
we  are  all  getting  together,  and  I hope 
before  we  have  finished  that  Mr.  Shan- 


December  19 


521 


1906 


ahan,  my  friend,  and  myself  will  agree 
on  municipal  ownership. 

ME.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Snow. 

ME.  MEERIAM:  Mr.  Chairman, 

will  you  permit  me  to  ask  a question. 
Will  you  yield  the  floor  (addressing  Mr. 
Snow.) 

MR.  SNOW:  Yes. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I will  say,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  I am  willing  to  accept 
Mr.  Shedd ’s  suggestion  of  the  adoption 
of  second  alternative  to  No.  1.  It  is 
substantially  the  same  as  I moved  and 
I am  willing  to  accept  it. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  before 

Mr.  Merriam  accepts  that  alternative 
I would  like  to  suggest  that  the  first 
proposition  definitely  limits  that  use  to 
a temporary  use  in  order  that  the  city 
may  take  that  use  away  at  any  time 
it  interferes  with  public  interest.  The 
alternative  simply  provides  for  the 
space,  and  there  is  no  provision  there 
whether  that  may  be  made  permanent 
or  otherwise.  But  I am  inclined  to 
think  that  Mr.  Shedd  would  be  satis- 
fied with  the  first  proposition  if  he  was 
entirely  clear  that  it  did  not  include 
the  right  to  rent  the  surface  of  the 
street  or  sidewalk. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN : For  what  pur- 

pose do  you  rise? 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I want  to  ask 

the  gentleman  a question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  Alderman 

Snow  yield  to  a question? 

MR.  SNOW : Certainly. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Isn’t  that  fixed 
in  the  ordinances,  the  details  as  to  how 
long  you  are  to  rent  it? 

MR.  SNOW : It  can  be  fixed,  it  is 

fixed  now  in  the  contracts  we  have 
made,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be 
desirable  to  incorporate  in  the  organic 
law  the  principle  that  that  use  is  not  to 
be  made  permanent. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  May  I ask  Mr. 


Snow  a question?  The  drafter,  as  I 
understand,  of  all  these  resolutions  con- 
templated that  private  use  shall  give 
way  to  public  necessity  or  public  de- 
mand of  any  kind.  Now,  with  that  un- 
derstanding of  the  drafters,  I would 
suggest  that  the  law  itself  prescribed 
and  reserved  that  right  in  the  city. 
I understand  Mr.  Shedd  contemplates 
that  reservation  of  authority  to  the 
city. 

MR.  SNOW : I think  it  meets  the 

approval  of  all  who  favor  that  proposi- 
tion. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  Alderman  Snow  a 
question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  yield  to 

a question,  Alderman  Snow? 

MR.  SNOW:  Yes. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Isn’t  it  a fact  that 

all  of  these  ordinances  contain  a pro- 
vision that  they  can  be  revoked  by  the 
will  of  the  mayor,  every  one  of  them? 

MR.  SNOW:  The  ordinance  is  made 

so  at  the  present  time — yes.  I do  not 
consider  that  is  a very  important  mat- 
ter one  way  or  the  other,  but,  Mr. 
Chairman,  there  is  just  one  thing  I 
want  to  say: 

This  body  is  a deliberative  body,  se- 
lected, presumably,  because  of  charac- 
ter and  capacity,  and  because  of  their 
interest  and  ability  to  meet  and  grap- 
ple with  the  questions  which  are  of 
importance  in  framing  a new  charter 
for  Chicago.  It  is  a body  which  will 
accomplish  better  results  by  fairness, 
decency  of  statement  and  fair  treat- 
ment to  each  other.  Members  of  this 
body  come  from  various  public  bodies 
selected  by  those  bodies  because  of 
their  capacity,  and  it  comes  with  ex- 
ceeding poor  grace  for  any  member  of 
this  Convention  to  use  intemperate  and 
abusive  language  in  speaking  of  a body 
which  is  represented  in  this  body.  It 
strikes  me  that  an  attempt  on  the  part 
of  one  member  to  covertly  criticise 
members  of  another  body  ought  to  re- 


December  19 


522 


1906 


'fleet  rather  upon  the  intelligence  and 
fair  play  of  the  man  making  the  at- 
tempt than  to  the  discredit  of  the  body 
criticised. 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  we 

have  been  very  generous  in  permitting 
discussion  on  this  matter 

MR.  WHITE:  Louder,  please. 

MR.  REYELL:  The  Chairman  has 

been  very  generous  in  permitting  dis- 
cussion of  this  matter  without  a direct 
motion.  I see  none  of  these  alterna- 
tives that  exactly  fit  my  view  of  this 
matter. 

I would  like  to  say  that  I rather  in- 
cline toward  Mr.  O’Donnell’s  view  re- 
garding special  privileges.  It  seems 
to  me  that  if  we  are  all  kept  within  the 
line  of  the  street  which  belongs  to  the 
property  owner  and  belongs  to  the  City 
of  Chicago  we  would  all  be  better  off. 
We  all  want  special  privileges  when 
we  can  get  them.  And  so  far  as  the 
space  below  the  sidewalk  is  concerned 
it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a mistake 
to  permit  any  more  than  a small  charge 
for  that  space  until  such  time  as  the 
public  would  want  it  for  the  general 
uses  of  the  public. 

If  you  do,  you  will  meet  with  this 
objection:  There  are  large  portions  of 

the  city,  mainly  your  through  streets, 
such  as  Halsted,  Milwaukee  avenue  and 
Archer  avenue  and  South  State  street, 
where  the  space  below  the  sidewalk  is 
not  worthy  of  the  taking  out  the  soil 
which  is  there  and  the  soil  will  be  left 
there  and  whenever  the  city  shall  come 
to  the  time  that  it  will  want  to  use  this 
space  they  will  find  that  they  can  use 
one  block  and  for  three  blocks  they 
will  not  be  able  to  use  it  unless  the 
city  takes  the  soil  out  itself. 

Now,  why  would  it  not  be  better  for 
the  city  to  make  a nominal  charge  for 
the  space  beneath  the  sidewalk,  en- 
courage the  property  owners  when  they 
are  building  all  over  the  city  to  take 
the  dirt  out  from  beneath  that  side- 
walk and  put  it  in  such  shape  that  it 


can  be  used  by  the  city,  but  reserve  to 
the  city  the  right  to  come  in  and  use 
that  space,  as  it  should  have  that  right 
at  all  times?  I think  it  a very  serious 
mistake,  because  if  you  will  go  back 
to  the  records  you  will  find  that  the 
amount  received  by  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago today  as  compensation  for  such 
use  is  practically  infinitessimal;  and 
I know  of  one  very  large  concern  in 
the  downtown  district  where  they  have 
taken  out  a portion  of  the  space  under 
the  sidewalk  and  left  another  large  por- 
tion of  the  space  under  the  sidewalk, 
because  in  that  special  section  of  their 
establishment  under  the  sidewalk  they 
did  not  want  the  use  uf  that  space  and 
did  not  care  to  pay  for  the  demands  of 
the  City  of  Chicago. 

Now,  I think  you  have  a chance  here 
to  make  a serious  mistake  by  action 
upon  this  matter  today.  I thoroughly 
sympathize  with  Mr.  O’Donnell  in  the 
position  he  takes  regarding  special 
privileges,  regarding  bridges  extending 
from  elevated  platforms  into  the  stores 
of  any  one  in  the  City  of  Chicago.  Not 
only  because  we  grant  to  that  store  a 
special  opportunity  to  get  at  the  pub- 
lic, but  because  it  litters  the  streets 
of  the  City  of  Chicago,  streets  that  we 
ought  to  hold  as  cleanly  and  as  bright 
as  we  can  possibly  can  hold  them.  I 
know  that  it  will  not  always  be  possi- 
ble for  us  to  have  our  streets  as  clear 
and  clean  as  State  street,  but  it  is 
possible  for  us  to  draw  the  line  some- 
where. And  even  so  far,  gentlemen, 
as  the  depots  are  concerned,  I see  no 
great  harm  to  the  people  landing  upon 
an  elevated  platform  and  going  down 
the  stairs  under  a covered  canopy  with- 
in what  could  be  eight  feet  from  the 
foot  of  the  stairs  and  that  canopy, 
eight  feet  of  space  between  the  foot 
of  that  stairs  and  the  entrance  to  the 
depot.  That  would  be  all  that  the  pub- 
lic would  have  to  put  up  with  in  the 
way  of  running  against  the  weather 
conditions.  I am  against  special  privi- 


December  19 


523 


1906 


leges,  and  I am  in  favor  of  a nominal 
charge  for  space  under  the  sidewalks 
because  I believe  you  are  going  to  do 
a very  great  harm  to  the  future  needs 
of  the  city  if  you  permit  the  matter 
to  go  as  I have  suggested  and  I know 
it  is  going  that  way  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  today. 

MR.  SHEDD:  Mr.  Chairman,  speak- 

ing to  my  motion,  my  reason  for  desir- 
ing the  adoption  of  alternative  to  No. 

1 is  that  I do  not  suppose  that  this 
Convention  knows  how  limited  the  num- 
ber of  spaces  are  that  are  paid  for  under 
the  sidewalks  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  I 
am  not  positive  in  this  statement,  but  I 
believe  that  no  compensation  is  exacted 
for  the  use  of  sidewalk  space  in  the  City 
of  Chicago  except  in  such  cases  where 
new  improvements  have  been  inaugurated 
by  the  owners  of  the  real  estate  and  the 
necessity  of  making  these  excavations 
has  given  the  opportunity  to  exact  il- 
legal compensation. 

Now,  I believe  it  is  very  unwise  for 
the  city  to  be  obliged  to  remain  in  that 
position.  They  are  in  the  position  that 
they  are  exacting  illegal  compensation. 
Now.  as  I said,  I am  not  in  favol*  of 
illegal  compensation,  and  while  I am 
in  favor  of  compensation,  I want  some 
definite  plan.  I do  not  want  any  man 
to  pay  compensation  that  is  not  exacted 
of  another  under  like  circumstances  all 
through.  Now,  I say,  let  us  be  very 
careful  about  this  matter.  Let  us  de- 
mand that  compensation  shall  be  ex- 
acted not  for  any  particular  space  used, 
but  for  all  or  any  space  used  under  t he 
sidewalks  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  I 
think  if  you  examine  into  the  matter, 
gentlemen,  you  will  find  that  there'  are 
about  four  instances  where  the  City  of 
Chicago  is  exacting  nominal  compensa- 
tion, and  they  are  not  to  blame  for  it; 
the  <’ity  of  Chicago  is  not  to  blame  for 
it,  but  it  is  due  to  the  conditions  exist- 
ing at  the  present  time,  and  it  will  con- 
tinue as  long  as  this  sidewalk  space  is 


used  as  it  has  been  for  the  last  forty 
years.  The  first  house  that  I occupied 
in  the  City  of  Chicago  had  a coal  space 
from  the  sidewalk  to  the  house  line,  and 
1 used  it  for  the  storing  of  my  coal. 
That  was  thirty-five  years  ago,  perhaps, 
and  I say  to  you  now  that  I believe 
in  compensation,  but  I believe  in  exact- 
ing it  on  some  well  defined  lines  so  that 
the  City  Council  will  not  have  to  blow 
hot  in  one  place  and  cold  in  another; 
and  that  they  shall  exact  that  compen- 
sation, and  I think  it  would  be  very 
unwise  for  this  Convention  to  pass  any 
resolution  authorizing  this  Convention  to 
go  to  Springfield  with  any  other  plan, 
and  I hope  that  my  substitute  will 
pass. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  the 

question  is  upon  Mr.  Shedd’s  motion  that 
the  second  alternative  to  No.  1 be  sub- 
stituted for  the  motion  of  Prof.  Mer- 
riam.  Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I have  not 

spoken  on  this  question.  Now,  some- 
thing has  been  said  that  points  directly 
to  myself.  It  may  be  that  in  the  heat 
of  debate  or  the  feeling  that  I have, 
that  I have  said  something  that  the 
gentleman  who  represents  the  City  Coun- 
cil here  has  not  taken  in  the  spirit  I 
intended.  But  I feel  strongly  for  the 
City  of  Chicago.  My  son ’s  grandfather 
came  herein  1836,  and  he  voted  for  the 
first  mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  I 
love  Chicago.  I came  here  when  a small 
child  myself,  and  I worked  here  as  a 
boy  and  as  a man,  and  I am  grateful 
to  Chicago  for  what  it  did  for  me;  I 
am  grateful  to  the  citizens  of  the  City 
of  Chicago.  It  may  be  that  my  regard 
for  it  lias  resulted  in  my  speaking  a little 
freely;  it  may  be  that  it  has  loosened 
my  tongue  a little,  in  trying  to  guard 
its  welfare,  the  welfare  of  its  citizens 
today,  and  the  welfare  of  those  that  arc' 
to  come.  The  City  Council  is  here, 
and  it  is  here,  I suppose,  to  stay.  1 have 
only  that  criticism  to  make  of  it,  that  [ 


December  19 


524 


1906 


feel  I should  make  of  it,  not  bitterly, 
but  in  such  a way  that  we  may  not  for- 
get. The  gentleman  is  probably  super- 
sensitive; it  may  be  that  he  is  the  re- 
presentative of  some  particular  inter- 
est in  the  City  Council  that  is  looking 
after  the  welfare  of  the  citizens  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  and  I am  sure  that 
any  investigations  that  may  be  pending, 
when  it  has  the  truth,  will  not  affect  the 
gentleman,  but  will  show  he  is  just  as 
sincere  as  I am  and  just  as  capable  of 
looking  after  the  affairs  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  as  I am. 

But  I want  to  say  this,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  I will  still  hold  the  right, 
.according  to  my  judgment  and  dictates 
of  my  conscience,  to  say  on  this  floor 
of  the  Convention,  in  plain  and  unvar- 
nished language,  what  I think  the  City 
of  Chicago  deserves  and  merits  at  the 
hands  of  not  the  rulers  or  the  governors 
of  its  people,  but  at  the  hands  of  its  ser- 
vants, as  the  City  Council  should  be. 
Their  object  should  be  not  for  anything 
except  to  serve  the  city  faithfully  and 
well,  so  that  when  the  people  of  the 
next  generation  or  two  take  up  the  record 
and  read  it,  they  can  say  of  them, 
“Well  done,  good  and  faithful  ser- 
vants. ’ ’ 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

wanted  to  inquire,  before  the  roll  call 
was  had,  whether  it  was  understood  that 
the  first  alternative,  which  I wish  to 
favor,  with  this  understanding,  provides 
only  for  temporary  rights  to  be  granted1? 
The  reason  I am  concerned  about  that 
is  that  I understand  that  the  plan  pro- 
vides for  the  construction  and  use  of 
subways,  and  that  should  not  be  barred 
in  any  way.  I should  have  said  the 
second  alternative,  instead  of  the  first. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shedd’s  mo- 

tion is  to  substitute  the  second  alterna- 
tive to  No.  1 all  that  definitely  excludes 
grants  of  public  utilities.  Your  proposi- 
tion is  that  the  word  1 1 temporary  ’ ’ 
should  be  in  there? 


MR.  ROBINS : Yes,  that  is  the  sense 

in  which  we  take  it,  so  that  the  drafter 
will  draw  it  in  that  form. 

MR.  SHEDD:  I think  that  is  under- 

stood; I think  the  city  has  been  pro- 
perly safeguarded  in  all  contracts  that 
they  have  made,  so  far  as  I know;  the 
city  has  the  right  to  take  it  over  at 
any  time. 

MR.  PENDARVIS : Mr.  Chairman, 

before  a vote  is  taken  upon  this  prop- 
osition there  is  something  in  my  mind 
that  I would  like  to  call  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Convention.  This  same  pro- 
position has  been  presented  to  the  gen- 
eral assembly  at  Springfield  on  one  or 
two  different  occasions,  and  I have  al- 
ways had  a hesitancy  in  supporting  the 
proposition  for  the  reason  that  it  ap- 
pears to  me  that  it  is  opposed  to  the 
theory  upon  which  the  city  holds  title 
to  the  streets  and  public  ways  in  the 
city. 

The  proposition  is  submitted  because 
a condition  exists  here,  whether  it  be 
legal  or  not,  and  that  because  it  exists 
some  revenue  should  be  obtained  from 
it.  Now,  it  occurs  to  me  that  it  is 
questionable  whether  we  qught  to  recog- 
nize that  fact  by  a charter  provision, 
and  wThether  or  not  the  revenue  to  be 
obtained  from  these  concessions,  or  li- 
censes, should  be  sufficient  to  justify  or 
warrant  us  in  departing  from  the  legal 
principle  or  theory  upon  which  the  city 
holds  title  to  the  streets  and  alleys. 

In  other  words,  are  we  going  to  re- 
cognize the  fact  that  this  condition  is 
always  to  continue  and  be  made  a source 
of  revenue  without  any  limitation  what- 
ever upon  the  power  of  the  council  as 
to  the  extent  to  which  it  can  exercise 
the  power  conferred? 

In  other  words,  the  city  holds  title 
to  the  streets  or  alleys  not  for  the  pur- 
pose of  obtaining  revenue  therefrom,  but 
for  the  public  at  large  and  for  such 
uses  as  may  be  considered  public  in 
their  character.  Now,  it  seems  to  me  we 


December  19 


525 


1906 


ought  to  hesitate  before  we  depart  en- 
tirely from  that  theory  of  the  law,  with- 
out imposing  any  limitations  whatever 
upon  the  power  of  the  council.  It  may 
be  that  it  will  never  be  exercised  in  a 
way  that  is  prejudicial  to  the  public 
at  large,  or  to  the  correct  theory  of  the 
use  of  the  streets  and  alleys;  but  it  is 
equally  true  that  it  could  be;  and  there 
is  no  limitation  whatever  in  the  proposi- 
tion as  it  is  stated  upon  that  power. 

Now,  I have  heretofore  in  my  attitude 
upon  questions  and  propositions  coming 
before  the  Convention  attempted  to  take 
what  I believe  to  be  a conservative  posi- 
tion. I believe  we  want  nothing  in  this 
charter  that  is  not  conservative  and  that 
will  not  appeal  to  the  people  as  being 
for  the  best  interests  of  the  people;  and 
the  question  that  makes  me  doubtful  now 
as  to  this  proposition  is  whether  or  not 
the  revenue  to  be  obtained  from  this 
source  is  sufficient  to  justify  us  in  tak- 
ing the  position  that  we  should  confer 
upon  the  city  the  power  to  license  and 
use  the  streets  and  alleys  upon  and  be- 
low the  surface,  without  compensation. 

I submit  that  the  proposition  as  stated 
contains  no  limitation.  Prof.  Merriam 
tells  me  that  we  have  it  above  now;  but 
this  proposition  as  stated  does  not  recog- 
nize the  limitations  that  are  in  the  law 
as  at  present  contained ; it  recognizes 
no  limitations  whatever,  and  it  seems 
to  me  before  we  adopt  the  proposition  as 
broadly  as  it  is  stated  here,  we  ought 
to  look  into  it  further  and  consider 
whether  or  not  some  limitation  should 
be  placed  upon  the  power  we  are  to 
confer  upon  the  City  Council. 

MR.  JONES:  In  order  that  we  have 

no  ambiguity  about  the  temporary  use, 

I would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Shedd  if  he 
would  be  willing  to  insert  the  word 
1 ‘ temporary  ’ ’ before  the  word  ‘‘  users’’ 
in  the  first  line,  which  reads  1 1 temporary 
users  of  space.  ’ ’ 

MR.  SHEDD:  I would  be  glad  to 
do  so. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  li question.  ’ ’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  fa- 

vor the  adoption  of  Mr.  Shedd ’s  reso- 
lution, signify  by  saying  aye — the  adop- 
tion of  Mr.  Shedd ’s  motion  to  substi- 
tute, signify  by  saying  aye. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Do  you  want  a 

roll  call?  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll  upon  Mr.  Shedd ’s  motion  to  sub- 
stitute the  second  alternative  to  No. 
1 for  the  first  alternative  to  No.  1 and 
No.  1,  and  the  other  alternatives. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Burke,  Carey,  Church,  Cole,  Dixon, 
G.  W.,  Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen, 
Hunter,  Jones,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Mc- 
Goorty,  Merriam,  Owens,  Post,  Raymer, 
Robins,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Sunny, 
Swift,  Yopicka,  Werno,  White,  Zimmer 
—30. 

Nays— Brown,  Eekhart,  J.  W.,  Hoyne, 
O’Dojinell,  Revell — 5. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  POST:  This  is  on  the  amend- 

ment offered  by  Mr.  Shedd? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST : I vote  no.  I mean  the 

amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Jones? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  JONES:  Which  was  accepted. 

MR.  POST : Then  I vote  aye. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  be  recorded  as  voting  aye. 

MR.  BURKE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  be  recorded  as  voting  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Shedd ’s 
motion  to  adopt  the  second  alternative 
to  No.  1,  in  substitute  to  that  section, 
the  yeas  are  30  and  the  noes  5,  and  the 
motion  is  carried. 

The  Secretary  will  read  No.  G. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I ask 

for  information.  What  constitutes  a 

quorum  in  this  body? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 


December  19 


526 


1906 


ME.  WHITE:  What  constitutes  a 

quorum?  what  should  constitute  a quor- 
um? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  rules  are 

silent  upon  the  subject. 

MR.  POST:  I beg  pardon.  Roberts' 

Rules  of  Order  govern  this  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

look  at  Roberts'  Rules  of  Order  then. 

When  there  is  no  rule,  it  consists  of 
the  majority.  The  Chair  desires  to  state 
that  there  are  one  or  two  members  of 
the  Convention  in  the  adjoining  room. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have 

spent  a good  deal  of  time  now,  and  in 
the  absence  of  a quorum  I move  an 
adjournment. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I rise  to  a point 

of  order.  We  have  got  a quorum  pres- 
ent. If  necessary  we  can  have  a roll 
call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  there  be  a 

call  of  the  house  to  ascertain  whether 
there  is  a quorum  present. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Is  it  necessary  to 

take  up  that  time?  I move  we  proceed 
with  the  transaction  of  business.  The 
Chair  has  already  called  upon  the  Secre- 
tary to  read  No.  6 

MR.  RAYMER : There  is  no  ques- 

tion about  a quorum  present. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Let  us  proceed  to 

the  transaction  of  business. 

MR.  POST : I understand  there  are 

38  members  present.  I withdraw  my 
motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  6. 

THE  SECRETARY : No.  6,  on  page 

64.  No.  6,  Section  10,  revenue. 

MR.  RAYMER : I move  this  section 

be  not  approved. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I will  ask  whether 

Alderman  Raymer  will  withhold  this 
motion  just  a moment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  The  principles 

contained  in  section  6 have  already  been 


covered  in  chapter  7 under  alternative 
1.  There  is  no  need  for  further  action. 
I therefore  move  that  Section  6 be  laid 
on  the  table. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I second  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  lias  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  No.  6 be  not 
concurred  in. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  What  page? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  54. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor say  aye ; opposed,  no ; motion  car- 
ried. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I rise  to  move  the 

adoption  of  No.  7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam 

moves  the  adoption  of  No.  7. 

MR.  REYELL:  Will  Mr.  Merriam 

kindly  explain 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Merriam  is 

about  to  do  so. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Turning  to  page 

499,  you  will  find  the  text  of  the  con- 
stitutional amendment  under  which  the 
charter  is  being  drawn  up,  about  half 
way  down — about  two-thirds  of  the  way 
down  on  the  page.  Among  other  things 
the  general  assembly  has  authority  to 
provide:  1 ‘For  the  assessment  of  pro- 

perty and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes 
within  said  city  for  corporate-  purposes 
in  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
equality  and  uniformity  prescribed  by 
this  constitution ; and  may  abolish  all 
offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall  be 
otherwise  provided  for. ' ’ 

This  No.  7,  which  has  just  been  read 
by  the  secretary,  merely  provides  for  in- 
corporation in  the  City  Charter  of  this 
grant  of  power  specifically  authorized  by 
the  constitutional  amendment  of  1904. 
The  makers  of  the  amendment  having  de- 
sired that  the  City  of  Chicago  should 
have  that  power,  that  is  among  the  few 
things  they  did  enoumerate  as  being  de- 
sirable to  incorporate  in  an  instrument 
of  city  government. 

About  five  lines  above  that  you  will 
also  find  in  regard  to  the  limit  of  the 


December  19 


527 


1906 


debt  of  the  city.  The  debt:  “in  its  ag- 

gregate not  exceeding  5 per  centum  of 
the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property 
within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  state  or  mu- 
nicipal purposes  previous  to  the  incur- 
ring of  such  indebtedness.  ’ ’ 

That  section  contains  a second  recog- 
nition of  the  fact  that  the  framers  of 
the  constitutional  amendment  desired  to 
have  incorporated  in  the  charter,  power 
for  the  city  to  provide  a system  of  col- 
lection and  assessment  of  its  own.  As 
a matter  of  fact  the  city  did  have  such 
a system  of  assessment  for  a number 
of  years  prior  to  the  act  of  1872,  and 
about  1867  or  1873,  I believe  it  was,  we 
had  a system  of  city  assessment  and  city 
collection  of  taxes.  When  the  city 
adopted  the  act  of  1872  and  gave  up  its 
old  special  charter  and  came  under  the 
operation  of  the  general  law,  then  it 
gave  up  the  special  privileges  they  de- 
sired of  providing  a system  of  assess- 
ment and  collection  of  their  own.  It 
was  evident,  of  course,  that  such  power 
in  a municipality  is,  under  certain  cir- 
cumstances, highly  desirable.  It  is  a 
fundamental  fact  in  regard  to  the  reven- 
ue system — any  system,  that  the  city 
should  have  control  over  the  value  of  the 
property.  It  is  hard  to  conceive  how 
a theory  giving  a revenue  system  to  a 
municipality  can  be  operated  when  you 
take  away  the  power  from  the  city  to 
value  its  own  property  and  collect  the 
taxes  levied  on  its  own  property.  It 
would  be  like  erecting  a building  and 
taking  away  the  foundation  from  under 
it.  You  have  no  foundation  for  a 
revenue  system  unless  the  city  has  the 
power  to  assess  property  and  collect  the 
taxes  upon  it,  because  taxation  is  the 
backbone  of  the  revenue  system  and  the 
backbone  of  the  city  is  valuation.  It 
is  not  so  much  a matter  of  rate  but  the 
power  to  control  valuation.  As  an  ex- 
ample of  this,  you  have,  for  instance,  in 
the  city  of  New  York:  When  they  de- 


sired to  construct  the  subway  or  inter- 
borough railway  system  it  had  no  money; 
they  were  up  to  the  debt  limit.  They 
therefore  searched  about  for  a way  to 
get  money  to  provide  for  those  neces- 
sary improvements.  It  could  be  got  no 
other  way,  and  they  therefore  decided 
to  increase  their  valuation  by  a hori- 
zontal raise.  They  increased  the  valua- 
tion of  the  property  in  New  York  about 
one  billion,  seven  hundred  million  dollars 
in  four  years,  but  at  the  same  time,  of 
course,  they  decreased  their  tax  rate  cor- 
respondingly. They  were  not  raising 
any  more  money  than  before,  but  they 
had  increased  the  valuation  upon  which 
the  debt  of  the  City  of  New  York  was 
calculated.  If  it  were  so  desired,  and 
wTe  had  the  power  in  this  city,  we  could 
also  raise  the  valuation  at  any  time  it 
was  thought  fit.  If  it  Avere  necessary 
we  could  raise  it  or  lower  it  as  we  be- 
lieved necessary  in  the  discretion  of  the 
city.  This,  then,  would  be  an  important 
addition  to  the  power  that  the  city  now 
possesses.  This  would  not  necessarily 
involve  a duplicate  assessment.  Some  of 
you  may  be  inclined  to  think  that  we 
had  two  sets  of  assessors,  a city  assessor 
and  a county  assessor.  This  may  or  may 
not  be,  but  it  is  not  an  essential  part  of 
the  system.  A city,  if  it  thought  fit, 
would  duplicate  existing  taxing  machin- 
ery, if  it  wanted  to.  What  it  is  more 
likely  to  do  is  that  it  might  put  on  a 
valuation  of  property  in  a city  limits, 
and  then  that  valuation  will  be  con- 
clusive and  inclusive  for  all  other  pur- 
poses. It  might  do  that  by  its  own 
act,  and  if  that  was  unsatisfactory  it 
might  be  done  by  agreement  with  the 
sanitary  district.  In  future,  of  course, 
the  state  tax  will  drop  out.  It  is  now 
50  cents  on  the  $100.  In  the  future  it 
is  likely  that  the  general  state  tax  for 
state  purposes  will  disappear  altogether. 
It  will  then  be  quite  possible  for  the 
city  which  had  this  power  to  take  over 
the  work  of  assessing  property  and  col- 


December  19 


528 


1906 


leeting  taxes  on  property,  either,  by  giv- 
ing to  the  property  a valuation — on  all 
property  within  the  limits  of  the  city. 

If,  as  it  has  been  said,  it  is  uncon- 
stitutional to  do  that  without  the  con- 
sent of  these  other  bodies  they  may  do 
it  with  their  consent.  There  is  a diver- 
sity of  opinion  as  to  whether  or  not  the 
city  has  the  power  to  make  a valuation 
of  its  own  and  make  that  binding  for 
sanitary  district  purposes.  There  is  good 
opinion  on  both  sides ; equally  good  opin- 
ion I think  on  both  sides  on  that  point. 
There  could  be  no  question,  however,  that 
they  could  do  this  by  arrangement  with 
the  other  bodies  if  they  saw  fit.  The 
counties  want  to  get  rid  of  assessing 
property,  and  they  want  to  transfer  it 
to  the  city — to  the  government  of  the 
city.  We  are  dealing  for  a long  time 
ahead. 

It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  it  is 
desirable  to  include  in  the  charter  a 
specific  grant  of  power  given  by  the 
state  under  the  constitutional  amend- 
ment. That  is  a part  of  the  charter 
proposition  for  which  many  of  us  fought, 
and  for  which  the  City  of  Chicago  con- 
tributed a large  sum  of  money;  it  is  a 
proposition  which  we  demand  from  the 
State  Legislature — or  request,  rather. 
We  have  spent  a large  sum  of  money  in 
order  to  get  it,  and  it  would  be  a queer 
position  to  take,  that  having  got  this 
amendment  which  cost  so  much,  we 
should  refuse  to  insert  the  very  things 
in  the  charter  which  we  asked  for  in  the 
charter  amendment.  It  would  be  a pe- 
culiar stand  to  take. 

MR.  REVELL:  What  is  the  num- 

ber? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Seven. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I am  sorry  to  part 

company  with  my  friend  Prof.  Merriam 
on  this  proposition ; especially  so  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  we  traveled  together 
through  committee  work  all  through  the 
spring  and  summer,  and,  practically, 
thus  far  throughout  the  considerations  of 


this  Convention.  But  this  question  we 
parted  company  on  in  the  beginning  of 
last  spring,  and  we  still  seem  to  be  far 
apart.  We  both  consider  it  an  impor- 
tant matter;  we  both  take  decided  op- 
posite views. 

This  simply  means  in  its  logical  con- 
clusion, at  least,  one  more  assessing 
tribunal,  and  followed  out  to  its  logical 
end  another  assessment  tribunal,  and  a 
separate  collection  tribunal  for  every 
municipality  within  the  boundaries  of 
Cook  County,  and  especially  within  the 
boundary  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
One  for  the  County  of  Cook;  one  for 
the  State  of  Illinois;  one  for  the  sani- 
tary district,  and  one  for  the  City  of 
Chicago — that  many,  at  least.  True, 
thig  was  put  in  the  constitutional 
amendment  that  this  power  might  be 
granted  by  the  legislature.  I do  not 
know  why  that  was  put  in  there,  un- 
less it  was  for  the  manifest  reason  that 
some  future  time  in  the  evolution  of 
legislation,  in  putting  this  great  mu- 
nicipality upon  a simple  and  consoli- 
dated basis,  the  county,  and  the  city, 
and  the  sanitary  district  would  all  be 
consolidated  into  one  municipality,  and 
then  this  power  of  electing  and  consti- 
uting — of  electing  a city  assessment 
tribunal  and  a collector  for  the  collec- 
tion of  the  general  taxes  within  that 
territory  might  be  constituted.  I can 
see  no  other  reason  and  no  other  pur- 
pose why  this  was  incorporated  in  the 
constitutional  amendment.  Manifestly 
it  could  not  have  been  incorporated  in 
it  for  that  purpose.  Without  speaking 
at  all  on  the  constitution  and  validity 
— on  the  validity  of  this  suggestion,  I 
desire  to  speak  just  a moment  upon  its 
merits.  Before  that,  however,  I re- 
spectfully call  the  Convention’s  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  the  law  committee 
has  rendered  an  opinion  that  it  was  of 
doubtful  validity. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Not  this  propo- 

sition. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes. 


December  19 


529 


1906 


MR.  MERRIAM:  It  was  never  ap- 

proved. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  This  same  propo- 

sition, except  they  changed  a phrase 
a little  bit.  It  is  this  proposition:  The 
proposition  is  to  create  an  assessing 
tribunal  for  the  City  of  Chicago,  sep- 
arate and  apart  from  the  assessing  tri- 
bunals we  have  now  for  all  of  the  tax- 
ing authorities  within  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois. It  proceeds  on  the  assumption, 
perhaps,  that  some  other  municipality 
within  this  neighborhood  lias  an  assess- 
ment tribunal  of  its  own.  That  is 
wrong.  Our  present  assessing  tribunal 
is  in  the  creation  of  the  state.  True, 
its  powers  are  defined  and  limited  to 
the  territory  within  Cook  County.  But 
it  is  not  a Cook  County  assessment  tri- 
bunal; it  is  simply  a function;  a de- 
partment of  the  government  of  the 
State  of  Illinois,  and  is  no  more  a coun- 
ty assessing  tribunal  than  is  the  judi- 
ciary of  this  county,  our  circuit  court, 
our  superior  court  a county  department, 
or  purely  county  officials.  They  are 
simply  departments  of  the  state.  So 
that  the  county  has  no  assessing  tri- 
bunal; the  sanitary  district  has  no  as- 
sessing tribunal;  the  City  of  Chicago 
has  no  assessing  tribunal.  We  have 
this  one  assessing  tribunal:  The  Board 
of  Assessors,  the  Board  of  Review  sup- 
plemented by  the  State  Board  of  Equal- 
ization, created  and  provided  for  by 
the  general  laws  of  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois for  the  assessment  of  all  the  prop- 
erty within  the  County  of  Cook,  and 
within  each  of  its  subdivisions,  for  all  | 
purposes,  for  all  taxing  authorities  who 
levy  taxes  upon  any  of  the  property 
within  that  territory. 

The  only  purpose  of  this  resolution, 
the  only  purpose  of  creating  a separate 
assessing  tribunal  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago and  a separate  Board  of  Assessors, 
is  that  their  valuation  will  be  higher, 
perchance,  than  the  valuation  fixed  and 
made  by  the  assessors  now  constituted 
by  the  state  laws.  Otherwise,  if  their 


valuation  is  the  same,  we  should  have 
two  sets  of  officials  or  three,  or  four, 
or  five,  or  six,  returning  at  a great  ex- 
pense— at  that  multiplied  expense  the 
same  identical  valuation  for  the  exten- 
sion of  taxes;  so,  if  they  did  not  return 
a different  valuation  they  certainly 
would  be  of  no  use. 

Now  assume  that  the  purpose  of  this 
would  be  carried  out,  and  the  Board  of 
Assessors  for  the  City  of  Chicago  and 
the  Board  of  Asessors  of  the  State  of 
Illinois  was  as  now  constituted,  and 
they  returned  a valuation  some  per 
cent,  higher  upon  the  property  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  than  the  Board  of  As- 
sessors and  the  Board  of  Review  as  now 
constituted.  You  would  then  have  a 
number  of  property  owners  going  before 
the  assessors  of  the  City  of  Chicago  and 
ascertaining  how  much  their  assessment 
was  upon  their  homes  for  city  taxes; 
they  then  would  go  over  to  the  County 
Board  of  Assessors — if  the  tax  payer 
had  time,  and  could  get  away  from  his 
work,  and  ascertain  how  much  the  val- 
uation upon  his  home  was  for  county 
taxes.  Then  he  would  go  down  to  the 
sanitary  district  offices  and  ascertain, 
if  he  had  time  to  go  there,  how  much 
the  assessment  by  the  sanitary  district 
assessors  was  upon  his  property  for  san- 
itary purposes.  And  then  the  state — 
the  sovereignty,  if  it  refused  to  adopt 
these  subordinate  boards  of  assessors 
created  by  a subordinate  legislative 
body  for  the  assessment  of  its  property 
for  its  own  taxes,  it  would  also  create 
and  retain  its  own  assessing  tribunal 
and  it  would  have  to  go  through  it  all. 
And  why  should  not  the  school  board 
have(a  separate  assessing  tribunal,  and 
I the  parks  and  the  other  departments  of 
city  government?  Then,  after  he  had 
ascertain  ml  the  different  assessments 
he  would  find  out  his  assessment  from 
some  source  of  the  different  levies  .and 
he  would  go  to  the  county  clerk,  and  if 
lie  could  not  compute  the  taxes  himself 
I from  that  complicated  system,  he  would 


December  19 


530 


1906 


go  to  the  county  collector  and  try  to 
ascertain  how  much — or,  rather,  not  to 
the  county  clerk,  but  to  this  new  col- 
lector for  the  collection  of  city  taxes 
in  the  city  hall,  presumably.  He  would 
try  to  ascertain  how  much  his  city 
taxes  were.  And  if  he  had  money 
enough  he  would  go  to  the  county  office 
and  ascertain  and  pay  his  county  taxes; 
he  would  go  to  the  sanitary  district  and 
ascertain  and  pay  his  sanitary  district 
taxes,  and  so  on  about  town  he  would 
go,  if  he  had  time  and  money  and  ability 
to  pay  all  of  his  taxes,  unless  in  this 
loss  of  time  he  had  failed  to  accumulate 
enough  money  to  pay  his  taxes. 

There  is  no  earthly  good  accom- 
plished by  this  resolution  except  this 
one  thing  I know  of.  The  City  of  Chi- 
cago has  an  independent  board  of  asses- 
sors and  an  independent  collector. 
Now,  we  have  long  ago,  as  Professor 
Merriam  pointed  out,  departed  from 
that.  A city  assessor  was  established 
in  1872  or  1870,  and  within  one  or  two 
or  three  years  assessed  property  for 
city  purposes.  That  was  repealed  at 
an  early  date.  We  have  retained  the 
old  county  government,  and  in  the  dif- 
ferent townships,  property  was  valued 
and  assessed  by  a district  tribunal 
whose  jurisdiction  extended  only  to  the 
limits  of  that  county.  That  was  con- 
trary to  public  policy  as  conceded  by 
the  citizens  of  the  county,  and  a con- 
solidation took  place  and  the  township 
function  was  wiped  out  and  the  State 
of  Illinois  created  one  single  tribunal 
for  the  assessment  of  all  of  the  proper- 
ty of  all  of  the  citizens  in  this  com- 
mnitv. 

This  would  simply  go  back  to  the  old 
form  of  a multiple  of  assessing  tri- 
bunals with  none  of  the  virtues  of  that 
system  and  with  some  of  the  Vices  that 
that  system  did  not  have,  namely,  that 
this  would  be  worse  than  the  old  sys- 
tem, because  a single  piece  of  proper- 
ty, if  this  is  carried  to  its  logical  con- 
clusion, would  have  a variety  of  assess- 


ments placed  upon  it  and  no  man, 
whether  he  be  rich  or  poor,  whether 
he  be  a purchaser  of  a contemplated 
seller  of  property,  could  ever  forecast 
for  any  length  of  time  in  advance 
what  his  taxes  or  assessments  would  be, 
and  what  the  cost  of  maintaining  the 
machinery  in  the  assessment  and  col- 
lection of  taxes  might  be,  or  anything 
concerning  his  property  in  relation  to 
the  payment  of  his  fair  share  of  the 
public  burden. 

I do  not  care  to  take  up  the  time  of 
this  Convention  further,  Mr.  Chairman. 
It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  a distinct 
step  back  in  the  development  of  the 
laws  for  the  betterment  and  advance- 
ment of  this  municipality,  and  I sin- 
cerely hope  that  this  will  be  rejected, 
and  that  it  will  remain  rejected  until 
the  time  arrives  when  we  can  reach  for- 
ward and  ask  to  avail  ourselves  of  that 
constitutional  provision,  namely,  the 
consolidation  of  the  city,  county  and 
the  sanitary  district,  and  then  we  can 
with  propriety  ask  for  an  assessing  tri- 
bunal whose  jurisdiction  is  limited  only 
to  the  boundaries  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, that  consolidated  territory  being 
established. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I do  not  believe  I desire  to  take  up 
very  much  time  after  the  speech  of  Mr. 
Shepard,  who  went  into  this  matter 
very  thoroughly  indeed.  In  theory,  the 
idea  of  having  a city  assessor  is  very 
good,  and  would  work  probably  to  the 
advantage  of  the  City  of  Chicago;  but 
there  is  no  way  in  which  we  could  com- 
pel the  County  of  Cook  from  having 
an  assessing  board  and  coming  into 
the  City  of  Chicago  and  making  a gen- 
eral assessment  for  county  and  state 
purposes.  This  means  having  an  addi- 
tional taxing  body  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. The  great  trouble  for  a number 
I of  years  at  Springfield  has  been  that  it 
was  impossible  to  get  an  amendment  to 
the  constitution  presented  to  the  people 
I to  be  voted  upon,  because  the  people 


December  19 


531 


1906 


in  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  the  people 
outside  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  resid- 
ing in  the  County  of  Cook,  could  not 
agree  among  themselves.  The  outly- 
ing towns  in  the  County  of  Cook  were 
always  opposed  to  the  constitutional 
amendment  that  was  presented  to  the 
legislature,  and  the  constitutional 
amendment  which  was  presented  and 
passed  and  was  voted  on  by  the  people 
in  1894  was  a compromise  amendment, 
whereby  that  any  time  in  the'  future 
that  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
would  become  co-extensive  with  the 
limits  of  the  County  of  Cook,  that  then 
we  might  have  a city  assessing  body. 
I do  not  believe,  gentlemen,  that  you 
could  make  any  headway  by  putting  in 
the  charter  a provision  for  a city  as- 
sessor, and  I hope  that  that  amendment 
will  be  voted  down. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to 

ask  Mr.  Shanahan  a question:  What  do 
you  understand  to  be  the  real  meaning 
of  this  phrase,  ‘ 1 assessments  either  for 
city  or  municipal  purposes.  ” You 
were  a member  of  the  legislature,  what 
is  the  meaning  of  that? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I take  it,  if  this 

provision  was  put  in  the  city  charter 
that  an  agreement  could  be  made  with 
the  county  officials  and  with  the  sani- 
tary officials  and  the  city  officials  to  ac- 
cept valuations  made  by  the  city  board 
of  assessors,  we  would  take  the  valua- 
tion for  the  county  purposes  and  city 
purposes  and  sanitary  purposes. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  It  would  be  im- 

possible under  this  agreement. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  No,  it  would 

not  be  impossible. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Yes,  to  carry  it 

out  under  that  agreement. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  If  you  are  go- 

ing to  make  your  compromise  with 
these  other  municipalities,  I think  you 
can  make  them  with  these  municipali- 
ties. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  You  have  to  get 


the  power  before  you  can  make  a com- 
promise, first. 

MR.  SHANHAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  You  have  to  get 
the  power  first. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Certainly,  you 

have  to  get  the  power  first. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  If  you  do  not 

have  the  power,  you  cannot  negotiate; 
you  have  to  show  your  credentials. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further 

discussion  upon  the  question?  If  not, 
the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  ROBINS:  This  question  has 

been  a surprise  to  me.  I don’t  know 
whether  it  has  been  a surprise — this 
discussion  which  has  grown  out  of  this 
provision  has  been  a surprise.  I plead 
guilty  to  all  the  stupidity  necessary  to 
excuse  me  for  being  surprised,  but  I 
have  been  really  surprised.  It  seems 
to  me  this  is  one  of  the  most  important 
propositions  we  have  had  to  pass  upon. 
I do  not  feel  ready  to  pass  upon  it  at 
this  time. 

I find  an  explanation  here  apparently 
of  what  I have  listened  to  in  the  past 
three  or  four  years  without  quite  under- 
standing what  it  meant,  a thing  that 
has  always  puzzled  me,  which  is  some- 
thing I do  not  like  to  have,  but  a posi- 
tion I am  frequently  in.  I have  heard 
it  said  for  years  almost,  if  you  elect  a 
Republican  mayor,  there  will  be  plenty 
of  money  for  Chicago.  I never  quite 
understood  why  that  was  so,  but  I 
think  I now  understand  it  as  a result 
of  this  discussion  here  this  afternoon; 
that  in  other  words,  a Republican 
mayor  in  Chicago  would  be  received 
more  friendly  by  the  Republican  as- 
sessing authorities  of  Cook  County, 
there  would  be  more  money  for  city 
purposes.  That  is  my  conclusion  from 
this  discussion  here  this  afternoon. 

Now,  I think  that  one  of  the  worst 
forms  of  bad  government  is  that  form 
of  bad  government  that  results  from 
irresponsibilities.  I believe,  in  common 
with  many  other  of  my  fellow  citizens, 


December  19 


532 


1906 


that  we  have  had  occasion  to  complain 
to  the  individual  members  of  the  coun- 
cil and  various  representatives  and 
heads  of  departments  of  the  conditions 
existing  in  certain  parts  of  our  city  and 
under  certain  departments  of  the  city 
government.  At  every  point  wherever 
I have  made  complaint,  wherever  I 
have  taken  up  the  situation  I have 
found  the  claim  that  there  was  insuffi- 
cient money  to  carry  on  the  functions 
of  the  city.  I realized  that  this  was  one 
of  the  richest  cities  in  the  world;  I 
realized  that  there  was  here  business 
and  other  institutions  that  would  en- 
able this  city  to  run  its  business  in 
first  class  shape;  I haye  felt  that  until 
you  had  enough  money  in  various  de- 
partments of  the  city  government  to 
really  care  for  that  government,  you 
could  not  get  the  kind  of  responsibili- 
ty you  ought  to  have,  so  that  you  could 
carry  home  the  failure  of  that  depart- 
ment to  carry  out  its  clear  duties. 

Take  the  streets  of  Chicago,  for  just 
an  instance;  I suppose  there  is  not  any- 
body who  does  not  recognize  the  tre- 
mendous loss  of  property,  the  tremen- 
dous loss  of  general  comfort  and  health 
that  has  resulted  from  the  condition  of 
our  streets;  and  I question,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  there  has  been  any  answer 
made  more  frequently  to  the  com- 
plaints of  the  defects  in  our  city  organ- 
ization than  that,  “we  have  not  got 
the  money.  ” It  is  a proposition  I 
would  like  very  much  to  overlook,  but 
I would  like  to  know  more  about  it,  to 
give  it  more  careful  thought  before 
I vote  upon  it.  If  this  matter  is  forced 
to  the  vote  of  this  Convention  at  this 
time,  I shall  act  with  what  seems  to 
me  to  be  the  majority,  if  I can  find 
out  what  it  is;  but  it  is  something  that 
I would  like  to  take  under  considera- 
tion. I shall  vote  with  what  seems  to 
be  the  majority,  if  I can  find  it,  and 
then  move  for  a reconsideration  if  I 
find  I have  voted  upon  the  wrong  side, 
so  far  as  my  sentiments  are  concerned. 


MR.  MERRIAM:  It  would  be  pret- 

ty hard  to  ascertain  mat. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I realize  that,  from 

past  experience.  I should  like  to  know 
the  history  of  how  it  was  that  the  city 
assessment  passed  away,  and  the  county 
assessment  took  its  place.  I would  like  to 
know  what  were  the  facts  about  that.  I 
would  like  to  know  what  are  the  legal 
conditions  concerning  this  position  of  the 
city  in  making  its  own  assessment.  It 
seems  'to  me  Prof.  Merriam  has  sug- 
gested a consideration  to  each  one  of 
us,  and  we  should  be  careful  in  voting 
upon  this  matter.  I should  like  to 
know  about  this  condition  in  which  Chi- 
cago now  stands,  I should  like  to  know 
how  this  condition  in  which  Chicago 
has  been  ever  since  I have  known  Chi- 
cago— one  of  poverty,  -one  of  excuse  for 
failure  of  municipal  administration,  I 
should  like  to  know  how  that  condition 
was  reached.  It  seems  to  me  we  have 
struck  the  way  by  which  this  condition 
may  be  changed,  if  we  are  careful. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I am  going  to 
move  that  this  question  be  deferred,  if 
I can  get  a second. 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  I second  the  mo- 

tion. 

MR.  COLE:  I can  probably  en- 

lighten the  gentleman  some  on  the 
proposition  he  seeks  information  upon, 
the  manner  in  which  the  change  was 
made,  if  he  wants  me  to;  I cannot  tell 
him  how  the  change  was  made  from 
city  assessments  to  county  assessments, 
but  I can  tell  him  how  the  change  was 
made  from  township  and  other  assess- 
ments to  the  present  way.  It  is  rather 
an  interesting  history.  The  facts  of  the 
case  are  these:  We  had  introduced  bills 
upon  the  question  of  city  assessments 
time  and  time  again,  and  when  these 
bills  came  before  the  legislature  they 
were  laid  aside  session  after  session, 
and  nothing  was  done;  in  some  way  or 
other,  they  always  got  lost,  each  one 
seemed  to  meet  the  same  fate,  until 
in  1897  there  were  three  independent 


December  19 


533 


1906 


assessors  nominated,  one  from  the 
south,  one  from  the  west,  and  one  from 
the  north  side;  and  one  day — in  the 
meantime  a bill  was  before  the  legisla- 
ture to  have  a certain  system  of  as- 
sessments go  through,  which  was  being 
hindered,  and  one  day  a very  prominent 
leader  in  the  Republican  party  came 
to  me  and  said,  “‘Look  here,  Cole, 
what  are  you  fellows  trying  to  do? 
You  know  you  can’t  elect  these  fellows 
ymu  have  nominated,  and  you  will  be 
turned  down;  you  just  elect  a Demo- 
cratic assessor  and  he  will  hold  you  all 
up.”  I says,  “I  know  that  perfectly 
well;  I know  this  man  will  stop  you. 
We  may  not  be  able  to  elect  these 
men  this  year,  but  we  will  elect  them 
sooner  or  later.”  I told  him  that  there 
were  independent  candidates  running 
for  the  office  of  assessor  of  the  south 
town  and  of  the  west  town  and  of  the 
north  town,  that  they  might  not  be 
elected  this  year,  but  next  year  they 
would  be,  that  next  year  there  would 
be  independent  candidates  for  asses- 
sor in  each  one  of  those  towns,  and  that 
there  would  be  independent  candidates 
for  assessors  in  all  of  those  towns  un- 
til the  people  down  in  Springfield 
passed  a new  revenue  law,  and  that 
was  the  only  way  they  could  get  out 
of  it.  I said,  “ that  is  the  only  way 
you  will  get  out  of  it,  and  the  proba- 
bilities are  they  will  elect  Democratic 
assessors  who  will  serve  you,”  and  that 
was  done  within  a week,  and  the  bill 
was  passed. 

Gentlemen,  this  is  a very  important 
matter  and  one  that  should  be  consid- 
ered, therefore  I am  not  in  favor  of 
voting  on  the  motion  at  the  present 
time. 

I simply  wanted  to  make  this  ex- 
planation to  enlighten  Mr.  Robins  as 
to  how  this  came  about. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  “question”  and  “roll 
call.”) 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary call  the  roll. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Well,  I will  with- 

draw the  motion,  and  let  the  matter 
roll  along. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  roll  will  be 

called  upon  Mr.  Merriam ’s  motion  to 
adopt  No.  7. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I rise  to  make 

the  point  that  we  are  now  without  a 
quorum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  just 

counted  thirty-six,  including  myself. 

(Cries  of  “roll  call.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  only  way 

it  can  be  determined  is  to  call  the  roll. 

MR.  POST:  Is  not  a quorum  thirty- 

eight?  . 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  it  so  ap- 

pears. Another  one  has  just  arrived. 

(Cries  of  “roll  call.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  call 

the  roll  upon  the  motion  to  adopt? 

Yeas — Burke,  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Line- 
han,  McGoorty,  Owens,  Post,  Robins, 
Yopicka,  Werno,  Zimmer — 10. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, BrQSseau,  Brown,  Dixon,  G.  W.; 
Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Hoyne, 
Lathrop,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Revell, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Sunny, 
White— 20. 

Present  but  not  voting  — Church, 
Cole,  Foreman,  Jones,  Merriam,  Smul- 
ski — 6. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  CHURCH:  In  view  of  the  fact 

that  this  is  an  important  matter,  I am 
not  ready  to  vote  on  this  question  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed  with 

the  roll  call. 

MR.  COLE:  T think  it  is  a mistake 

trying  to  take  a vote  on  such  an  im- 
portant question  as  this  at  the  present 
time.  I desire  to  be  noted  as  present 
and  not  voting. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  what  pur- 

pose do  you  arise? 


December  19 


534 


1906 


MR.  MERRIAM:  Is  a motion  in  or- 

der now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir,  not 
pending  a roll  call. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I prefer  to  be 

recorded  as  being  present  and  not  vot- 
ing. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  what  pur- 

pose does  Mr.  Shanahan  arise? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  To  have  the 
question  stated.  I think  there  are  quite 
a few  here  that  don’t  know  what  they 
are  voting  on.  Some  people  think  they 
are  voting  on  Mr.  Robins’  motion  to 
defer,  and  others  think  they  are  voting 
on  Mr.  Merriam’s  propositon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  pending  motion. 

THE  SECRETARY:  No.  7,  at  page 

54. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  roll  call 

will  now  proceed. 

MR.  ROBINS:  The  question  comes 

upon  the  adoption  of  that  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir,  upon 

the  adoption  of  that  question. 

MR.  HOYNE:  Considering,  the  fact 

that  ninety-two  per  cent,  of  the  voters 
are  in  the  City  of  Chicago  electing  the 
present  board  of  assessors,  and  the  ob- 
ject of  this  Convention  being  to  con- 
solidate our  taxing  bodies,  I vote  no. 

MR.  JONES:  I am  not  ready  to 

vote  upon  this  question.  I am  in  doubt 
in  my  own  mind  as  to  what  should  be 
done  at  this  time,  therefore  I prefer  not 
to  vote. 

MR.  SMULSKI:  I do  not  believe 

that  I am  quite  ready  to  vote  on  this 
proposition.  I believe,  however,  that 
our  present  system  of  assessment  is  not 
the  proper  one,  and  I would  like  to 


vote  intelligently  on  this  matter.  For 
that  reason  I would  like  to  be  excused 
from  voting. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

should  like  to  change  my  vote  to  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  White  votes 

no. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I would  like  to  be  recorded  as  voting 
no. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to  be 

recorded,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  voting  aye, 
at  the  same  time  protesting  against 
taking  a vote  on  so  important  a prob- 
lem as  this  when  there  is  hardly  a 
quorum  present. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  it  is  demon- 

strated that  there  is  not  a quorum  pres- 
ent, there  will  be  no  action  taken.  It 
is  beyond  the  power  of  the  Chair  to 
declare  a quorum  or  lack  of  quorum. 

MR.  POST:  I raise  the  point  of  no 

quorum,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  wait  until 

we  get  this  vote,  that  will  demonstrate 
it.  There  are  seventy-four  delegates; 
necessary  for  a quorum,  thirty-eight. 
There  are  thirty-six  delegates  present, 
consequently  there  is  not  a quorum 
present. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  What  is  the  vote? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  ayes  are 

ten  and  the  nays  are  twenty.  The  Con- 
vention stands  adjourned  until  tomor- 
row evening,  at  7:30  o’clock,  at  which 
time  this  matter  should  be  taken  up  for 
disposition  before  taking  up  the  educa- 
tional bill.  The  first  vote  will  be  taken 
upon  this  proposition.  The  meeting 
stands  adjourned. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Thursday,  December  20,  1906, 
at  7:30  o’cloek  p.  m. 


Secretary. 


December  19 


535 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 


The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IY.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ate provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


December  19 

V.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  tne  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 


1906 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state;  and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 


536 


December  19 


537 


1906 


any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen- 
eral taxation.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re- 
spective amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector’s  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tion herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 


the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
sion. In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
funds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 
which  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him, 
upon  order  of  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 
year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  re- 
ceipts and  expenditures  for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 
tures for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 

4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 


December  19 


538 


1906 


year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 


Action  on  the  following  propositions 
has  been  deferred  pending  the  report 
of  the  special  commitee  on  revenue  in- 
formation. 

Alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 
taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  City  Council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 


3.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either,  any 
trade,  occupation  or  business  carried  on 
wrholly  or  in  part  within  the  city  limits, 
and  all  persons,  firms  or  corporations 
owning  or  using  franchises  or  privi- 
leges. 


4.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles.  The  income  therefrom  shall 
be  used  in  the  repair  and  improvement 
of  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  ex- 
clusively. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 
by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 
50  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 
any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  contiguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 
and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 


The  following  proposition  is  still 
pending: 

7.  The  charter  shall  provide  for  pow- 
ers to  be  vested  in  the  city  for  the 
assessment  of  property  and  the  collec- 
tion of  taxes  within  the  city  for  cor- 
porate purposes  in  accordance  with  the 
principles  of  equality  and  uniformity 
prescribed  by  the  constitution. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


December  19 


539 


1906 


Xm.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraph  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 
December  14,  1906,  have  been  re-re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan.  The  com- 
mittee report  will  be  found  under  “Res- 
olutions. ’ ’ 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XY.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  private  temporary  users  of  space 
above  or  below  the  level  of  streets,  al- 
leys or  other  public  places  shall  pay 
compensation  to  the  city  according  to 
some  definite  scale  to  be  fixed  by  gen- 
eral ordinance.  This  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  grants  for  public  utilities. 


XYI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  .therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 


3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to'  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 
The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
tills  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirect^  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 
floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 
Provided  that  when  the  city  shall  own 


December  19 


540 


1906 


and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall 
be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 
dered or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 
city’s  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 


XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 


The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 


sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

Section  XVIII  and  alternatives  stand 
as  a special  order. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 

2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 


December  19 


541 


1906 


with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 
dinance granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below 
as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other 
public  places  for  any  public  utility, 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated  ! 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 


2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 


cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 


The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  at  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchise  be  altered  [extended],  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 

| municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
I provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 


5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 
confer  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  “An 
act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages”  approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


December  19 


542 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen ’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSRS  WERNO  AND  ROSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehic!-\ 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 

BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

A permanent  educational  commission 
of  advisory  capacity  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the 
council,  to  consist  of  seventeen  mem- 
bers, who  shall  serve  without  compensa- 
tion, including  the  superintendent  of 


December  19 


543 


1906 


the  public  schools  and  the  librarian  of 
the  public  library,  who  shall  be  mem- 
bers ex  officio.  Each  other  member  shall 
hold  office  until  another  person  is  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  him. 

It  shall  be  the  function  of  the  educa- 
tional commission  to  tender  advice  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  to  correlate  the 
educational  forces  of  the  city  and  to 
prevent  unnecessary  duplication  of  ac- 
tivities by  exercising  their  influence  to- 
word  co-ordinating  the  various  educa- 
tional and  scientific  institutions  of  the 
city. 


BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided, 
n.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  Board  of  Education  shall  consist 
of  fifteen  members  who  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor  of  the  city  by  and 
with  the  approval  of  two-thirds  of  the 
City  Council  at  a meeting  subsequent  to 
that  at  which  they  shall  have  been 
nominated. 

They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a person  shall  be  at  least  thirty  i 


years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 
purposes,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

IV.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip- 
pled, schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 
ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 

It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 

V.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
I months  of  the  year. 


December  19 


544 


1906 


The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 
money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 
provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 

VI.  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enaeted  or  changed,  money  appro- 
priated or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text- 
books adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 

VII.  OFFICERS. 

The  board  of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
schools  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term 
of  office  of  the  superintendent  of  schools 
and  of  the  business  manager  shall  not 
be  less  than  four  years.  And  the  sal- 
ary of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint- 
ment be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall 


not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
schools. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools,  and  a busi- 
ness manager,  and  of  such  other  princi- 
pal officers  directly  appointed  by  the 
board,  as  the  board  may  by  general  or- 
dinance designate,  shall  not  be  subject 
to  the  civil  service  law,  but  they  shall 
be  removable  only  for  cause,  by  a vote 
of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  all  the 
members  of  the  board,  upon  written 
charges  to  be  heard  by  the  board  on  due 
notice  to  the  officers  charged  therewith, 
but  pending  the  hearing  of  the  charges, 
such  officers  may  by  two-thirds  vote 
be  suspended  by  the  board. 

VIII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF 
SCHOOLS. 

(1.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  board  of  educa- 
tion, but  no  vote. 

(2.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers,  principals  and 
other  educational  and  attendance 
officers  shall  be  made,  and  text-books 
and  educational  apparatus  shall  be  in- 
troduced by  the  board  of  education  up- 
on the  recommendation  of  the  superin- 
tendent, but  upon  his  failure  to  make 
such  a recommendation  within  a reason- 
able time  after  demand,  the  board  may 
make  appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers,  and  adopt  text-books  and  edu- 
cational apparatus  by  a two-thirds  vote 
of  all  its  members, 

(3.)  He  shall  be  consulted  as  to  loca- 
tion and  plans  of  school  buildings  and 
as  to  plans  and  specifications  for  educa- 
tional supplies. 

(4.)  Text-books  and  apparatus  once 
adopted  shall  not  be  changed  within 
four  years  after  their  adoption,  except 
upon  vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion. 

(5.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  nominate  for  appointment  by  the 
board  of  education,  assistant  and  dis- 


December  19 


545 


1906 


trict  superintendents  and  principals  of 
schools,  and  shall  have  power,  with  the 
consent  of  the  board,  to  remove  them 
upon  complaint  and  for  cause. 

IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 
property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

He  shall  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
board  of  education  appoint  his  subordi- 
nate officers  and  employes,  among  whom 
there  shall  be  a trained  architect  and  a 
trained  engineer. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 

X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers  shall  be  made  for 
merit  only,  and  after  satisfactory  ser- 
vice for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  the  needs  of  the  schools  require. 

(2.)  The  standing  of  teachers  for 
appointment  and  promotion  shall  be  en- 
trusted to  a bord  to  be  constituted  by 
the  board  of  education,  of  which  the  su- 
perintendent of  schools  shall  be  the 
head. 

XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XII.  PENSIONS. 

The  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 


City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 
j from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
{ the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 
retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
j the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
{ amine  and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 
tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  be 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XYI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


December  19 


546 


1906 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  MR,  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 


10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


Report  of  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan — B.  A.  Eck- 
hart,  Chairman. 

CHICAGO  CHARTER  CONVENTION, 

Gentlemen:  Your  committee  on 

Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan,  to 
whom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions which  were  introduced  for 
consideration  at  the  meeting  of  Decem- 
ber 14th,  1906, 

XIII.  PROPERTY. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city 
limits  for  any  municipal  purpose. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Shanahan: 

* * * that  the  city  may  acquire 

property  by  purchase  outside  as  well 
as  within  the  city  limits  for  any  mu- 
nicipal purpose,  and  not  have  the  right 
to  condemn  outside  property. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Brown : 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side of  the  city,  or  purchase  and  con- 
demn property  for  municipal  purposes 
within  the  city. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
B.  A.  Eckhart: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side as  well  as  within  the  city  limits, 
either  by  purchase  or  condemnation,  for 
park  and  boulevard  purposes. 

would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject-mat- 
ter, and  recommends  the  adoption  of 
the  following: 

The  city  may  acquire  by  purchase 


December  19 


547 


1906 


outside  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  and  may 
acquire  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits  by  purchase  or  condemnation  for 
park,  boulevard  or  forest  preserve  pur- 
poses. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART, 

Chairman. 


BY  MR.  PENDARVIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 


SPECIAL 

SECTION  XVII. — Education,  at  page  56. 
o'clock  p.  m.) 

PARAGRAPH  3. — Suffrage,  at  page  52. 
the  disposition  of  the  subject  of  Edi 


rity  of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


ORDERS 

(Thursday,  December  20,  at  7:30 

(To  be  taken  up  immediately  after 
ication.) 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  VOPICKA:  At  page  473,  sub- 

stitute the  following  for  the  remarks  of 
Mr.  Vopicka  as  printed:  Mr.  Chair- 
man: .In  connection  with  this  No.  5, 

I believe  the  motion  made  by  Aider- 
man  Bennett  is  correct.  We  have  the 
opening  of  the  streets  of  Chicago  which 
is  ordered  for  the  benefit  of  all  of 
the  people  of  Chicago.  An  improve- 
ment of  that  kind  often  costs  from  five 
to  fifteen  million  dollars.  My  opinion 
is,  gentlemen,  that  if  a street  is  to 
be  opened  or  widened  for  the  benefit  of 
all  the  people  of  Chicago,  that  they  all 
ought  to  pay  toward  it,  and  for  that 
reason,  I would  like  to  see  a clause  put 
into  the  charter  which  would  state  that. 
If  a public  street  should  be  widened 
or  opened,  a special  assessment  should 
be  levied  so  that  the  property  owners 
on  the  street  where  the  improvement 
is  to  be  made  shall  pay  ten  per  cent, 
of  the  assessment,  and  the  balance  of 
ninety  per  cent,  should,  in  my  judg- 


ment, be  assessed  in  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  the  City  of  Chicago.  If  a 
provision  of  this  kind  is  not  included 
in  the  charter,  then  you  will  find  that 
large  improvements  of  that  kind  hard- 
ly can  be  made  in  the  City  of  Chicago 
in  the  future.  Everybody  objects  to 
it — the  property  owners  who  are  as- 
sessed— the  courts  can  hardly  adjust  it 
properly,  and  the  present  assessment 
law  is  anything  but  just  on  that  one 
point.  The  law  prescribes  that  all  of 
the  property — every  foot  of  it — facing 
on  the  street  where  the  improvement  is 
made  has  to  pay  the  same  assessment. 
Book  how  unjust  this  provision  is! 
Sometimes  in  one  location  a lot  costs 
$25,000  and  lots  on  the  same  street 
in  a different  location  are  worth  only 
$500,  and  still  both  of  these  lots  have 
to  pay  the  same  assessment.  For  that 
reason,  as  well  as  other  good  reasons, 
pretty  nearly  everybody  who  is  direct- 
ly interested  in  the  opening  of  the 


December  19 


548 


1906 


streets  is  opposed  to  the  improvement. 
Large  corporations,  for  example,  rail- 
road companies,  always  protest  against 
these  assessments  because  they  claim 
that  they  don’t  derive  any  benefit  from 
them.  Now  on  the  subject  of  widen- 
ing streets,  I wish  to  cite  the  present 
case  of  widening  of  Halsted  street. 
There  are  lots  on  that  street  worth 
$25,000,  near  Madison  street,  while  lots 
are  worth  only  $2,500  near  West  Six- 
teenth street.  The  assessment  of  42 
per  cent.,  which  is  to  be  paid  by  the 
property  owners  on  that  street,  will  be 
equally  divided  among  them,  which 
means  an  assessment  of  from  three  to 
four  thousand  dollars  on  each  of  the 
lots.  On  the  one  hand,  it  will  not  hurt 
the  property  owner,  but  on  the  other 
hand  it  will  practically  bankrupt  the 
owner  of  the  cheap  lot.  I hope,  gentle- 
men, that  you  will  take  into  considera- 
tion the  resolutions  which  I offered  here 
tonight,  and  by  this  means,  we  will 
make  such  large  improvements  practi- 
cable. I believe  that  the  present  as- 
sessment law  is  too  hard  on  the  prop- 
erty owner,  and  for  that  reason  I have 
offered  another  resolution  which  has 
been  presented  here  tonight,  which  in 
substance  states  that  the  time  for  the 
payment  of  these  large  assessments 
should  be  extended  from  five  to  twenty 


years.  Furthermore,  I ask  that  the 
whole  affair,  including  my  resolutions, 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Reve- 
nue, of  which  Alderman  Bennett  is  the 
chairman. 

Also  on  page  480,  substitute  the  fol- 
lowing for  the  remarks  of  Mr.  Yopicka, 
as  they  are  printed:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

motion  of  Mr.  Smulski  is  very  good  and 
very  nice.  It  looks  very  nice  in  theory, 
and  it  looks,  at  a first  glance,  that 
everybody  must  be  in  favor  of  it.  But 
we  must  take  into  consideration  other 
matters;  we  must  take  into  considera- 
tion the  question  as  to  whether  the  city 
will  be  able  to  pay  it.  Furthermore, 
Mr.  Smulski  says  that  these  laws  will 
come  into  effect  after  the  charter  is 
adopted.  Now,  here  are  property  own- 
ers who  paid  for  having  their  streets 
paved  this  and  last  year,  and  who  will 
have  them  paved  next  year,  before  the 
charter  is  adopted.  If  this  law  is  to 
be  passed,  then  let  in  include  all  the 
streets  paved  during  the  time  of  the 
“Special  Assessment  Law,”  which 
came  into  operation  about  five  or  six 
years  ago.  Let  us  think  this  whole 
matter  over  tonight — including  my  res- 
olutions— and  refer  the  entire  matter  to 
the  Committee  on  Revenue,  which  shall 
report  tomorrow,  when  the  matter  of 
special  assessments  will  come  up  again. 


December  19 


549 


1906 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  the 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may 1 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtednessi 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  oherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  19 


550 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  20,  1906 


dljtrago  (Eljartrr  (Enmirntton 

Convened,  December  12,  1905 

HEADQUARTERS 

171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  h.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Asst.  Secy 


December  20 


553 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Thursday,  December  20,  1906 

7:30  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

• THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Carey,  Church,  Crilly,  Ritter, 
Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A., 
Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Guer- 
in, Hill,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMil- 
lan, McCormick,  McGoorty,  McKinley, 
Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Paullin, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Powers,  Rainey,  Ray- 
mer,  Revell,  Robins,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor, 
Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Zim- 
mer— 51. 

Absent — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Burke, 
Clettcnberg,  Cole,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eck- 
hart, J.  W.,  Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Gra- 
ham, Haas,  Harrison,  Iloyne,  Ochne, 
Patterson,  Rinaker,  Rosenthal,  Seth- 
ness.  Swift,  Thompson,  Walker,  Wilson, 
Young — 23. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  A quorum  pres- 

ent. Are  there  any  corrections  or 
amendments  to  the  minutes?  The  Chair 
desires  to  state  that  before  these  min- 
utes shall  permanently  be  published  an 
opportunity  will  be  given  to  edit  them; 
but  in  the  meantime  it  is  suggested 
that  such  amendments  and  suggestions 
and  changes  as  the  members  desire  to 
make  be  handed  to  the  clerk  in  writing. 
Now,  with  such  amendments  as  may 
be  handed  in,  the  minutes  will  stand 
approved  as  the  minutes  of  the  last 
meeting  of  the  Convention. 

The  first  business  before  the  Con- 
vention is  a consideration  of  the  mo- 
tion of  Prof.  Merriam,  to  adopt  Sec- 
tion 7 of  the  Revenue  Act,  which  the 
Secretary  will  read. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Is  the  Secretary  go- 
ing to  read  it?  T was  going  to  make 
a motion  in  order  to  bring  the  matter 
before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  it? 

MR.  RAYMER:  That  we  do  not  con- 
cur in  No.  7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  So  that  every- 

body may  know  what  is  before  the 
| house,  the  Secretary  will  read  the  sec- 


December  20 


554 


1906 


tion,  and  the  Chair  will  then  recog- 
nize Mr.  Raymer. 

The  Secretary  then  read  No.  7,  at 
page  538. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  de- 

sires to  state  that  the  pending  motion 
is  the  motion  of  Prof.  Merriam  at  the 
last  meeting,  in  which  he  moved  its 
adoption.  Upon  a roll  call  upon  that 
motion  it  was  found  that  no  quorum 
was  present,  therefore  that  motion  is 
still  before  the  house  in  that  form.  Is 
there  any  discussion  upon  this? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

spoke  once  upon  this  subject,  but  I 
would  like  to  ask  for  leave  to  speak 
again. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I move  consent  be 

given. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  unani- 

mous consent. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman, 

some  of  the  gentlemen  who  spoke  at 
the  last  session  seemed  to  be  under  a 
wrong  impression.  No.  7 merely  pro- 
vides for  the  carrying  into  execution 
of  one  of  the  plain  and  fundamental 
provisions  of  the  charter.  The  amend- 
ment you  will  find  on  page  549  of  the 
proceedings;  the  language — the  exact 
language  of  the  charter  amendment. 
Only  four  things  are  specifically  asked 
for  in  that  amendment.  Those  are:  In 
the  first  place,  consolidation;  in  the 
second  place,  a higher  debt  limit;  and 
in  the  third  place,  city  assessment  and 
collection;  and  in  the  fourth  place,  a 
system  of  municipal  courts.  This  was 
then  one  of  the  four  fundamental  prop- 
ositions which  were  drawn  up,  I believe, 
by  the  old  Charter  Convention  and  sub- 
mitted to  the  State  Legislature  of  Illi- 
nois, backed  up  by  a strong  lobby  of 
Chicago  members.  They  asked  for  only 
four  things  at  large,  and  one  of  those 
four  was  city  assessment.  It  is  not 
exactly  fair  to  state,  or  to  infer,  in  any 
way  that  this  is  not  a clear  and  evident 
proposition  within  the  scope  of  the 
charter  legislation.  This  amendment 


was  passed  by  the  State  Legislature  as 
was  asked  by  the  City  of  Chicago,  and 
was  ratified  by  a majority,  which  was 
secured  partly  by  means  of  the  efforts 
and  the  money  of  Chicago  people.  This 
was  a part  of  the  charter  dress  that 
Chicago  had  demanded.  Of  course,  if 
upon  more  mature  consideration,  after 
money  has  been  spent  all  this  time  to 
obtain  the  charter,  we  now  discover 
that  we  have  something  in  there,  one- 
fourth  of  which  we  do  not  want,  of 
course,  we  can  reject  it;  but  I say  this 
is  rather  an  absurd  position  for  the 
Convention  to  take,  and  for  Chicago  to 
take  after  having  strenuously  exer- 
cised itself  in  getting  such  an  amend- 
ment, to  then  turn  its  back  upon  a 
fundamental  principle  contained  in  the 
amendment.  This  possibility  of  the 
city  assessment  is  indicated  some  five 
lines  above  the  other,  where,  after  re- 
ferring to  the  debt  limit,  we  find  that 
the  debt  is  not  to  exceed  5 per  cent  of 
the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property 
in  the  city  limits  as  ascertained  in  the 
last  assessment,  either  for  state  or  mu- 
nicipal purposes.  It  indicates  very 
clearly  in  regard  to  this — that  is,  in  re- 
gard to  another  proposition  that  was  in 
the  minds  of  the  people  who  demanded 
charter  legislation,  not  only  themselves, 
but  in  the  consideration  of  the  court, 
on  the  question  of  whether  the  amend- 
ment was  constitutionally  adopted. 
This  was  one  of  the  particular  points 
on  which  the  court  dealt  at  some 
length — in  regard  to  the  power  of  the 
city  to  assess  personal  property.  I need 
not  say  that  the  power  of  the  city  to 
value  its  own  property  is  fundamental 
in  this  revenue  system.  It  is  impossible 
to  have  a uniform  and  responsible  reve- 
nue system  if  you  take  away  from  the 
city  the  power  to  value  its  own  property. 
You  may  give  it  the  power  to  tax,  or 
you  may  give  it  the  power  to  raise  in- 
cidental revenue  by  licenses,  and  so  on; 
but  if  that  fundamental  proposition  as 
to  giving  the  city  the  power  to  value 


December  20 


555 


1906 


its  own  property  be  not  incorporated, 
it  will  cripple  the  proposition.  This 
is  recognized  in  a great  many  of  the 
large  cities  in  this  country  which  in 
the  past  and  for  years  have  had  the 
power  to  value  their  own  property.  As 
for  example,  in  New  York,  Boston,  Phil- 
adelphia, St.  Louis  and  San  Francisco, 
and  in  practically  all  the  large  cities 
in  this  country  that  power  is  given. 

At  present  the  assessing  officers  are 
not  chosen  by  the  city;  they  are  elect- 
ed at  different  times.  For  instance,  we 
chose  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Review  and  the  members  of  the  Board 
of  Assessors  at  the  time  of  the  presi- 
dential election.  It  is  impossible  to 
get  that  forward  as  a local  issue,  im- 
possible to  choose  members  and  munic- 
ipal officers  on  a municipal  platform  or 
municipal  plan. 

The  advantages  of  a city  valuation  I 
illustrated  at  the  last  session  of  this 
convention,  and  I may  be  pardoned, 
perhaps,  if  I refer  briefly  to  it  again. 
In  the  experience  of  New  York  City, 
when  they  first  came  to  construct  the 
subways  in  the  city  and  the  city  had  to 
raise  money,  it  was  discovered  that  the 
i city  had  to  raise  money  by  deliberately 
advancing  the  valuation  within  two 
years  half  a billion  dollars,  and  corre- 
spondingly lower  the  assessment  tax 
rate,  so  that  while  they  raised  no  more 
money,  their  taxation  were  increased, 
the  power  of  taxation  was  increased  by 
raising  the  valuation  in  that  way,  so 
as  to  enable  them  to  make  public  im- 
provements, permanent  improvements 
for  the  development  of  New  York.  That 
illustrates  the  necessity  of  having  in- 
dependent local  power  to  regulate  as- 
sessments. 

Mr.  Shepard,  in  his  speech  that  he 
made,  in  his  address  at  the  last  meet- 
ing of  the  Convention,  conjured  up  all 
sorts  of  imaginary  difficulties.  My 
good  friend,  Mr.  Shepard,  began  con- 
juring these  difficulties  up  last  sum- 
mer, during  the  heated  term,  and  he 


still  continues  to  conjure  them  up,  with 
the  delusion  that  they  will  arise,  al- 
though usually  he  is  a very  sane  and 
sound  gentleman,  but  he  has  conjured 
up  these  illusions  that  if  you  turn  back 
to  the  record  you  will  discover  he  has 
shown  how  under  the  system  sixteen 
or  eighteen  different  assessing  bodies, 
every  ward  will  have  an  assessing 
body,  I think  he  said  that  there  will 
be  a separate  system  of  valuation  and 
collection  for  the  sanitary  district,  and 
a separate  system  of  valuation  and  col- 
lection for  other  things,  and  that  we 
would  have  a dozen  independent  sys- 
tems, each  one  assessing.  He  reasoned 
this  out,  that  each  one  of  these  towns 
and  bodies  will  have  an  independent 
system,  as  Mr.  Shepard  looks  at  it. 

It  seems  very  good  as  a work  of 
imaginative  generosity,  but  as  a sys- 
tem of  practical  taxation,  that  would 
be  the  case.  The  proposition  would  be 
that  the  valuation  of  the  property  with- 
in the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
would  be  made  by  city  assessors,  if  at 
any  time ' in  the  future  we  saw  fit  to 
act  upon  this.  So  that  it  is  to  be  care- 
fully observed  that  this  does  not  pro- 
vide a standing  city  assessment. 

But  whenever  they  see  fit  to  do  this 
they  may  act  in  one  of  two  ways:  They 
may  either  provide  a system  of  taxa- 
tion by  city  assessors  of  property  with- 
in the  limits  of  the  city,  such  valua- 
tion to  be  made  the  basis  of  value  for 
all  other  taxing  bodies,  as,  for  in- 
stance, the  county  and  the  sanitary 
district.  In  this  case  there  would  be 
by  no  means  a double  set  of  assessors, 
but  you  have  merely  the  assessment 
within  the  city  carried  on  by  city  offi- 
cers responsible  to  the  city  population 
and  the  city  electors,  and  controllable 
by  them,  instead  of  elected  by  outside 
bodies  and  not  responsible  to  and  con- 
trollable by  the  electors  of  the  City  of 
Chicago.  This  would  not  then  bo  du- 
plicate assessment,  but  would  simply  be 
making  the  valuation  of  assessment 


December  20 


556 


1906 


within  the  City  of  Chicago  the  basis  for 
other  valuations  outside.  This  can  be 
done  in  two  ways,  either  by  agreement 
with  the  county  to  have  the  county  take 
over  the 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Will  you  yield  to 

a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  yield 

to  a question,  Mr.  Merriam? 

MR.  MERRIAM : Certainly. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Can  you  point  to 

any  law  or  authority  by  which  the 
county  board  can  agree  to  take  any  as- 
sessment or  has  other  authority  over 
assessment  anywhere  for  county  taxes 
or  for  any  tax? 

MR,  MERRIAM:  The  county  has 

complete  control  over  all  taxes  within 
Cook  County  for  the  purposes  of  valua- 
tion and  assessment. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I am  sure  you  are 

not  sincere,  are  you,  Professor? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I stated  as  a stat- 

utory proposition.  The  County  Court, 
or  county  authorities 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  County  Board 

is  the  legislative  body  of  the  county. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  The  board  of  as- 

sessors and  the  board  of  review  would 
be  the  country  authority  that  would  have 
the  control.  I understand  your  ques- 
tion to  be  whether  or  not  the  county 
has  any  authority  in  matters  of  taxa- 
tion. The  board  of  assessors  and  board 
of  review  have  complete  control  in  re- 
gard to  assessment  and  collection. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Do  you  state  that 

the  board  of  assessors  is  the  county? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  They  are  not  the 

county  and  neither  is  the  City  Council 
the  City  of  Chicago,  but  it  is  a part 
of  it. 

AIR.  SHEPARD:  Can  the  board  of 

assessors  agree  which  assessment  they 
shall  take? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Certainly  not. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Can  you  point  out 

anywhere  any  authority  by  which  the 
county  can  agree  to  any  assessment  for 


itself  or  in  any  way.  There  is  no  pres- 
ent powTer  to  enter  into  any  agreement 
on  the  part  of  the  sanitary  district  or 
the  county  to  accept  any  assessment  for 
itself  or  for  anyone  else,  is  there? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Perhaps  you  refer 

to  some  legal  and  binding  agreement. 

MR.  SHEPARD : It  is  legal  and  bind- 

ing if  it  has  any  force. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam 

will  continue.  The  Chair  cannot  permit 
the  rules  to  be  wrecked  by  joint  debate. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Shanahan  re- 

ferred on  the  evening  before  to  the  ques- 
tion of  an  agreement.  By  agreement  of 
course,  I do  not  mean  a legal,  binding 
contract,  which  would  be  unnecessary,  but 
if  the  county  agreed  to  some  time  in 
the  future,  and  the  City  of  Chicago  wrere 
to  take  over  under  agreement  the  power 
to  value,  it  would  then  become  a work- 
ing and  practical  system.  Or  this  might 
still  be  done  even  by  virtue  of  the  act 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  alone.  That  is 
to  say,  the  City  of  Chicago  might  decide 
to  establish  a system  of  valuation  and 
collection  and  proceed  to  put  that  in 
force  and  to  make  that  a basis  for  the 
valuation  of  Cook  County  and  the  Sani- 
tary District,  and  other  outside  bodies 
concerned  in  any  property  within  the 
limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Upon  this  latter  proposition  I am 
ready  to  concede  that  there  is  some 
doubt  as  to  whether  that  could  be  done 
by  the  City  of  Chicago  alone.  The  Law 
Committee  gave  us  sort  of  an  oracular 
reply.  In  response  to  this  proposition 
the  Law  Committee  said  that  that  was  at 
least  doubtful.  I have  no  doubt  it  is. 
I think  the  13th,  14th  and  15th  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  are  at  least  doubtful.  When  they 
were  promulgated  the  Secretary  of 
State  refused  to  put  them  out  for  a long 
time.  The  constitution  of  our  state  is 
in  some  respects  doubtful. 

In  the  opinion  of  eminent  counsel,  it 


December  20 


557 


1906 


has  been  stated  that  this  is  a perfectly 
legal  and  valid  proposition. 

MR.  SUNNY:  Mr.  Chairman,  and 

gentlemen,  I was  more  or  less  intimately 
connected  with  the  steps  and  with  the 
furthering  of  the  movement  of  this  con- 
stitutional amendment,  so  that  I know 
more  or  less  about  its  history.  You  will 
recall  that  when  it  was  originally  drawn 
— and  it  was  drawn  by  a committee  of 
some  nine  or  ten  gentlemen,  some  six 
or  seven  of  whom  were  our  ablest  Chi- 
cago lawyers.  It  included  a consolida- 
tion of  the  Sanitary  District,  the  County 
of  Cook,  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  parks, 
towns  and  library  boards  and  Board  of 
Education.  In  connection  with  so  large 
a consolidation,  in  embracing  all  of  the 
municipalities  operating  in  the  City  of 
Chicago,  it  is  entirely  proper,  if  not  neces- 
sary, to  put  these  lines  in  the  middle 
of  the  Constitution  to  which  Prof.  Mer- 
riam  referred  yesterday  afternoon,  as 
follows : ‘ 1 And  may  provide  for  the 

assessment  of  property  and  the  levy  and 
collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for 
corporate  purposes,  in  accordance  with 
the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity 
prescribed  by  this  Constitution.  ’ ’ 

I say  that  it  is  proper  to  put  that  con- 
dition in  the  amendment,  inasmuch  as 
general  consolidation  was  calculated,  and 
it  is — we  had  not  gone  far  in  the  move- 
ment to  get  this  constitutional  amend- 
ment when  we  found  it  would  be  im- 
practical to  consolidate  the  Sanitary  Dis- 
trict. The  territory  covered  by  the  Sani- 
tary District  was  very  much  larger  than 
the  city  and  a consolidation  with  the 
city  would  involve  cutting  the  district 
in  two  and  extending  the  city  25  or  30 
miles  southwest.  So  we  ran  a pen  through 
the  lines  that  had  reference  to  the  Sani- 
tary District.  Some  months  after  thatt 
down  in  Springfield,  we  had  held  out  as 
long  as  we  could  for  consolidation  between 
the  county  and  the  city  and  the  other 
municipalities,  and  we  found  that  we 
could  not  agree  unless  we  struck  out  all 


reference  to  Cook  County.  And  those 
words  w’ere  stricken  out  in  a great  hurry 
and  without  any  opportunity  whatever  to 
the  committee  which  drafted  the  amend- 
ment to  go  over  it  again  and  see  in  what 
respects  it  ought  to  be  changed  be- 
cause of  the  elimination  of  reference  to 
the  Sanitary  District  and  Cook  county. 

I was  present  at  all  discussions  which 
were  had  when  that  was  being  drawn,  and 
it  is  my  judgment  that  if  it  had  been 
drawn  only  with  reference  to  a con- 
solidation, drawn  on  the  basis  of  leaving 
out  the  Sanitary  District  of  Cook 
County  originally,  this  line  of  amendment 
I have  just  read  would  not  have  been 
in  there.  For  that  reason  I am  going 
to  vote  against  the  Section  7. 

MR.  McCORMICK : I am  opposed  to 
the  motion  of  Professor  Merriam,  for  sev- 
eral reasons.  At  the  time  you  were  all 
working  for  the  adoption  of  a new 
charter,  and  I was  a member  of  the  com- 
mittee or  commission  that  was  supposed 
to  be  doing  the  active  work,  we  all  had 
in  mind  several  distinct  things  we  wanted 
to  accomplish.  Of  course  for  a long  time 
we  wanted  to  get  rid  of  justice  courts 
and  introduce  municipal  courts ; people 
on  the  I^orth  and  West  Sides  were  par- 
ticularly anxious  to  consolidate  the  parks 
so  that  the  taxes  from  the  down  town  dis- 
trict would  not  merely  go  to  the  South 
Park  Board.  Everybody  was  willing  to 
see  a change  in  the  revenue  law,  and  the 
taxation  of  Chicago,  as  to  quantity.  In 
all  the  discussion,  in  all  the  arguments 
for  the  charter  for  Chicago,  I never  heard 
a word  said  for  a new  Board  of  Assess- 
ors or  a new  Board  of  Review  for  the 
City  of  Chicago  alone.  The  matter  was 
never  presented  so  far  as  I know  in  any 
public  speech  or  any  pamphlet,  or  in 
any  newspaper  editorial.  If  it  is  for  this 
Charter  Convention  to  first  bring  the 
matter  up  to  have  an  adoption  such  as 
that. 

But  one  point  Professor  Merriam  made 
on  the  subject  of  a city  taxing  power 


December  20 


558 


1906 


arouses  my  opposition  as  an  official.  He 
speaks  of  the  City  of  New  York  raising 
its  assessed  valuation  and  increasing  its 
tax  rate  in  order  to  increase  its  revenue, 
which,  in  the  first  place,  is  a dishonest 
thing  to  do.  The  valuation  is  the  valua- 
tion or  else  it  is  not.  It  is  a dishonest 
thing  for  any  Board  of  Assessors  to 
change  the  valuation  according  to  the 
exigencies  of  a particular  situation.  Sup- 
posing Chicago  wanted  to  increase  the 
bond  issue  and  it  did  not  care  to  increase 
its  revenue,  and  took  the  same  steps 
as  were  taken  in  New  York.  Might  that 
not  entirely  confuse  the  Sanitary  Dis- 
trict organization,  and  their  dockets? 

We  are  going  down  to  the  legislature 
for  a great  many  new  things.  A great 
many  new  things  we  are  after  that  we 
need,  and  a great  many  things  the  country 
members  may  not  think  we  need.  Why 
should  we  add  one  more  burden  upon  the 
people  who  are  going  to  put  the  new 
charter  through  the  legislature?  Why 
should  we  do  that  when  there  is  no  pub- 
lic demand  for  it,  and  no  particular  need 
for  it?  I am  not  awTare  that  the  present 
system  of  assessment  is  so  vigorously 
criticised  as  to  need  immediate  change. 
I have  never  heard  of  such  a thing  exist- 
ing from  one  end  of  the  city  to  the  other. 
I have  heard  very  little  about  the  Board 
of  Assessors  or  the  Board  of  Review. 
And  if  some  people  do  think  the  assess- 
ments are  not  correct  in  these  tribunals, 
is  not  that  the  fault  of  the  personnel 
rather  than  of  the  system;  and  is  it  not 
just  as  likely  that  city-elected  assessors 
would  do  the  same  thing,  or  make  those 
mistakes?  I think  it  is  unwise  at  this 
time  to  rearrange  Cook  county,  at  the 
same  time  that  we  are  rearranging  Chi- 
cago. I think  it  unwise  to  take  a step 
that  few  of  us  have  studied,  and  none 
of  us  really  have  demanded;  and,  person- 
ally, and  from  a public  point  of  view 
I am  opposed  to  taking  a step  which  will 
allow  the  city  officials  to  have  a particu- 
lar jurisdiction,  and  a separate  jurisdic- 


tion from  the  County  of  Cook,  when  the 
two  can  be  worked  together  for  the  same 
things,  and  where  in  the  county  part  of 
it  they  will  have  no  power  whatsoever 
in  the  selection  of  the  city  officers. 

MR,  PAULLIN:  Mr.  President,  I 

would  like  to  add  a word  to  what  Mr. 
Sunny  has  said  here.  It  seems  to  me 
that  Mr.  Sunny  and  others  started  out 
with  the  idea  that  they  could  have  a con- 
solidated and  a divided  Cook  County,  and 
that  there  was  very  great  difference  of 
opinion.  Mr.  Sunny  and  his  committee 
were  willing  to  divide  this  county  if 
needs  be,  in  order  to  get  a greater  Chi- 
cago. They  found  a strong  sentiment  in 
the  country  towns  against  that.  We  do 
not  want  two  or  three  court  houses  in- 
stead of  one ; we  do  not  want  two  or  three 
poor  houses  instead  of  one. 

I was  in  the  same  meeting  with  Mr. 
Sunny  when  that  wras  discussed,  I be- 
lieve, at  76  Fifth  avenue,  in  which  they 
had  eminent  counsel  there  to  back  up 
their  ideas,  and  we  went  to  the  legisla- 
ture upon  that  point,  and  we  found  con- 
siderable opposition  from  the  country 
towns  against  the  proposition  entailing 
any  division  of  Cook  County.  I was  in 
that  legislature  on  one  side,  and  Mr. 
Sunny  was  in  the  legislature  on  the  other 
opposed  to  the  division  of  Cook  County. 
This  Convention  will  not  be  able  to  sug- 
gest any  law  to  the  legislature  that  will 
in  any  sense  of  the  word  disturb  Cook 
County  or  the  taxing  bodies  of  Cook 
County.  It  is  useless  to  lose  time  on  that 
point.  It  is  a settled  question,  and  I 
think  Mr.  Sunny  will  agree  with  me. 
The  State  Senate  has  said  that,  and  the 
committee  and  the  Senate,  and  the  House 
concurred  therein.  So  far  as  the  Sani- 
tary District  is  concerned,  I want  to  add 
a few  words.  I have  been  a member 
of  that  body  but  a short  time,  but  I 
know  the  history  of  the  legislation  which 
brought  about  the  creation  of  that  body. 
Many  years  before  it  was  established 
I there  were  men  in  this  city  who  wondered 


December  20 


559 


1906 


how  it  could  be  done,  and  a gentleman 
from  Evanston,  Mr.  Harvey  B.  Hurd, 
was  the  man  who  conceived  the  law  which 
made  the  Sanitary  District  a fact,  and 
that  will  be  fought  in  the  Legislature,  and 
no  change  will  ever  be  made  which  will 
change  the  taxing  body  of  the  Sanitary 
District  of  Chicago.  It  is  impossible 
from  a legal  point  of  view,  because  this 
district  is  not  going  to  be  a smaller  one 
than  it  is;  it  will  take  in  more  towns, 
perhaps,  than  it  has  now,  and  I believe 
this  Convention  will  lose  time  in  trying 
to  change,  or  to  suggest  changes  in  the 
assessment  taxation  arrangements  as  they 
now  exist  in  Cook  County  by  a Board  of 
Assessment,  or  otherwise.  * I think  I 
know  the  temper  of  the  Legislature  upon 
that  point. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  listened  to  the  arguments,  both  the 
other  afternoon  and  this  evening,  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  no  serious  objection 
has  been  raised  so  far  outside  of  the 
fact  that  it  is  now,  and  it  has  been 
in  the  past — and  I want  it  to  remain 
that  way — the  fact  that  Cook  County 
has  got  a pretty  perfect  piece  of  ma- 
chinery, and  it  has  got  machinery  so 
perfect  that  it  cannot  and  should  not 
be  changed. 

I feel  confident  it  cannot  be  changed. 
But  it  is  a matter  of  principle  just  the 
same;  it  is  a matter  of  home  rule,  and 
I am  glad  it  has  come  before  this  Con- 
vention. It  means,  shall  92  per  cent,  of 
the  voting  population  do  the  assessing, 
or  shall  S per  cent,  of  it  do  the  assess- 
ing? Ninety-two  per  cent,  of  the  voting 
population  is  contained  in  the  City  of 
Chicago,  and  a proposition  is  made  here 
that  a Board  of  Assessors  shall  be  ap- 
pointed, or  something  along  that  line, 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  that  92  per 
cent,  the  right  to  establish  the  valua- 
tion as  regards  the  City  of  Chicago, 
solely  and  entirely  a home  rule  proposi- 
tion. But  so  far  the  only  objection 
had  to  it  is,  that  it  now  is,  and  has 


been  and  ever  will  be  in  the  hands  of 
the  County  of  Cook.  And  then  we  have 
a picture  which  is  pathetic,  perhaps,  of 
a citizen  running  all  around  this  city, 
looking  for  a place  to  find  his  valua- 
tion, to  pay  his  taxes,  and  after  get- 
ting into  the  new  County  Building  he 
has  to  wend  his  way  over  to  the  West 
Side,  to  Union  Park,  to  the  new  City 
Hall,  before  he  can  pay  the  rest  of  it. 

That  is  about  the  whole  sum  and 
substance  of  the  argument.  The  fact 
remains  staring  you  in  the  face  just 
the  same,  that  92  per  cent,  are  contained 
in  the  City  of  Chicago;  and  men  who 
come  here  solely  and  wholly  with  the 
idea  of  home  rule  for  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago hesitate,  because  they  do  not  know, 
they  say  that  whatever  they  decide,  we 
will  still  let  the  8 per  cent,  do  the 
valuation  for  this  city. 

MR.  CHURCH:  May  I ask  the  gen- 

tleman a question? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Merriam  will 

answer  the  questions. 

(Laughter.) 

MR,  CHURCH:  I don’t  think  Mr. 

Merriam  would  like  to  have  me  ask 
him  this  question:  I want  to  ask  you 
if  92  per  cent,  of  the  voters,  if  92 
per  cent,  of  the  people  of  this  city 
do  not  participate  in  selecting  our  pres- 
ent assessing  bodies? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Most  certainly; 

why  shouldn’t  they? 

MR.  CHURCH : You  spoke  as  though 

they  did  not. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  If  we  had  home 

rule,  they  would  not  have  to  chase  to 
the  other  end  of  the  town  for  it. 

MR.  CHURCH:  You  say  that  8 

per  cent,  do  the  assessing;  I would  like 
to  have  you  explain  that. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  There  is  one 

point — pardon  ine  for  not  answering 
your  question.  I don ’t  like  to  answer 
questions.  Well,  I have  forgotten  my 
point  now;  I was  going  to  say  some- 
thing, but  F have  forgotten  the  point.* 


December  20 


560 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  through, 
Mr.  Linehan? 

MR.  LINEHAN : I am  through,  for 

I have  forgotten;  yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further  dis- 

cussion on  this  question  ? 

MR,  PENDARYIS:  If  I agreed  with 

Prof.  Merriam  that  this  proposition  is 
a practical  and  a desirable  one  from  the 
standpoint  of  the  municipality  I should 
have  to  oppose  his  proposition  for  the 
reason  I believe  that  it  was  never  con- 
templated by  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  and  that  there  is  no  power 
conferred  by  the  Constitution  which  con- 
templates the  adoption  of  any  such  pro- 
position. Now,  if  you  will  read  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  you  will 
find  it  provides,  first,  that  the  general 
assembly  shall  have  the  power  to  pass 
any  law  relative  to  the  city  government 
of  the  City  of  Chicago.  ' Then  it  says 
that  the  law  or  laws  so  passed  first, 
it  may  provide  for  consolidating,  enum- 
erating the  things  that  may  be  done  un- 
der consolidation;  then  the  law  or  laws 
so  passed  by  the  general  assembly  may 
provide  for  the  assessment  of  property 
and  levying  and  collection  of  taxes  with- 
in such  city  for  corporate  purposes.  This 
is  the  provision  upon  wdiieh  Prof.  Mer- 
riam relies  for  the  exercise  of  a power 
proposed  in  this  proposition. 

Reading  further  from  the  amendment 
to  the  Constitution,  it  says,  1 1 The  law 
or  laws  so  passed  by  the  general  as- 
sembly may  provide  for  the  annexing 
or  disconnection  of  territory,  ’ ’ and  so 
forth.  Now,  you  will  notice  that  the 
language  of  the  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution is  that  the  law  or  laws  so 
passed  by  the  general  assembly  may  do 
all  these  things;  and  if  you  take  the 
view  of  Prof.  Merriam  you  will  have 
to  read  into  the  section  relating  to  the 
provision  for  the  assessment  and  collec- 
tion of  taxes  these  words,  “and  the  law 
or  laws  so  passed  may  confer  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  the  power  to  provide 


for  the  assessment  and  levy  of  taxes.  ’ ’ 
There  is  no  power  contained  in  this 
amendment  which,  delegated  to  the  gen- 
eral assembly  of  the  State  of  Illinois, 
to  authorize  the  City  of  Chicago  or  the 
City  Council  to  exercise  any  jurisdic- 
tion upon  the  question  of  the  assessment 
and  levying  of  taxes.  If  that  power  is 
to  be  exercised  at  all  it  is  to  be  exer- 
cised by  the  genearl  assembly,  and  we 
have  in  the  action  already  taken  by  this 
Convention  in  the  adoption  of  the  resolu- 
tion proposed  by  Mr.  Shepard,  acted  in 
accordance  with  the  terms  of  that  pro- 
vision of  the  constitutional  amendment. 

You  will  not  find  in  this  constitutional 
amendment  any  authority  conferred 
upon  the  general  assembly  to  delegate 
its  powers  in  that  particular  to  the 
City  of  Chicago.  You  would  not  stand 
here  and  argue  that  under  this  consti- 
tutional amendment  the  Legislature  of 
the  State  of  Illinois  can  say  to  the  City 
Council  that  it  can  provide  the  means 
under  which  territory  may  be  annexed 
or  disconnected  from  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. And  I want  to  remind  this  Con- 
vention that  we  have  not  pending  before 
us  now  any  proposition  upon  that  par- 
ticular part  of  this  constitutional  amend- 
ment regarding  the  annexation  of  terri- 
tory to,  or  disconnection  of  territory 
from,  this  city,  and  that  is  something 
that  we  should  provide  for  in  this 
charter.  If  we  do  not,  we  will  have  no 
power  to  do  it,  because  that  power 
must  come  from  the  Legislature  of  the 
State  of  Illinois,  and  it  can  delegate 
that  power  to  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Now,  if  we  are  here  to  provide  any 
system  of  assessment  and  collection  of 
taxes  for  the  City  of  Chicago,  it  will 
have  to  be  through  an  act  passed  by 
the  Legislature  and  not  through  an  at- 
tempt to  delegate  that  power  to  the 
City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Will  Mr.  Pendar- 

vis  permit  a question? 

MR.  PENDARYIS : Certainly. 


December  20 


561 


I 


1906 


ME.  MEEEIAM:  How  would  we  be 

any  worse  off  in  this  respect  than  in  any 
other  respect? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not permit  a member  to  infringe  upon 
the  rules  of  the  Convention.  There  is 
a special  order  coming  up,  and  the  Chair 
would  suggest  that  discussion  on  this 
matter  proceed  as  speedily  as  possible, 
so  that  the  special  order  may  be  taken 
up  and  disposed  of. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Well,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I have  said  substantially  all  I care 
to  say.  In  my  experience  at  Springfield 
I have  been  frequently  called  upon  to 
pass  upon  questions  of  doubtful  valid- 
ity, and  I certainly,  taking  the  view  I 
do  of  the  provisions  of  this  constitutional 
amendment,  would  not  support  a pro- 
position that  contemplates  what  is  con- 
templated by  this  provision. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  ques- 

tion of  the  adoption  of  Prof.  Merriam’s 
motion  to  adopt  Section  7 to  the  Rev- 
enue Act,  the  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

Yeas — Carey,  Ritter,  Dever,  Guerin, 
Linehan,  McGoorty,  Merriam,  O’Don- 
nell, Owens,  Post,  Robins,  Snow,  Tay- 
lor, Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Zimmer — 
17. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Church,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G. 
W.;  Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Ganshergen,  Hill,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kit- 
tleman,  Lathrop,  Lundberg,  MacMillan, 
McCormick,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Powers, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Sunny,  Wilkins — 30. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  adopt,  yeas  17,  nays  30,  and  the 
motion  is  lost. 

The  special  order  is  the  subject  of 
Edycation,  Section  18,  and  the  Chair 
will  recognize  Dr.  Taylor,  the  chairman 
of  the  committee. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman  and 

gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  In  ris- 

ing to  move  that  the  resolutions  intro-  | 


duced  by  me  and  printed  on  page  543 
be  adopted  as  the  third  alternative  to 
Section  18,  on  page  56,  I might  facili- 
tate discussion  by  making  some  pre- 
fatory explanations.  The  resolutions 

introduced  by  me  on  page  543- 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Pardon  me,  Mr. 

Taylor,  for  interrupting  you  for  just 
a moment;  there  is  a communication 
here  in  relation  to  the.  subject  that  the 
Chair  should  like  to  have  read  before 
you  continue  your  remarks. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Very  well. 

THE  SECRETARY: 

Honorable  Milton  J.  Foreman,  Chair- 
man Chicago  Charter  Convention, 
Council  Chamber,  Chicago. 

Dear  Sir: — The  Chicago  Federation 
of  Labor  at  its  meeting  December  16, 
1906,  adopted  the  following  resolution: 
“ Resolved,  That  the  Chicago  Feder- 
ation of  Labor  and  all  affiliated  organi- 
zations resist  by  every  honorable  means 
any  attempt  of  any  and  all  interests 
and  influences  to  take  away  the  con- 
trol of  the  Chicago  school  system  from 
the  people  of  Chicago. 

“That  we  stand  opposed  to  any 
measure  either  in  charter  provision  or 
separate  legislative  action  that  would 
place  the  educational  system  of  Chi- 
cago in  the  hands  and  under  the  con- 
trol of  one  man,  and  be  it  further 
“Resolved,  That  the  Federation  reit- 
erates its  position  on  the  question  of 
school  legislation  and  demand  that  the 
Charter  Convention  and  the  legislature 
take  steps  to  carry  out  the  will  of  the 
people  on  the  “Little  Ballot”  and  pro- 
vide for  a Board  of  Education  elected 
by  the  people,  this  board  to  have  full 
control  of  the  Chicago  public  schools, 
as  provided  now  by  law,  and  that  said 
board  be  paid  adequate  salary. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
CHICAGO  FEDERATION  OF  LABOR, 
By  E.  N.  Nockcls,  Secretary. 

T HE  CHAIRMAN:  The  communi- 

cation will  be  printed  in  the  record  and 


December  20 


562 


1906 


placed  on  file.  Dr.  Taylor  will  now 
proceed. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  The  resolutions 

which  I moved  as  a third  alternative  to 
Section  18 

MR,  ROBINS:  Will  Dr.  Taylor  be 

good  enough  to  take  some  position 
where  all  the  members  may  hear  him 
when  he  speaks?  If  he  would,  I think 
it  would  be  of  great  help  to  us. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I moved  as  a third 

alternative  to  Section  18,  on  page  56,  a 
resolution,  on  page  543 

MR.  ROBINS:  Are  they  the  same 

as  the  resolutions  on  page  441? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes,  they  are  sim- 

ply carried  forward  from  one  part  of 
the  proceedings  to  another,  so  as  to 
have  it  all  together. 

Now,  let  me  say,  gentlemen,  and  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  the  Committee  on  Edu- 
cation appointed  by  this  Charter  Con- 
vention was  an  exceptionally  represen- 
tative body.  No  less  than  six  men 
who  either  have  had  or  are  now  having 
experience  on  the  Board  of  Education, 
were  on  that  committee,  and  one  rep- 
resentative of  the  Federation  of  Labor, 
from  whom  we  have  just  heard.  In 
the  discussions  and  final  report  of  that 
committee  there  was  the  utmost  free- 
dom and  most  absolute  independence. 

The  Federation  of  Teachers,  the  Prin- 
cipals’ Association,  and  the  Woman 
Suffragists,  the  representatives  of  va- 
rious departments  of  the  public  schools, 
and  any  and  everybody  that  wished  to 
have  a hearing  there,  had  any  sug- 
gestion whatever,  were  heard  respect- 
fully and  at  length;  and  the  Secretary 
will  bear  me  out  that  the  proceedings 
of  this  committee  are  perhaps  the  most 
voluminous  of  any  in  the  Convention. 

Now,  there  developed  two  ideas  of  j 
the  scope  and  function  of  this  chapter  j 
on  public  education  in  the  charter  of  I 
Chicago.  One  was  that  it  should  grant,  I 
in  briefest  terms — one  of  the  members 
said  in  a dozen  lines — large  powers,  ! 
cither  to  the  City ’Council  or  to  the 


Board  of  Education,  however  it  might 
be  appointed.  The  other  was  that 
specifications  sufficient  to  assure  admin- 
istration efficiency  should  be  included. 

Now,  this  idea  of  the  grant  of  gen- 
eral pqwer,  either  to  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation or  to  the  City  Council,  is  incor- 
porated in  this  second  alternative  on 
page  56,  which  was  presented  not  by 
the  Committee  on  Public  Education, 
but  comes  to  the  Convention  through 
the  Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and 
General  Plan.  It  calls  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  a superintendent  of  instruction 
and  a superintendent — a business  man- 
ager, by  the  mayor,  with  concurrence 
of  the  council,  City  Council.  Of  course, 
that  makes  a council  governed  school 
system;  but  there  were  others  who 
thought ‘that  that  general  power  should 
be  granted  to  the  Board  of  Education, 
either  elected  by  the  people  or  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  City  Council. 

Those  who  feel  that  the  specifications 
of  provisions  for  administrative  effi- 
ciency has  a right  to  be  included  in  the 
charter,  have  reported  at  full  length  in 
this  pamphlet  on  your  desks,  the  par- 
allel column.  In  the  left  hand  column, 
a report  of  the  Committee  on  Public 
Education,  just  as  it  came  from  the 
committee,  with  the  exception  of  the 
correction  of  a few  typographical  er- 
rors that  crept  into  the  first  printing 
of  this  report;  and  at  still  greater  de- 
tail, I ventured  to  include  in  the  right 
hand  parallel  column  the  specifications 
that  met  the  approval  of  some  other 
members  of  the  committee,  and  other 
additions  which  are  in  italics  that  were 
suggested  by  eminent  legal  counsel  as 
absolutely  necessary  to  carry  certain 
provisions  of  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee surely  into  effect.  This  document, 
let  me  say — this  parallel  column — is  not 
the  production  of  the  committee  or  au- 
thorized by  it,  and  I should  not  have 
signed  my  name  as  chairman.  I made 
that  error  and  wish  to  apologize  for  it. 


December  20 


563 


1906 


This  is  on  my  own  responsibility  en- 
tirely, to  facilitate  and,  I hope,  to 
shorten  discussion,  and  to  leave  the 
points  more  clearly  and  definitely  on 
your  minds. 

Now,  on  this  page  543,  I have  made 
a still  further  effort  on  my  own  in- 
dividual initiative  and  responsibility, 
as  a member  from  the  floor,  and  in  no 
wise  a committee  member,  to  reduce 
perhaps  more  manageably  the  nine  col- 
umns of  more  or  less  detailed  specifica- 
tion in  the  report  as  it  came  from  the 
hands  of  the  committee  to  about  half 
that  number,  namely,  to  about  five  col- 
umns, in  which  only  the  essential  feat- 
ures of  the  report  of  the  committee  are 
presented,  and  reduced  to  their  lowest 
form.  I may  say  that  I had  the  as- 
sistance in  the  drafting  of  this  re- 
duced form  of  a gentleman  whose  ex- 
pert hand  has  framed  many  of  the  al- 
ternatives that  are  presented  by  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and 
General  Plan. 

Now,  it  may  assist  the  Convention 
to  have  me  emphasize  a few  of  the 
main  features  of  this  report  wherein  it 
differs  from  the  present  school  law, 
which,  in  the  main,  is  a good  law,  and 
reference  to  which  is  made  where  it 
seems  to  answer  the  purpose  in  this  re- 
duced report  printed  today. 

In  the  first  place,  of  course,  all  are 
agreed  that  education  should  be  a de- 
partment of  the  city  government  as 
the  Convention  has  already  decided  it 
should  be.  The  reduction  of  the  mem- 
bership of  the  board  from  21  to  15  is 
the  first  feature  to  confront  us.  It  was 
admitted  on  all  hands  that  21  was 
rather  a large  number  and  unwieldy. 
There  were  those,  I may  say,  who  very 
much  preferred  a still  smaller  board  of 
nine,  or  of  twelve,  but  the  majority 
carried  the  point  for  fifteen.  Now,  in 
regard  to  an  appointive  or  an  elective 
board  the  committee  divided,  but,  I 
think,  the  committee  did  not  divide 
so  sharply  as  this  alternative  would 


lead  you  to  think.  While  the  majority 
favored  the  appointive  board,  the  com- 
mittee were  unanimous  in  yielding  to 
the  wish  of  the  minority  that  an  alter- 
native be  presented  for  an  elective 
board;  and  the  minority  are  thereby 
saved  from  bringing  in  a minority  re- 
port. Still  the  majority  voted  in  favor 
of  the  appointive  board  very  decidedly. 
Now,  let  me  say  that  in  the  elective 
board — in  the  provision  for  an  elective 
board  a large  section  in  the  report  of 
the  committee  was  devoted  to  repro- 
ducing the  main  features  of  the  Ore- 
gon law,  which  those  who  are  conver- 
sant with  election  laws  say  absolutely 
prevents  partisan  or  political  manipula- 
tion more  than  any  other  election  law 
on  the  statute  books  in  any  state  in 
the  Union.  It  is  a very  carefully  and 
a definitely  drawn  law.  But  in  this 
report,  the  reduced  report,  we  have 
not  reproduced  that  Oregon  law,  but 
simply  stated  the  main  features  of  it,, 
namely,  that  the  election  should  be  a 
special  election;  that  there  should  be 
no  indication  of  partisanship  in  it,  and 
that  it  should  be  safeguarded  from  po- 
litical interference  in  accordance  with 
what  we  supposed  would  be  the  wish  of 
the  entire  Convention.  Let  me  add  the 
interesting  fact  that  this  Oregon  law 
was  presented  by  the  Principals’  Asso- 
ciation, whose  delegation  was  headed 
by  the  late  Albert  G.  Lane.  In  their 
appearance  before  the  committee  they 
strongly  preferred  the  elective  board. 

Now,  perhaps  the  main  feature  of  the 
committee’s  report,  which  will  proba- 
bly have  more  criticism  than  any  other, 
and  a criticism  in  advance  of  this  ex- 
| planation  has  already  been  made  by  the 
j communication  that  has  just  been  read 
from  the  Federation  of  Labor — 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  will 

Mr.  Taylor  allow  me  to  ask  a question 
at  this  time? 

THE-  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly. 

J MR.  REVELL:  Did  you  make  a cor- 


December  20 


564 


1906 


rect  statement  in  saying  that  the  Prin- 
cipals’ Association — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A little  louder, 

Mr.  Revell. 

MR.  REVELL:  Is  your  statement 

correct  in  saying  that  the  Principals’ 
Association  recommended  the  elective 
board! 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes,  sir,  in  a fully 

drawn  draft  of  a proposed  chapter  on 
public  education  for  the  new  charter, 
presented  by  Mr.  Albert  G.  Lane,  the 
original  copy  of  which  is  in  my  pos- 
session. 

The  administrative  efficiency  sought 
to  be  secured  by  the  locating  of  execu- 
tive responsibility  in  the  hands  of  two 
agents  of  the  board — the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, however,  is  left  in  full  and  final 
control — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  unani- 

mous consent  to  Dr.  Taylor’s  proceed- 
ing? 

(Cries  of  “agreed.’) 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I have  but  a little 

more  to  say. 

TriE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Full  and  final  con- 

trol is  left  in  the  hands  of  the  Board 
of  Education  provided  for  in  this  re- 
port, but  an  effort  has  been  made  to 
deferentiate  between  the  legislative 
and  broadly  administrative  function  of 
the  Board  of  Education,  and  the  execu- 
tive responsibility  for  carrying  out  its 
orders.  And  so  the  suggestion  of  the 
Charter  Convention  that  the  superinten- 
dent of  schools  have  placed  in  his  hand 
the  executive  duties  of  the  board  with 
regard  to  the  management  and  control 
of  educational  affairs;  that  power  of 
initiative  be  given  him;  and  that  he 
'have  a certain  tenure  of  office  which 
will  enable  him  to  have  sufficient  time 
fairly  to  test  his  policy.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  felt  that  a business  involving 
an  investment  of  $60,000,000  in  school 
property,  a business  handling  between 
$11,000,000  and  $12,000,000  annually,  a 
business  of  great  complexity,  exceeding 


that  of  almost  any,  or  most  of  the  pri- 
vate corporations  in  this  city,  should 
have  a business  manager  such  as  any 
great  financial  interest  would  demand 
to  be  at  the  head  of  its  executive 
forces.  And  so,  instead  of  having  four 
or  five  agents  with  more  or  less  co- 
ordinate and  possibly  conflicting  au- 
thority, one  business  manager  is  provi- 
ded for,  under  whom  the  architect,  the 
engineers,  the  auditors,  and  all  the 
other  executive  officers  are  placed. 
Now,  those  two  officers  are  left  in  com- 
plete control  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. But,  gentlemen,  in  order  to  se- 
cure a man  of  high  ideal,  and  initiative, 
a man  of  educational  experience  and 
breadth  of  view,  a man  of  highest  busi- 
ness qualification,  two  things  have  to 
be  assured  him.  Such  men  if  they  take 
such  positions  in  the  • public  service 
want  the  power  of  initiative,  as  I have 
said,  and  sufficient  tenure  of  office  to 
test  their  policies.  I submit  that  men 
of  caliber  cannot  be  secured  to  take 
such  offices  whose  tenure  of  office  is  de- 
pendent upon  a majority  vote — a 
change  of  one  vote  in  a board  of  25 
or  15,  at  any  meeting  of  the  board.  I 
submit  that  it  is  no  injustice,  and  it 
is  not  an  undemocratic  thing  to  do  in 
regard  to  an  agent  in  whose  hands  such 
tremendous  possibilities  are  placed,  to 
safeguard  him  from  captious  criticism 
and  sudden  and  instant  dismissal,  and 
the  overturning  of  all  of  his  plans,  by 
simply  providing  that  he  can  be  dis- 
missed by  two-thirds  vote  of  the  board, 
and  that  initiative  can  be  taken  out 
of  his  hands  only  by  a two-thirds  vote 
by  the  board  when  he  by  this  initiative 
has  shown  his  power.  I maintain  this 
is  simply  business  common  sense,  and  it 
is  not  my  contention  that  he  can  man- 
age these  school  affairs  in  any  other 
way  if  he  had  subordinates  under  him. 

I call  attention,  however,  to  the  fact 
that  the  report  of  the  committee  did 
not  make  it  necessary  for  a two-thirds 
vote  for  the  board  to  take  the  initia- 


December  20 


565 


1906 


tive  out  of  the  hands  of  a superinten- 
dent or  business  manager  and  go  into 
the  matter  of  suggesting  text  books  or 
nominating  principles  themselves;  but 
the  suggestion  of  a two-thirds  vote  is 
made  on  my  own  responsibility,  and  I 
will  defend  it  before  the  Convention 
further,  if  I have  any  opportunity  so  to 
do. 

Another  feature  of  the  report  which 
really  demands  your  ‘attention  is  the 
extension  of  the  age  of  compulsory  edu- 
cation, from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But 
excepting  those  boys  or  girls  between 
those  ages  who  can  show  that  they  are 
at  work  five  hours  a day  for  five  days 
a week,  and  a large  section  of  the 
committee ’s  report  had  to  be  given  to 
that,  and  in  the  parallel  column  is  a 
still  larger  section,  because  the  law- 
yers insist  that  the  compulsory  educa- 
tion law  would  virtually  have  to  be  re- 
enacted over  again  in  order  to  make 
it  applicable  to  the  City  of  Chicago. 
I can  give  a very  good  reason  person- 
ally for  the  extension  of  this  compul- 
sory school  law.  I have  lived  for  near- 
ly fourteen  years  in  one  of  the  most 
densely  cosmopolitan  tenement  house 
districts  in  the  City  of  Chicago,  and 
I wish  to  say,  without  much  fear  of 
contradiction,  that  little  boys  and  girls 
who  lose  hold  on  the  ideas  and  princi- 
ples of  life  do  so  between  those  ages, 
because  they  have  neither  the  disci- 
pline of  the  school  nor  of  the  shop.  I 
will  cite  the  officers  of  the  Juvenile 
Court  not  only,  but  I think  I could  get 
the  testimony  of  pretty  near  all  the 
officers  of  the  West  Chicago  Avenue  po- 
lice station  to  verify  me  in  this  state- 
ment, and  if  some  control  were  had 
over  the  boys  after  fourteen  and  before 
sixteen  that  the  gangs  of  the  young 
hoodlums  would  be  largely  broken  up, 
and  the  boy  would  not  have  the  oppor- 
tunity to  start  on  the  way  of  a crimi- 
nal career,  because  he  would  either 
have  to  be  in  the  school  or  in  the  shop, 
and  he  could  not  be  on  the  street.  On 


the  other  hand,  remember,  that  the 
compulsory  education — pardon  me,  the 
anti-child  labor  law — prohibits  chil- 
dren from  being  worked  too  many  hours 
constantly.  It  is  difficult  for  them  to 
find  employment  between  fourteen  and 
sixteen,  while  the  compulsory  educa- 
tion law  loses  its  grip  over  them  just  at 
the  danger  period  of  life.  Better  than 
to  have  a thousand  policemen  added  to 
the  force  in  Chicago— not  so  much  the 
restraining,  but  the  preoccupying  effect 
of  this  beneficent  law. 

There  is  a very  ample  safeguard  in 
this  report  for  the  revenue  side  of  the 
management  of  the  board.  Remember, 
gentlemen,  the  magnitude  of  its  busi- 
ness, the  complexity  of  its  supply  de- 
partment, the  vastness  of  its  building 
operations,  the  need  of  great  caution 
and  care  in  order  to  conserve  the  splen- 
did generosity  of  the  American  people 
in  supporting  what  is  the  greatest 
American  thing  in  America — the  Amer- 
ican public  school. 

I wish  to  take  up,  in  conclusion,  one 
other  suggestion.  The  very  well  inten- 
tioned  and  strong  presentation  which 
has  just  been  read  us  from  the  Chicago 
Federation  of  Labor  is  right  in  theory, 
but,  I submit,  it  does  not  apply  to  this 
report.  Can  you  manage  in  any  other 
way  than  by  having  efficient  business 
agents,  fully  under  the  control  of  the 
board  appointed  by  the  mayor  or  elec- 
ted by  the  people,  a business  of  this 
complexity  and  vastness.  I stand,  as 
all  who  know  me  will  admit,  for  as  ab- 
solute a democracy  as  can  be  made  effi- 
cient, but  I submit,  gentlemen,  that 
nothing  can  be  worse  for  democracy 
than  inefficiency;  and  I say,  that  it  is 
in  the  interests  of  the  people’s  control* 
of  their  schools  that  they  be  assured 
the  very  highest  and  best  executive 
ability  that  can  be  secured  in  the  man- 
agement of  their  educational  facilities 
on  the  one  hand,  and  their  business  and 
material  equipment  on  the  other  hand. 

I fail  to  see  where  this  point  of  democ- 


December  20 


566 


1906 


racy  is  to  be  seriously  urged  here.  The 
people  can  elect  whom  they  please,  or 
they  can  elect  a mayor  who  can  ap- 
point whom  he  pleases.  As  for  having 
the  schools  managed  by  one  person,  no- 
body contemplates  that,  except  as  that 
person  is  freely  chosen  and  freely  main- 
tained as  the  agent  of  the  people. 

I should  be  very  happy,  in  the  course 
of  the  consideration  of  this  third  alter- 
native, which  I think  should  have  pre- 
cedence in  our  discussion  and  vote  with 
the  exception,  perhaps,  of  the  section 
referring  to  the  way  of  constituting  the 
board,  either  by  election  or  by  appoint- 
ment, which  could  well  follow  this 
third  alternative — I shall  be  very  glad 
to  answer  any  questions. 

Ane  one  other  point  I wish  to  make, 
that  the  provision  for  an  educational 
committee  I shall  move  immediately 
after  the  educational  section  is  pro- 
vided for. 

MR,  SHANAHAN:  I wish  to  ask 

Dr.  Taylor  a question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  yield 

to  a question,  Dr.  Taylor? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Doctor,  I would 

like  to  ask  you  what  the  advantages 
are,  if  any,  of  a large  board  of  educa- 
tion? And  what  the  disadvantages,  if 
any,  of  a small  board  of  education? 
And  what  are  the  advantages,  if  any, 
of  an  elective  board  of  education  over 
an  appointive  board  of  education? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Well,  I suppose  the 

question  as  read  answers  in  the  minds 
of  anj’-  who  have  given  it  at  all  any 
consideration,  but,  on  general  princi- 
ples, the  cities  of  this  country  have 
found  that  a smaller  body  is  more  ef- 
fective than  a larger  one.  And  you 
Tvill  find  them  ranging  from  seven,  or 
even  five,  as  in  Boston,  to  twelve,  and 
fifteen,  perhaps,  is  none  too  large  for 
the  City  of  Chicago;  and  yet,  I be- 
lieve personally  that  twelve  would  be 
even  better. 

MR.  ROBINS:  What  is  the  number 

of  the  City  of  New  York? 


MR.  TAYLOR:  Forty-six  in  the 

City  of  New  York.  Let  me  say  that 
the  New  York  charter  and  the  St. 
Louis  charter  are  very  much  more  de- 
tailed than  ours.  And  most  of  the  char- 
ters, even  Grand  Rapids,  are  much  more 
detailed  than  ours. 

The  second  question,  I failed  to  an- 
swer. With  regard  to  an  appointive 
and  elective  board,  it  is  simply  surmise 
that,  in  the  long  run,  perhaps  the  varie- 
ty of  talent  and  expertness  here  and 
there  in  some — for  instance,  one  mem- 
ber who  is  expert  in  building,  another 
on  educational  site  could  be  secured  by 
appointment  that  the  talent  of  the 
board  might  be  made  more  symmetrical, 
and  that  you  have  men  of  more  kinds 
to  do  this  complex  business.  I think 
that  is  the  only  reason  why  an  ap- 
pointive board  is  preferred;  and  possi- 
bly to  keep  it  out  of  the  ordinary  po- 
litical campaign. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  interest  of  the 
people  in  their  schools  and  the  freedom 
of  choice  of  the  best  people  they  can 
think  of  from  all  over  this  city,  if  prop- 
erly safeguarded  by  the  election  laws, 
and  by  special  election  is  preferred  by 
a large  number  of  people. 

I don’t  think  the  committee,  as  far 
as  I could  speak  for  them,  would  put 
up  much  of  a fight  on  that  difference. 
I certainly  would  not,  but,  on  the 
whole,  the  majority,  and  some  of  them 
very  strongly  preferred  an  appointive 
board. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I do 

not  wish  to  discuss  this  matter  more 
than  to  ask  a question,  and  I desire  to 
explain  why  I ask  this  question.  This 
report  has  taken  a very  peculiar  course. 
Some  thirteen  gentlemen  appointed  by 
this  board  struggled  with  the  proposi- 
tion four  or  five  months  and  evolved 
a certain  report  that  was  eventually 
presented  to  this  Convention  and  by  it 
referred  to  the  Steering  Committee. 
After  we  were  presented  by  the  Chair- 
man, and  I trust  the  Chairman  will 


December  20 


567 


1906 


not  for  a moment  think  that  I have  any 
word  of  criticism,  presented  us  with  a 
parallel  column  for  it,  in  which  there 
were  certain  changes,  not  essential. 

Now,  after  we  had  spent  some  time 
in  considering  those  two  reports,  we 
find  ourselves  faced,  at  a very  late  date 
in  the  Convention,  by  an  entirely  new 
report  presented  by  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  as  an  individual.  I was 
not  present  when  this  resolution  just 
discussed  was  presented  to  the  Conven- 
tion, and  I must  confess  it  has  quite 
slipped  my  attention,  and  only  since  I 
sat  down  at  the  desk  this  evening  have 
I had  an  opportunity  to  consider  it.  j 
My  question  is  simply  this,  and  the  Doc- 
tor can  answer  it  in  a word:  Does  this 
condensed  report  contain  essentially  all 
the  principles  embodied  in  the  former 
report?  And  is  there  . any  essential 
principle  omitted — is  it  essentially  the 
original  report,  Dr.  Taylor,  condensed? 
Or  if  there  are  fundamental  changes, 
will  you  indicate  them  to  some  of  us 
who  have  not  had  time  to  make  a com- 
parison? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

very  glad  to  answer  that  question,  and 
I will  preface  my  answer  with  the  rea- 
son why  this  third  alternative  is  pre- 
sented. It  became  very  apparent  that 
the  Convention,  in  course  of  discussions 
on  other  topics,  did  not  care  to  go  into 
detail.  The  gentleman  who  has  asked 
me  this  question  is  one  of  those  men 
who,  on  this  Committee  on  Public  Edu- 
cation, insisted  upon  it  that  the  details 
should  be  eliminated.  It  has  been  in 
entire  deference  to  that  sentiment  in 
the  Convention,  and  in  the  hope  of  fa- 
cilitating the  discussion,  and  not  com- 
plicating it  by  unnecessary  detail,  that 
this  reduced  draft  has  been  made.  And 
it  is  perfectly  proper  for  me  to  say  that 
Mr.  Freund,  who  very  carefully  tried  to 
reduce  it  to  its  lowest  point,  leaving  out  I 
all  unnecessary  detail  and  taking  sim- 
ply the  report  of  the  Convention  in  so 
doing 


MR.  WHITE:  The  essential  princi- 

ple is  there. 

MR.  JONES:  I think  the  general  dis- 

cussion which  we  have  had  properly 
leads  up  to  some  action  by  the  Con- 
vention. It  would  seem  to  me  that  the 
first  thing  which  the  Convention  should 
do  would  be  to  discuss  the  second  alter- 
native to  Section  18,  printed  at  page 
56,  and  in  order  that  proceedings  may 
be  orderly,  I wish  to  move  that  the 
second  alternative  to  18  be  laid  upon 
the  table.  After  the  motion  is  put  I 
should  like  to  speak  to  that  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  second  alternative. 

The  Secretary  then  read  second  alter- 
native to  18,  printed  at  page  56. 

MR.  JONES:  I was  a member  of 

the  Educational  Committee  and  was  one 
of  the  minority  which  objected  to  the 
presentation  of  the  report  to  this  Con- 
vention in  the  elaborate  and  extended 
and  detailed  form  in  which  it  was  pre- 
sented. It  seemed  to  me  that  for  a 
charter  we  should  not  go  into  the  mat- 
ter in  such  detail,  particularly  defining 
the  specific  powers  of  the  board,  and  the 
powers  of  the  different  members,  and 
the  different  offices,  and  at  the  conclu- 
sion of  one  of  the  sections  I moved  that 
this  whole  matter  be  re-referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  with  a request  that 
they  report  to  this  Convention  a series 
of  resolutions  so  that  the  matter  might 
be  considered  by  this  Convention  with 
some  intelligence  and  understanding; 
and  I was  overruled  upon  that,  and  I 
understand  now  that  what  Professor 
Taylor  presents,  what  he  calls  a third 
alternative,  which  I would  not  consider 
an  alternative,  is  practically  a series  of- 
resolutions  which  presents  the  main 
points  covered  by  the  more  elaborate  re- 
port of  the  committee.  That  being  the 
case  it  would  seem  these  suggestive  reso- 
lutions are  not  an  alternative,  but  are 
the  main  body  of  the  subject  of  edu- 
cation which  is  to  be  discussed ; and  we 


December  20 


568 


1906 


have  therefore  two  alternatives,  the  first 
relating  to  an  elective  School  Board,  and 
the  second  alternative,  concerning  which 
I have  made  a motion,  which  provides 
for  the  abolishment  of  the  School  Board 
and  the  placing  of  the  control  of  the 
school  in  the  hands  of  the  City  Council 
and  under  a superintendent  or  business 
manager. 

Now,  personally,  I am  opposed  to  the 
second  alternative,  and  believe  that  it 
should  be  laid  upon  the  table,  because  I 
think  that  the  School  Board  should  be 
distinct  from  the  City  Council.  We 
have  an  admirable  City  Council  in  the 
City  of  Chicago,  and  I think  that  the 
spirit  of  the  Convention  in  giving  to 
that  City  Council  the  great  powers  which 
have  been  voted  here  shows  that  the 
people  in  Chicago  have  great  confidence 
in  their  City  Council.  But  I do  not  be- 
lieve that  the  public  schools  should  be 
placed  under  the  control  of  the  City 
Council.  I believe  that  there  should 
be  an  educational  council  which  should 
have  the  same  powers  over  the  schools 
that  the  City  Council  has  over  the  gen- 
eral activities  of  the  city,  and  1 believe 
that  the  School  Board  should  be  selected 
in  such  a way  as  to  secure  as  nearly  as 
possible  a non-partisan  independent 
board.  Of  course  that  will  come  up  un- 
der subsequent  resolutions  which  are  to 
be  discussed;  but  this  alternative  No. 
2,  if  carried,  would  do  away  entirely 
with  the  School  Board  and  would  place 
the  control  of  the  education  of  the  city 
under  a city  departmental  head,  and 
would  place  the  control  of  school  build- 
ings and  the  business  part  of  the  schools 
under  another  such  head,  known  as  a 
business  manager;  that  I believe  would 
be  a mistake;  it  would  be  a great  mis- 
take to  abolish  the  School  Board,  and 
I think  we  should  retain  the  School 
Board,  and  we  should  by  proper  pro- 
vision insure  that  the  School  Board  be 
independent  of  the  City  Council,  and 
so  far  as  possible  be  independent  of 


politics.  I hope,  therefore,  that  in  the 
consideration  of  this  matter  this  second 
alternative  will  be  laid  upon  the  table, 
and  that  we  may  at  once  proceed  to 
the  discussion  of  the  question  as  to 
whether  the  School  Board  shall  be 
elective  or  appointive. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  the  second  al- 
ternative to  18  be  laid  upon  the  table. 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

( Cries  of  1 1 question.  ’ ’ ) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor signify  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no.  The  motion  is  carried,  and 
it  will  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 
the  adoption  of  No.  1-a  of  first  alterna- 
tive to  18. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  a mo- 

tion before  the-  house.  Will  Dr.  Taylor 
withdraw  his  motion? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  On  the  understand- 

ing that  my  motion  will  be  taken  up 
next ; on  the  understanding  that  it  is 
to  be  considered  next  after  this,  that 
I will  have  the  floor  to  present  that  mo- 
tion again. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir.  And 

your  motion,  Mr.  Robins,  is  what? 

MR.  ROBINS:  The  adoption  of  No. 

1-a  to  first  alternative  to  18,  which  I 
wish  the  Clerk  to  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  56,  lower 

left-hand  column,  first  alternative  to  18, 
1-a:  “The  public  school  system  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  be  managed  by 
an  elective  board  of  education  composed 
of  fifteen  members.  ’ ’ 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I should 
like  to  move  that  this  question  be  di- 
vided. There  is  a question  here  as  to 
whether  the  board  shall  be  elective  or 
appointive,  and  there  is  also  a ques- 
tion as  to  the  number  of  members.  I 
would  judge  if  it  is  an  elective  School 
Board  we  might  decide  that  one  num- 


December  20 


569 


1906 


ber  would  be  desirable,  and  if  it  were 
appointive  we  might  wish  a different 
number;  I therefore  move  that  this  ques- 
tion be  divided,  and  we  first  decide 
whether  it  shall  be  elective  or  appoint- 
ive. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I accept  that  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections  the  question  will  be  divided; 
the  question  is  upon  Mr.  Robins  ’ mo- 
tion that  the  public  school  system  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  be  managed 
by  an  elective  board. 

MR.  ROBINS:  In  calling  attention 

to  this  section  the  chief  consideration  is 
the  desire  that  the  public  school  system 
of  Chicago  should  be  as  much  as  may 
be  in  any  other  institution  taken  out 
of  partisan  politics  and  out  of  the  con- 
siderations of  party  politics.  If  this 
provision  meets  the  approval  of  the  ma- 
jority of  this  Convention  I shall  hope 
that  it  shall  be  so  safeguarded  that  the 
possibility,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  of  mak- 
ing this  particular  board  an  adjunct  of 
any  political  party  will  have  been  re- 
moved. I believe  that  the  appointment 
of  boards  of  education  by  partisan 
mayors  is  a mistake;  I believe  that  in  the 
experience  of  all  the  cities  such  appoint- 
ments have  been  more  or  less  unsatis- 
factory. Generally  more.  There  is  a 
further  consideration : The  people  of 

Chicago  have  voted  upon  this  question, 
unlike  some  other  questions,  by  a large 
proportion.  The  people  of  Chicago  have 
voted  upon  it  after  it  was  thoroughly  dis- 
cussed, and  a great  deal  of  personal  in- 
terest aroused  throughout  the  city.  And 
the  vote  in  the  city  as  taken  was  over- 
whelmingly in  favor  of  the  elective  board. 
I do  not  wish  to  go  into  the  details  of 
making  me  believe  finally  that  this  is 
the  best  way  out  of  more  or  less  difficult 
problems  for  our  municipality  at  this 
time.  I wish  to  make  this  point:  I wish 

to  present  this  motion.  I hope  it  will 
be  thoroughly  discussed.  I believe  the 
judgment  of  this  Convention  will  be 


satisfactory  to  the  people  after  it  has 
been  discussed. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

a question  of  Mr.  Robins. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I should  be  glad  to 

answer. 

MR.  RAYMER:  You  suggested  the 

idea  of  taking  the  Board  of  Education 
from  the  field  of  partisan  polities.  Have 
you  a remedy  to  suggest  whereby  that 
might  be  a reality? 

MR.  ROBINS : I have  only  the  sug- 

gestion offered  by  the  chairman  of  the 
committee.  The  provision  of  the  Oregon 
law,  in  my  judgment,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  arrives  at 
that  end  with  practical  satisfaction,  and 
is  as  near  a complete  reality  as  we  can 
expect  from  any  human  device.  I would 
very  much  rather  that  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  who  has  the  matter  rather 
more  in  hand  than  I have  myself  would 
discuss  it,  but  I have  gone  over  it 
measurably  carefully  as  to  the  character- 
istic feature  of  the  Oregon  law. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  it  would  be  wrell  to  hear  from  Dr. 
Taylor  on  that  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  Taylor. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

Oregon  law,  as  appears  in  this  report, 
provides  for  an  election  at  a special 
election ; the  names  of  the  candidates 
to  be  placed  on  the  ballot  in  alpha- 
betical order,  and  with  every  hundred 


names 

a 

new 

name  to  head 

the 

list, 

so 

that 

a man  who 

has 

his  r 

lame 

at 

the  head  at 

the 

beginn 

ing  with 

A shall  not  finish  at 

the 

head. 

He 

will 

not  be  at  the  head 

al- 

ways. 

The 

deta 

tils  of  this  law'  are  very 

carcfu 

lly  d 

rawn 

out,  and  it  would  t 

ake 

some 

time 

to  ( 

liscuss  them  thoroughly, 

but  if 

they 

can 

be  referred — the  Orej 

gon 

lawr,  I 

was 

going  to  suggest,  might 

be 

refcrrc 

>d  to 

the 

Drafting  Committee 

as 

the  one  worthiest  of  their  attention  to 
I secure  from  it  provisions  to  safeguard 


December  20 


570 


1906 


this  alternative  list  being  divorced  from 
any  political  considerations. 

ME.  SHANAHAN : That  is  merely  in 

regard  to  elections.  It  merely  says  that 
we  shall  not  have  party  columns  and 
party  circles.  It  in  no  way  prevents 
party  nominations. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes,  nominations  by 

petition. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : Nominations  by 

petition? 

MR.  HUNTER:  Would  Dr.  Taylor 

tell  us  about  how  many  names  would  be 
on  this  ballot  in  the  City  of  Chicago? 

MR.  TAYLOR : What  do  you  mean  ? 

How  many  names? 

MR.  HUNTER:  Yes;  how  many 

names? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  That  would  entirely 

depend  upon  the  percentage  of  the  peti- 
tioners that  was  decided  upon  by  the 
Drafting  Committee  or  by  the  Conven- 
tion. 

MR.  HUNTER : There  could  be  no 

limit,  if  they  were  selected,  as  to  the 
number  of  names  that  went  on. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes;  names  could  be 

put  on  only  by  a certain  percentage  of 
signatures  appearing  on  a certain  peti- 
tion; the  total  could  be  fixed. 

MR.  HUNTER:  It  would  have  to 

provide  for  100,000  to  be  on  the  list. 
There  would  be  that  many  applications 
in  my  opinion.  It  would  not  be  that. 

MR,  TAYLOR:  I should  think  it 

might. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr.  Robins. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

just  want  to  say  a word  on  this  ques- 
tion. If  we  adopt  the  Oregon  law  in  con- 
nection with  this  matter  it  seems  to  me 
that  we  would  have  to  revise  our  entire 
election  law,  which  I question  very  much 
would  be  feasible  at  this  time.  And,  be- 
lieving that  it  would  be  almost  imprac- 
ticable at  this  time  to  do  it,  I am  in- 
clined to  think  that  we  would  find  our- 
selves throwing  our  Board  of  Education 


right  into  the  very  jaws  of  the  political 
party;  and  that  instead  of  freeing  our- 
selves and  our  Board  of  Education  from 
politics  would  be  tying  ourselves  up  to 
the  political  game  worse  than  we  have 
ever  been  known  to  be  tied  up  to  it  in 
this  city.  My  judgment  is  that  it  would 
be  a misfortune  to  the  school  system  of 
Chicago  if  we  were  to  have  the  charter 
contain  a provision  whereby  the  Board 
of  Education  would  be  elective. 

The  people  of  Chicago  are  usually  to 
be  trusted  in  the  selection  of  the  chief 
magistrate.  They  have  usually  shown 
good  judgment.  The  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education  that  have  been  ap- 
pointed in  the  past  have  been  men  of 
integrity.  No  one  man  can  select  a 
board  of  twenty-four  and  have  that  en- 
tire body  of  men  satisfactory  to  every- 
one. But,  as  a rule,  the  majority  of 
those  members  have  been  gentlemen  who 
have  been  able  to  administer  the  affairs 
of  the  educational  department  of  this 
community  in  a satisfactory  way.  The 
only  objection  that  I have  got  against 
the  present  system  is  the  size  of  the 
board,  the  number  of  members  that  it 
contains.  And  I want  to  say,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, at  this  point,  that  I have  in  the 
hands  of  the  Secretary  an  amendment  on 
that  point.  Humbly  feeling  this  way 
about  it  as  one  member  of  this  Conven- 
tion, I believe  it  would  be  a mistake — 
the  greatest  mistake  we  could  make,  to 
provide  for  the  election  of  the  members 
of  the  Board  of  Education. 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I sin- 

cerely hope  that  Mr.  Robins  ’ motion  will 
not  prevail.  I had  the  pleasure  of  serv- 
ing on  the  Board  of  Education  for  three 
years.  The  board  that  I served  with  was 
appointed  by  the  mayor.  That  board 
consisted  of  gentlemen  well  selected,  re- 
presenting all  parts  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago ; to  a large  extent  representing 
special  parts  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  The 
selection  of  the  Board  of  Education — 
that  board  which  is  probably  the  most 


December  20 


571 


1906 


sacred  in  its  work  of  any  board  in  the 
City  of  Chicago — should  be  done  with 
extreme  care.  The  man  who  is  mayor 
and  who  does  not  do  it  with  extreme 
care  is  not  a good  or  a careful  mayor, 
and  does  not  act  in  the  interest  of  the 
people  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  I believe 
that  Mr.  Robins’  idea  will,  as  Alderman 
Raymer  says,  throw  the  educational  in- 
stitution of  the  City  of  Chicago  right 
back  into  polities.  We  well  know  that 
when  tickets  are  made  up  in  a political 
way  they  are  made  up  as  the  result  of 
trading  in  politics.  A good  many  people 
claim  now,  and  have  claimed  for  months 
back,  that  the  coming  election  in  the 
spring  will  result  largely  from  trades 
which  have  been  made  in  the  past.  Now, 
I do  not  see  so  very  much  danger  in 
that  so  far  as  other  elections  are  con- 
cerned. I do  not  care  to  consider  them 
here  tonight.  But  anything  that  will 
bring  the  educational  system  in  this  city 
into  politics  will  be  a danger  that  is 
directed  at  youth ; at  your  children  in 
the, schools  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  And 
I think  I know  what  I am  talking 
about,  because  what  little  education  I 
have,  I received  in  schools  in  Chicago, 
and  by  attending  night  schools  in  the 
schools  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Now,  I sincerely  hope  that  we  throw 
responsibility  for  the  appointment  of 
the  School  Board  onto  the  mayor  of  the 
City  of  Chicago.  Let  that  responsibility 
place  the  mayor  just  where  he  deserves 
to  be  placed.  And  you  will  never  be 
able  to  get  a well  selected  Board  of 
Education  — if  I did  not  fear  to  tread 
upon  the  toes  of  some  gentlemen  who 
are  present  tonight  I would  go  into  the 
matter  a little  further  and  classify  how 
and  why  these  members  should  be  se- 
lected, but  I say 

MK.  ROBINS:  1 hope  the  gentlemen 

won ’t  allow  any  person  present  here 
from  preventing  him  enlightening  the 
Convention  on  any  matters  that  will 
help  this  Convention  reaching  a sound 


decision.  I,  as  one,  may  assure  him  I will 
not  feel  that  my  toes  are  tread  upon. 

MR,  REVELL:  Well,  my  friends,  I 

will  let  it  go  at  that  suggestion  that  I 
have  made.  The  Board  of  Education 
must  be  carefully  selected.  So  far  as  the 
number  of  the  Board  of  Education  is 
concerned,  whether  it  be  fifteen  or  wheth- 
er it  be  twenty-one — so  far  as  the  num- 
ber is  concerned  just  so  far  there  should 
be  representation ; so  far  as  the  differ- 
ent elements  of  the  city  are  concerned. 
I certainly  hope  that  you  will  vote  down 
the  proposition  on  the  motion  made  by 
Mr.  Robins. 

MR,  BROSSEAU:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  had  the  honor  of  being  a member 
of  this  Educational  Committee.  We 
have  spent  a great  deal  of  time  in  look- 
ing over  the  ground,  and  the  effect  of 
elective  bodies  and  appointive  bodies,  as 
they  exist  in  the  different  cities ; and 
it  has  been  proven  beyond  any  doubt 
that  in  large  cities  elective  bodies  were 
a failure.  And  for  the  very  simple  rea- 
son that  a member  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation is  considered  a very  minor  office; 
and  when  a voter  gets  down  to  the  bot- 
tom of  the  list,  while  voting:  “Oh, ” he 
says,  “I  will  let  it  go  on  the  whole 
list  as  it  is;  I will  pay  no  attention  to 
the  list  of  individuals  therein.  ’ ’ That 
seems  to  have  been  the  actual  experience 
in  large  cities  like  Philadelphia  and  New 
York. 

1 believe  that  the  boards  of  educa- 
tion for  many  years — and  I have  lived 
here  a few  years — have  been  in  general 
very  good,  and  I am  in  favor  that  we 
retain  the  old  system  of  appointment  by 
the  mayor,  confirmed  by  the  - council. 

MR,  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

sorry  that  Mr.  Revell  did  not  continue 
his  classification;  or,  at  least,  make  his 
classification  of  school  boards,  because 
I think,  perhaps,  there  may  be  inter- 
esting comparisons  that  might  have  re- 
sulted. I am  quite  sure  he  would  not 
have  stepped  on  my  toes — not  so  as  to 


December  20 


572 


1906 


hurt  me.  I have  not  any  tender  corns 
there.  I am  perfectly  willing  to  have 
the  present  School  Board,  to  which  il- 
lusion was  doubtless  made,  compared 
Y7ith  the  school  boards  that  have  been 
giving  away  the  property  of  the  children 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  to  prominent 
newspapers  in  the  City  of  Chicago  who 
represent  the  same  side  on  this  ques- 
tion that  Mr.  Bevell  has  been  represent- 
ing. Since  Mr.  Revell  has  not  gone  any 
further  in  his  classification  I won’t  go 
any  further  into  mine,  but  I am  willing 
to  meet  him,  or  anyone  else,  here,  or 
anywhere  else,  upon  a comparison  of 
the  present  School  Board  with  the 
school  boards  that  have  been  appointed 
during  the  past  ten  or  twelve  years.  I 
should  be  willing  for  personal  consider- 
ations, perhaps,  to  omit  the  School  Board 
on  which  Mr.  Bevell  served;  but  that  is 
the  only  exception  that  I think  I would 
be  prepared  to  make. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  wre  have  before 
this  Convention  three  recommendations 
for  an  elective  board.  And  not  a single 
basis  of  opposition  to  an  elective  board 
except  such  as  comes  from  political 
sources.  One  of  the  recommendations 
that  we  have,  for  an  elective  board,  comes, 
as  the  chairman  of  the  committee  has 
stated,  from  the  Principals’  Association 
of  the  schools  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
They,  it  appears,  have  appeared  before 
this  committee  and  stated  their  prefer- 
ence for  an  elective  board.  We  have 
also  the  recommendation  of  the  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  which  may  be  presumed 
to  represent  to  some  extent  the  parents 
of  the  school  children  of  the  City  of 
Chicag,  perhaps  to  a larger  extent  than 
any  other  body  that  has  either  appeared 
in,  is  represented  in,  or  influences  in  any 
way  this  Convention.  And  in  addition 
to'  that  we  have  had  under  the  public 
policy  law  a proposition  for  an  elective 
school  board,  which,  as  Mr.  Robins  says, 
was  discussed  extensively  throughout  the 
city,  and  it  carried  by  a large  majority 


of  the  voters  who  voted  upon  the  sub- 
ject. You  may  say  in  reply  that  all  the 
people  did  not  vote.  Well,  the  gentle- 
man wants  a test  of  intelligence  in  vot- 
ing. It  is  by  this  method  of  voting  that 
we  get  a test  of  intelligence.  The  ability 
to  read  and  write,  and  to  construe  the 
constitution  is  not  necessarily  a test  of 
intelligence  in  voting.  The  man  who  votes 
on  a referendum  proposition  is  the  man 
that  shows  that  he  has  intelligence  on 
that  subject  and  his  interest  in  it,  which- 
ever way  he  votes.  . That  decides  his 
right  to  vote,  and  he  is  the  only  person 
that  can  decide  on  that  question  intelli- 
gently. 

The  gentlemen  who  disfranchised 
themselves  on  that  occasion  have  no  right 
to  point  to  the  fact  that  they  did  that, 
and  that,  therefore,  this  was  not  a full 
vote.  It  was  a full  vote;  it  was  a ma- 
jority vote. 

We  have  thus  three  recommendations, 
the  Principals  ’ Association,  the  Federa- 
tion of  Labor,  and  a public  opinion  vote 
of  the  City  of  Chicago.  We  are  told 
this  will  draw  the  question  into  politics. 
What  better  way  is  there  of  throwing  a 
question  of  this  kind  into  politics  than 
by  requiring  that  the  appointment  be 
made  by  the  mayor  and  confirmed  by 
the  City  Council.  The  mayor  is  elected 
as  a political  candidate,  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  council  are  almost  every  one 
elected  as  political  candidates.  What  can 
you  expect  but  political  influencees  to 
control  the  appointments  made  by  the 
mayor  and  controlled  by  the  council  even 
for  the  school  board? 

In  the  same  proposition  we  have  in 
the  report  of  the  committee  an  ex- 
planation of  how  there  can  be  an  elec- 
tive school  board  which  shall  not  put  the 
question  into  politics.  They  say  the 
members  of  the  Board  of  Education  shall 
be  nominated  by  petition,  by  petition 
alone,  and  this  will  tend  to  keep  the 
matter  out  of  partisan  polities.  They 
say  that  the  members  of  the  board  shall 


December  20 


573 


1906 


be  elected  by  a general  ticket  from  the 
city  at  large,  and  on  petition,  put  on 
petition.  They  shall  be  elected  at  a 
special  election.  We  have  special  elec- 
tions for  the  judiciary,  in  order  to  get 
that  question  out  of  politics,  and  that 
has  been  done.  But  a place  on  the  bench 
is  a position  not  only  of  honor,  but  of 
emolument.  A place  on  the  school  board 
is  a place  of  no  emolument,  and  if  we 
are  to  take  the  view  of  the  newspapers 
upon  that  subject,  the  local  newspapers, 
no  matter  how  hard  or  how  conscien- 
tiously the  Avork  may  have  been  done,  it 
is  a position  that  is  without  credit,  and 
without  any  very  great  honor,  no  matter 
how  conscientiously  the  work  may  have 
been  done.  They  also  say  that  the  ballot 
for  the  election  of  members  of  the  Board 
of  Education  shall  not  indicate  the  po- 
litical affiliation  of  the  candidates;  that 
the  accumulative  system  shall  prevail. 
We  are  told  that  if  we  haATe  this  system 
we  AA'ill  be  overburdened  AA'ith  candidates 
by  petition.  One  hundred  thousand  can- 
didates will  be  nominated  by  petition,  so 
Ave  are  told.  Mr.  Chairman,  that  has  a 
familiar  sound  to  me.  I participated  in 
the  early  agitation  for  the  Australian 
ballot  system  in  this  country,  in  the  state 
that  Avas  the  first  to  propose  it  and  the 
last  to  get  it,  and  Ave  Avere  told,  always 
by  politicians,  that  if  Ave  got  the  Aus- 
tralian ballot  we  would  have  more  poli- 
tics than  ever.  Well,  Ave  did  not  alto- 
gether get  rid  of  politics;  Ave  didn’t  want 
to;  avp  did  not  get  rid  of  partisan  poli- 
tics as  much  as  Ave  desired,  which  A\fas 
largely  due  to  the  fact  that  the  Austra- 
lian ballot  was  emasculatd — no,  worse 
than  that,  if  anything  could  be  Avorse; 
the  Australian  ballot  Avas  not  entirely  to 
blame.  The  politicians  did  not  want  to 
keep  the  nominations  out  of  politics,  so 
they  made  the  Australian  ballot  in  such 
a way  as  to  keep  nominations  within 
politics  as  much  as  possible,  and  cer- 
tainly the  Australian  ballot  has  served 
all  the  more  to  extend  the  power  of  par- 


tisan politics,  notwithstanding  that  par- 
tisan politics,  or  whatever  politics  Ave 
have  had,  that  the  Australian  ballot  AA’as 
not  devised  to  further  partisan  politics, 
and  it  has  not  changed  the  situation 
any  to  have  candidates  nominated  by 
petition.  They  said  that  every  man  A\dio 
A\rants  to  get  a little  notoriety  can  get 
his  name  on  a ballot  by  petition ; there 
are  a lot  of  people  who  Avill  sign  a 
petition  in  a city  like  this,  and  it  was 
at  one  time  seriously  proposed  to  have 
a large  pecuniary  condition  attached  to 
going  upon  the  ballot. 

We  have  found  the  experience  all  over 
the  country  that  if  Ave  were  to  ha\Te 
nominations  by  petition  on  school  elec- 
tions the  whole  tendency  would  be  to 
create  Avhat  I might  call,  for  Avant  of 
a better  term,  a question  of  school  poli- 
tics, that  is  to  say,  a question  as  to 
the  government  of  the  schools,  which 
would  draw  the  attention  of  the  whole 
voting  population  of  Chicago  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  schools  ’ part  on  our 
partisan  politics,  the  schools’  part  to- 
wards partisan  politics  in  our  school 
matters. 

If,  instead  of  an  election  by  the 
people,  Ave  maintained  the  system  of 
appointment,  Avhat  is  the  best  we  can 
expect?  Something  that  is  being  de- 
manded over  this  city,  a non-partisan 
board?  There  is  no  man  in  this  room  prob- 
ably so  green  in  politics  as  not  to  knoAV 
that  a non-partisan  board  of  any  kind 
is  not  Avhat  it  professes  to  be.  In  other 
words,  when  people  cry  for  a non-par- 
tisan board,  what  they  mean  is  not  a 
non-partisan  board.  They  mean  a by- 
partisan board;  and  if  you  can  find  any- 
thing that  tends  more  to  corruption  in 
polities  than  a by-partisan  board,  I 
don ’t  know  Avhat  it  is.  When  you  get 
a democratic  mayor  and  he  appoints 
two  democrats,  and  two  republicans  who 
vote  the  democratic  ticket  on  that 
board,  and  when  you  get  a republican  and 
he  appoints  two  republicans  who  vote 


December  20 


574 


1906 


the  democratic  ticket,  or  the  reverse — 
the  republicans  usually  vote  the  re- 
publican ticket  and  democrats  usually 
vote  the  democratic  ticket,  or  with  a par- 
ticular faction  to  which  the  mayor  be- 
longs, and  you  get  a combination  which 
is  inevitably  corrupt,  because  there  is  a 
divided  responsibility. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I think  that  prob- 
ably in  addition  to  political  considera- 
tions there  is  another  consideration  in 
connection  with  this  board.  I think 
that,  in  all  probability,  in  part,  the  ob- 
jection to  the  election  of  this  board 
arises  from  the  fact  that  if  you  have  an 
elective  board  the  women  of  Chicago  will 
vote  as  well  as  the  men,  and  that  -we 
may  expect  from  that  influence  in  our 
school  a taking  out  of  partisan  politics 
and  a making  of  a system  of  the  board 
less  and  less  corrupt.  We  shall  have  the 
benefit  of  the  votes  of  the  women  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  if  we  make  it  an  elec- 
tive board. 

I know  it  is  not  very  politic  for  me 
to  call  attention  to  this  fact,  because  I 
know  this  prejudice  against  having  wo- 
men participate  in  voting  of  any  kind; 
but,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  women  are  to 
participate  in  any  kind  of  public  affairs, 
what  is  more  proper  for  them  to  par- 
ticipate in  than  the  'election  of  the  gov- 
erning body  of  the  public  school  system. 
The  mothers  of  this  city  should  have 
a voice  in  the  selection  of  the  body  that 
governs  the  school  system,  and  it  is  only 
by  making  the  board  elective  that  they 
can  have  a voice.  I think  that  this  Con- 
vention will  place  a land  mark  right 
here  on  one  of  the  most  important  ques- 
tions that  have  been  considered  by  either 
deciding  for  or  against  the  election  of 
the  school  board.  First,  if  they  decide 
against  it,  they  are  deciding  to  disfran- 
chise the  mothers  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago in  the  selection  of  a governing  body 
of  a school  system;  and  if  they  decide 
against  it,  they  are  placing  the  manage- 
ment of  the  school  system  back  into 


the  hands  of  the  mayor  and  the  council, 
who  are  confessedly  always  of  necessity, 
for  the  present,  elected  through  par- 
tisan considerations  and  for  partisan 
ends,  and  who  will  doubtless,  being 
human,  carry  out  partisan  purposes  in 
connection  with  the  school  system,  as  in 
other  branches  of  the  government. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  as, 

a citizen  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  I am 
not  afraid  that  we  ever  will  have  in 
the  City  of  Chicago  a bad  or  corrupt 
school  board,  whether  the  school  board  is 
elected  or  appointed.  If  it  is  appointed, 
the  mayor  will  select  the  very  best 
men  he  can  possibly  get  for  that  office, 
because  there  is  no  salary  or  wages  at- 
tached to  it.  And  it  is  the  same  with 
political  parties.  If  the  board  should 
be  elected  they  will  certainly  elect  the 
very  best  men  that  can  be  to  serve  as 
members  of  the  board. 

And  so,  taking  this  into  considera- 
tions, I believe  that  there  is  no  danger 
either  way.  But  I wish  to  say  that  the 
gentlemen  speaking  before  me  painted 
the  picture  in  dark  colors  when  they  say 
there  is  a danger  if  the  board  is  elected. 
There  is  no  danger  in  Boston,  where  the 
board  is  elected;  and  there  is  no  danger 
in  St.  Louis,  where  the  board  is  elected. 
On  the  contrary,  they  say  in  St.  Louis 
they  have  the  best  school  board  in  the 
whole  of  America.  For  that  reason,  you 
do  not  have  to  be  afraid,  gentlemen,, 
that  we  will  have  trouble  on  that  ac- 
count. I only  say  that  if  you  gentlemen 
wish  to  put  the  ladies  in  the  charter  to 
have  one  chance  and  that  is  to  give  them 
the  right  for  school  trustees — as  you  all 
know,  we  men  of  business,  we  have  no 
time  to  attend  to  things  which  our  wives 
or  the  ladies  attend  to  every  day,  to  the 
children;  they  take  more  interest  in  the 
education  of  the  children  than  we  do, 
because  they  have  more  time  to  do  it  in. 

For  this  reason,  I believe  that  the  state- 
ment made  by  Mr.  Post  is  correct,  and 
whether  you  vote  for  one  or  the  other 


December  20 


575 


1906 


you  cannot  miss  it.  We  will  always  have 
a good  school  board  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. 

For  my  part,  I would  prefer  the  elec- 
tion of  the  school  board,  and  I will  vote 
that  way. 

ME.  PEND AE VIS : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

rise  simply  for  the  purpose  of  asking  Mr. 
Post  a question.  He  said  the  women 
would  be  disfranchised  if  we  decided  for 
an  appointive  board.  I wanted  to  ask 
him  if  the  women  were  disfranchised  in 
the  selection  of  the  last  school  board? 

MB.  GUEEIN : Mr.  Chairman,  I think 
the  main  question  here  is  of  what  class 
of  men  the  board  is  composed.  Now,  it 
seems  to  me  they  should  be  composed  of 
perhaps  of  about  four  classes  of  men, 
and  of  two  mainly.  The  members  of  the 
board  should  be — some  of  the  members  of 
the  board  should  be  educators;  the  bal- 
ance of  the  board  should  be  business 
men,  and  those  business  men  should  be 
composed  not  only  of  men  of  ordinary 
business,  but  they  should  be  composed 
at  least  of  professional  men.  It  is  a 
good  thing  to  have  at  least  one  good  law- 
yer on  the  board,  and  I think  it  is  well 
to  have  one  or  two  doctors  on  the  board, 
if  I do  say  it. 

Now,  I will  tell  you  why — you  laugh 
at  that — I have  taken  the  opportunity  of 
visiting  some  of  the  schools,  and  I find, 
in  many  instances,  the  sanitary  condition 
of  the  schools  is  in  a most  deplorable 
condition ; and  I have  been  informed  by 
teachers  who  have  been  in  the  schools 
for  years  that  they  have  always  been 
so.  And,  for  that  reason,  I think  you 
ought  to  have  some  doctors  on  the  board 
who  know  something  about  sanitary  af- 
fairs. And,  not  only  that,  but  who 
know  something  about  the  heating  and 
the  ventilating  of  the  buildings,  which 
is  one  of  the  most  important  things  in 
the  physical  construction  of  a building. 
Now,  then,  another  matter,  from  the  his- 
tory of  the  past,  without  wanting  to 
throw’  any  reflection  upon  any  of  the 


previous  boards,  it  is  very  evident  to 
my  mind  that  you  ought  to  have  good 
sound  business  men  who  will  carefully  look 
after  the  property  of  the  school  board, 
and  especially  in  the  leasing  of  the  prop- 
erty of  the  school  board.  We  could 
point  out  to  you  at  the  present  time 
leases  that  have  been  made,  some  fifteen 
or  twenty  years  ago,  where  people  are 
not  paying  more  than  one-third,  and  in 
some  instances  not  more  than -one-fourth, 
for  rent  that  ought  to  be  paid  for  the 
rent  of  your  property.  It  is  said  to  be 
the  property  of  the  school  board;  it  is 
the  property  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
has  been  practically  given  away  by 
members  of  the  school  board  in  the  past. 
And  notwithstanding 

ME.  BEVELL:  Will  the  Doctor  give 

away  to  a question? 

ME.  GUEEIN:  Yes,  sir. 

MB.  EEYELL:  Can  you  tell  me  how 

the  prices  made  for  school  board  prop- 
erty fifteen  years  ago,  in  long  leases  we 
will  say,  compare  with  long  leases  made 
by  private  individuals  at  the  same  time? 

ME.  GUEEIN : Yes,  sir.  I can  give 

you  an  instance  of  it. 

ME.  EEYELL:  I wrould  like  to  have 

it. 

MB.  GUEEIN : Can  you  tell  me,  sir, 

what  is  the  value  of  the  southeast  cor- 
ner of  Dearborn  street  and  Madison 
street  today,  and  wdiat  is  the  value  paid 
for  it?  I mean  the  property  occupied 
by  the  Tribune  Building? 

ME.  BEVELL:  It  is  a valuable  piece 

of  property,  but  I think  in  a great 
growing  city  like  this,  where  values 
change  rapidly,  and  what  is  done  by  the 
public  is  not  different  from  what  is  done 
by  the  private  individual. 

MB.  GUEETN:  And  the  very  fact 

that  this  is  a great  city  and  a growing 
city,  members  in  the  past  ought  to  have 
taken  that  into  account,  which  they  did 
not  take  into  account,  and  instead  of 
getting  about  $47,000  for  that  property, 
today  we  ought  to  get  over  $100,000  for 


December  20 


576 


1906 


the  property.  We  are  paying  there  to- 
day, rent,  as  I understand  it,  of  about 
$32,000  a year,  and  we  are  getting  from 
the  Tribune  Building  about  $47,000  a 
year.  These  are  facts ; they  are  not 
opinions. 

Now,  then,  in  reference  to  the  men 
who  should — the  educational  department. 
I hold  that  you  ought  to  have  men  upon 
that  board  who  are  as  well  qualified  to 
run  that  school  system  as  even  the  best 
possible  superintendent  that  can  be  got- 
ten in  the  United  States — and  you  can 
find  them  right  here  in  Chicago,  plenty 
of  them.  They  are  not  necessarily  great 
talkers,  but  they  know  something  about 
how  schools  should  be  run.  These  men 
are  practical  educators,  men  who  have 
been  brought  up  in  the  public  schools 
themselves  and  who  have  been  educators 
in  the  public  schools.  We  ought  to  have 
:at  least  three  of  such  men, — men  of  that 
■character.  You  ought  to  have  in  addi- 
tion to  that  a man  on  the  school  board 
who  knows  all  about  the  construction  of 
buildings  and  the  kind  and  quality  of 
materials;  and,  not  only  that,  but  even 
he  should  be  a plumber,  and  when  I say 
the  construction  of  buildings  I intended 
to  include  that,  of  course.  You  ought 
to  have,  as  I said  before,  a lawyer  who 
knows  when  contracts  are  let  that  they 
are  the  right  sort  of  contracts.  You 
ought  to  have  him  on  the  board.  It 
would  be  very  well,  of  course,  to  em- 
ploy one,  but  you  ought  to  have  one  of 
those  things  yourself.  I am  speaking 
of  the  members  of  the  board  now;  they 
should  know  those  things,  and  for  those 
reasons  I da  claim,  notwithstanding  that 
I am  very  sorry  to  differ  with  my  friend 
^Nlr.  Post,  because  I know  he  is  thor- 
oughly sincere  in  what  he  says  and  what 
he  does; — I believe  you  can  get  that 
class  of  men  better  by  appointment  than 
you  can  by  election. 

It  is  all  very  well  to  picture  out 
how  you  are  going  to  elect  good  mem- 
bers of  a school  board.  When  ‘those 


members  are  selected  by  petition,  or  any 
other  way,  or  by  a convention,  they  are 
not  selected  always  with  a view  to  their 
fitness  for  the  school  board.  They  will 
be  selected  for  some  other  reason,  in  my 
judgment,  and,  therefore,  I would  make 
it  incumbent  upon  the  mayor  to  appoint 
at  least  three  or  four  classes  of  men  of 
the  very  best  possible  that  we  could  find 
in  the  city,  and  they  should  be,  as  I 
said  before,  good  sound  business  men 
of  integrity,  and  men  that  would  know 
that  this  city  is  growing  and  that  pro- 
perty is  liable  to  be  worth  more  in  the 
future  than  it  has  been  in  the  past. 

Who  would  think,  fifteen  years  ago — I 
have  been  here  long  enough  to  know  this 
— who  would  think  fifteen  years  ago  that 
that  property  which  I pointed  out  on 
that  corner,  now  occupied  by  the  Tribune 
Building,  would  not  be  worth  more  than 
$47,000  in  the  future?  Look  back.  You 
are  all  old  enough  to  know  better  than 
that.  Then  there  is  other  property.  For 
example,  I can  find  you  property  on 
State  Street,  almost  right  back  of  the 
Tribune,  that  is  not  half  the  size  of  the 
property  occupied  by  the  Tribune  Build- 
ing, inside  lots,  for  which  there  is  more 
rent  paid  now  than  there  is  for  that  oc- 
cupied by  the  Tribune  Building.  The 
same  can  be  said  about  other  property. 

Now,  we  have  property  at  issue;  we 
have  property  now;  there  has  to  be  a 
revaluation  of  property  on  State  Street. 
WThat  do  I find — I have  been  in  com- 
mittees there  already.  A lawyer  is  em- 
ployed ; he  comes  in  and  talks  to  us 
there  for  two  or  three  hours,  and  we 
didn ’t  have  a word  to  say — he  didn ’t 
have  a word  to  say,  excepting  pointing 
out  to  us  how  property  is  going  to  be 
less  valuable  in  the  City  of  Chicago  in 
future.  Do  you  believe  that,  gentlemen? 

I do  not.  I have  talked  with  some  of 
the  best  real  estate  agents  in  the  City 
of  Chicago,  and  I am  very  glad  to  get 
the  advice  of  some  of  the  best  real  estate 
men  in  Chicago,  and  they  tell  me  that 


December  20 


5/7 


1906 


this  property  is  worth  from  $20,000  to 
$25,000  a year;  and  those  people  refuse 
to  pay  more  than  $13,000  a year  for  it. 
And  they  have  a lawyer  to  defend  them. 

That  is  the  way  people  have  been 
hoodwinked  in  the  past.  We  do  not  pro- 
pose to  be  hoodwinked  that  way  in  the 
future,  notwithstanding  we  are  the 
Dunne  Board,  as  you  call  it.  As  I said 
before,  I think  you  are  likely  to  get  the 
class  of  better  men  if  you  appoint  them 
than  by  election. 

MR.  CRILLY:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

Doctor  has  attacked  the  integrity  of  the 
school  board  at  the  time  the  board  lease 
was  made.  I would  like  the  privilege  of 
answering  him  on  that  question.  Here 
is  the  letter  addressed  to  me  by  the  three 
gentlemen  that  made  the  valuation  on 
the  Tribune  corner  at  the  time  they  got 
that  lease.  Here  is  what  they  say: 

Chicago,  December  27,  1901. 

D.  F.  Crilly,  1G7  Dearborn  street, 
Chicago,  111. 

Dear  Sir: — We  understand  that  you 
are  about  to  appear  before  the  Board 
of  Education  for  the  purpose  of  arrang- 
ing a fixed  rental  on  your  lots  on  the  cor- 
ner of  Dearborn  and  Monroe  streets  for 
the  balance  of  the  term.  We  would  say 
to  you  that  at  the  time  we  appraised  this 
property  in  1895  we  were  of  the  opinion 
that  the  valuation  fixed  by  us  at  that 
time  would  be  the  basis  for  a fixed  valua- 
tion for  the  balance  of  the  term.  We 
are  still  of.  the  same  opinion.  We  can- 
not but  feel  that  you  should  be  treated 
as  fairly  at  the  other  tenants  in  that 
block  have  been  treated  with  their  leases, 
and  hope  that  in  some  way  you  can  come 
to  an  amicable  arrangement  with  the 
Board  of  Education  in  this  matter. 
Yours  respectfully, 

(Signed)  John  McLaren,  Owynn  Garnett, 
Eugene  Carey. 

Now,  this  was  addressed — this  letter 
was  written  in  1901.  They  had  not 
changed  their  minds  up  to  that  time, 
^t  the  time  that  the  Tribune  people  set- 


tled their-  lease  with  the  school  board, 
there  was  an  ordinance  in  this  city  that 
prevented  buildings  from  being  erected 
more  than  twelve  stories  high.  The 
Tribune  permit  was  taken  out  for  a 
twelve-story  building.  At  the  time  they 
got  to  the  twelfth  story  the  limit  was 
taken  off  the  height  of  building,  and 
they  added  five  more  stories  to  it,  which 
made  the  ground  so  much  more  valuable, 
of  course. 

That  is  in  answer  to  the  charges  made 
against  the  members  of  the  school  board 
at  that  time.  Here  are  three  gentlemen 
paid  by  the  school  board  at  that  time 
to  make  that  examination. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I would  like  to  know 

the  relevancy  of  this  argument  upon  the 
question  before  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  is  your  point 
of  order1? 

MR.  TAYLOR : I would  like  to  know 

what  relevancy  this  particular  discussion, 
which  I think  should  come  up  at  some 
other  time,  has  on  the  question  of  the 
election  or  appointment  of  the  school 
board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 

upon  the  excellence  of  one  or  the  other 
classes,  and  the  Chair  is  impressed  with 
the  relevancy  of  it. 

MR.  HILL:  I don’t  think  it  is  neces- 

sary to  address  myself  as  to  the  sincer- 
ity of  the  members.  1 assume  that  every 
member  is  sincere  in  his  statements.  We 
are  here  for  light  on  various  questions 
that  are  brought  before  us,  and  we  are 
glad  to  hear  the  expressions  on  different 
sides  from  those  who  have  had  experi- 
ence in  this  direction. 

Now,  I have  had  a great  deal— and  I 
again  raised  a question  of  sincerity  here 
in  regard  to  placing  of  the  responsibility 
which  we  have  discussed — 1 mean  as  a 
body,  not  individually.  We  have  heard 
a.  great  deal  in  the  early  part  of  this 
Convention  about  reducing  the  number 
of  elective  officers  in  the  City  of  Chicago, 
the  argument  being  that,  by  reducing 


December  20 


578 


1906 


that  number  we  would  increase  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  elective.  And  the 
argument  is  advanced  by  electing  the 
mayor  and  perhaps  the  city  treasurer 
and  having  all  the  rest  of  the  city  officers 
appointed,  which  would  increase  the  re- 
sponsibility of  the  rest.  That,  I believe, 
has  received  favorable  consideration. 

Now,  wre  have  reached  a point,  perhaps 
more  important  it  becomes  nearly  to 
each  one  of  us  and  to  each  citizen  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  than  possibly  any  other 
point  that  we  have  discussed  in  this 
body.  We  are  right  up  to  the  question 
as  to  whether  it  is  advisable  whether 
the  school  board  shall  be  elected  or  ap- 
pointed. I have  listened  with  a great 
deal  of  interest  to  the  discussion  on  both 
sides  of  this  question,  and  theoretically 
they  both  have  strong  points.  There  are 
some  practical  points  possibly  that  have 
not  been  looked  at. 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  the  selection 
of  a school  board  there  should  be  some 
means  by  "which  those  members  should 
be  selected  by  reason  of  their  peculiar 
fitness  for  the  position  they  are  to  oc- 
cupy. They,  some  of  them,  should  be 
specialists  along  the  line,  of  the  work  for 
which  they  are  chosen,  right  along  the 
line  of  work  suggested  by  the  last 
speaker.  It  should  be  made  up  of  men 
of  different  ability.  Experienced  in  dif- 
ferent lines  as  suggested.  And  I am 
clearly  of  the  opinion  that  they  can  be 
secured  with  greater  certainty,  and  with 
greater  success,  in  an  appointive  body 
than  you  can  by  an  elective  body;  but 
there  is  a question  on  this  election  point, 
and  I want  to  reflect  for  a moment. 

We  hear  a good  deal  of  talk  about 
taking  these  things  out  of  politics  and 
nominating  by  petition,  placing  the 
names  on  the  ballot  without  designating 
their  party  affiliation,  and  I suppose  plac- 
ing them  along  in  alphabetical  order, 
as  has  been  suggested  before.  I don ’t  see 
where  you  get  any  safety  in  that  form 
of  ticket  any  more  than  you  do  in  the 


regular  nominating  ticket  of  political 
parties.  But  if  people  are  nominated  by 
petition  many  of  them  will  be  nominated 
by  reason  of  their  prominence  in  other 
lines  perhaps  not  at  all  related  to  this 
class  of  work.  If  people  are  nominated 
by  petition  and  placed  on  that  ticket 
without  designating  party  affiliation,  then 
how  are  you  going  to  learn  the  peculiar 
fitness  of  each  one  of  those  men?  Where 
are  you  going  to  get  that  information? 
I suppose  from  the  newspapers. 

And  that  brings  us  right  down  to  the 
point  of  what  I want  to  bring  before  you 
tonight.  How  many  of  the  gentlemen 
here  present  now  knew  of  his  knowledge 
of  the  fitness  of  any  five,  or  we  will  say 
ten,  put  it  at  that,  if  you  like,  of  the 
candidates  for  municipal  judges  at  our 
last  election?  How  many  of  you  knew 
of  your  own  knowledge,  or  from  what 
was  told  you  by  those  in  whom  you  had 
confidence,  perhaps,  or  who  had  personal 
acquaintance  with  any  five  of  those  men? 
Where  are  you  going  to  get  your  infor- 
mation as  to  the  fitness  of  these  men? 
From  the  newspapers?  Very  well.  Sup- 
pose they  are  nominated  by  petition  and 
they  are  on  the  ticket  in  alphabetical 
order  or  otherwise,  who  makes  up  the 
ticket  for  you  then?  The  manager  down 
here  in  some  office.  The  manager  of 
what?  The  manager  of  a newspaper,  a 
corporation ; a manager  selected  in  what 
way,  for  what?  Because  of  his  ability 
to  make  that  corporation  pay  dividends, 
just  like  any  other  corporation ; a man- 
ager without  responsibility  except  to  his 
stockholders.  Do  you  want  that  done? 
Do  you  believe,  gentlemen,  that  that  is 
any  more  a libel  on  the  whole  than 
a party  ticket  nominated  by  your  own 
party?  Do  you  believe  you  are  any 
safer  where  the  manager  makes  up  your 
ticket  and  prints,  it  in  his  paper  as  your 
ticket,  and  people  cut  it  out  and  base 
their  conclusions  upon  that  judgment  of 
the  manager,  than  you  are  whether  a re- 
publican party  or  a democratic  party,  o/ 


December  20 


579 


1906 


any  other  party  selects  the  candidates  or 
presents  them  to  you  nder  the  head  of 
whatever  organization  that  candidate  may 
belong  to?  I don’t  think  so.  I don’t 
think  that  is  any  safer.  I don’t  think 
there  is  as  much  responsibility  in  it;  the 
manager  may  be  opposed  to  one  appoint- 
ed, but  he  assumes  no  great  responsibility, 
no  responsibility  whatever;  and  I have 
known  of  instances  where  they  have 
changed  inside  of  two  days  without  apol- 
ogy and  without  responsibility  to  any- 
body else  but  their  stockholders. 

But  there  is  a litle  further  to  look 
into  this  thing.  Suppose  parties  or 
candidates  are  nominated  by  the  party, 
what  does  that  mean?  If  one  of  my 
friends  or  acquaintances  sends  me  a man 
with  a letter  of  recommendation  saying 
that  they  have  known  him  a long  time 
and  vouch  for  him,  that  has  some  force 
and  some  effect  on  me,  and  I may  be 
able  to  do  something  for  that  man.  If 
people  in  a certain  locality  know  a man 
and  endorse  the  man  for  office,  that  in- 
dicates the  way  those  people  think  of 
him,  if  they  endorse  him  and  stand  by 
him,  they  believe  he  is  a man  fitted  for 
the  position.  I say  to  you  gentlemen 
now  I have  more  confidence  in  that  kind 
of  nomination  than  I have  in  nomina- 
tions made  by  the  manager  of  a corpora- 
tion, sitting  back  here  in  some  back 
room,  who  is  responsible  to  nobody  but 
his  stockholders.  A corporation  is  a 
corporation,  and  a manager  is  a man- 
ager, and  that  is  all  there  is  to  it.  Now, 
how  are  you  going  to  make  up  your 
ticket — your  election  ticket?  How  are 
you  going  to  make  your  recommendation 
with  any  degree  of  certainty  on  these 
propositions?  1 believe  that  a far  safer 
way  is,  that  it  is  safer  to  place  the  re- 
sponsibility on  one  man,  and  that  man 
the  mayor,  with  the  approval  of  the  City 
Council,  also  assuming  the  responsibility 
to  their  people — I think  that  is  far  the 
safer  way.  I think  a man  will  select  his 
board  with  greater  certainty,  and  cer- 


tainly choose  them  for  their  individual 
merit  for  the  position,  and  give  us  a 
better  school  board  in  that  way  than  any 
method  of  election  I am  familiar  with. 
I heartily  agree  with  Dr.  Guerin  in  his 
remarks.  I think  we  ought  to  put  the 
responsibility  there  and  have  these  men 
appointed,  and  have  the  question  of  re- 
sponsibility as  definitely  located  as  pos- 
sible. 

We  have  heard  different  phases  of 
these  things,  and  I feel  it  would  be  safer, 
I feel  safer  in  appointing  these  men  and 
placing  the  responsibility  where  it  be- 
longs than  I would  in  having  a petition 
hawked  around  the  streets  by  paid  can- 
vassers— and  that  is  the  way  it  is  done 
in  these  days — hawked  around  the  street 
by  paid  canvassers  at  so  much  a name,  at 
a certain  amount  of  money  per  name,  by 
some  of  these  men  who  have  money,  by 
some  man  that  has  plenty  of  money  with 
which  to  get  names.  Now,  I understand 
— coming  to  our  special  elections,  I am 
told  that  it  costs  about  $160,000  to  hold 
an  election.  Who  is  going  to  pay  that? 
If  we  put  this  in  the  appointive  wTay  I 
take  it  that  we  wall  be  freed  from  that 
cost,  if  we  have  the  appointive  method 
of  filling  these  offices,  following  that  up 
by  the  proper  period  of  time  which  these 
offices  shall  be  held  for.  It  would  be  a 
great  saving  for  the  City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  GUERIN : I rise  to  a question 

of  personal  privilege.  There  was  one 
point  in  regard  to  the  lease  on  the  Tri- 
bune Building 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

question  of  personal  privilege? 

MR.  GUERIN:  This  question:  I 

claimed  to  state  the  previous  lease  valua- 
tion— that  previous  to  the  last  valuation 
it  was  a certain  figure  on  that  basis,  and 
now  it  is  a valuation  for  ninety-nine 
years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  not  a 

question  of  personal  privilege. 

MR.  .TONES:  I have  heard  a good 

many  expressions  here  of  the  hope  that 


December  20 


580 


1906 


we  might  have  a non-partisan  school 
board.  Now,  I do  not  expect  to  get  a 
non-partisan  school  board,  if  it  is  elec- 
tive, and  I do  not  expect  a non-partisan 
school  board  if  it  is  appointive;  I think 
in  either  case  that  the  board  will  be 
more  or  less  partisan,  and  it  will  either 
represent  some  political  party  if  it  is 
elective,  or  it  will  represent  some  admin- 
istration if  it  is  appointive.  I believe 
there  is  a way  to  secure  a:  non-partisan 
school  board  if  that  is  desired.  But 
there  is  a question  whether  the  people  of 
Chicago  would  want  a really  non-parti- 
san school  board.  I believe  the  ideal 
school  board  would  be  one  that  would 
be  absolutely  removed  from  tbe  power 
of  any  mayor  or  the  City  Council  or 
any  administration  to  change  its  com- 
plexion. The  only  way  you  could  se- 
cure that  would  be  to  select  the  board 
in  such  a way  that  none  of  those  fac- 
tors could  at  any  time  change  its 
complete  complexion. 

For  instance,  I might  illustrate : Sup- 

pose you  had  a board  of  twelve  mem- 
bers, and  suppose  one-third  of  that  board 
were  to  be  elected  at  large,  that  is, 
four  members,  two  we  will  say  every 
tAvo  years.  Suppose  that  a third  of  that 
board,  four  members,  were  to  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor  and  the  City  Coun- 
cil; suppose  a third  of  that  board  were 
to  be  selected  by  the  board  itself,  you 
Avould  have  a board  there  which  was 
one-third  appointive,  one-third  electee 
and  one-third  self-perpetuating.  Now, 
the  mayor  and  the  council  elected  could 
elect  one-sixth  of  the  members  of  the 
board,  that  is,  tAvo,  by  appointment ; the 
political  parties  in  any  nomination  that 
they  carried  on,  they  could  nominate  and 
elect  one-sixth  of  the  entire  members  of 
the  board,  tAvo  members.  The  board  it- 
self would  have  opportunity  to  in  a mea- 
sure control  a part  of  its  oAvn  body. 

I can  see  adA’antages  in  such  a system ; 
I can  see  advantages  even  if  you  elect 
a self-perpetuating  body,  ha\Te  one-half 


of  the  members  of  the  school  board  ap- 
pointed and  one-half  elected.  If  you  have 
only  a portion  of  the  school  board  ap- 
pointive, then  it  is  impossible  for  the 
mayor  or  the  City  Council  of  any  city 
administration  to  dominate  the  board  by 
appointment,  because  they  do  not  at  any 
one  time  have  sufficient  members  ’ vacan- 
cies to  be  filled  to  change  the  complex- 
ion of  the  board.  And  this  is  the  dan- 
gerous thing,  the  change  of  the  complex- 
ion of  the  board  constantly.  Now,  if 
one-half  of  that  very  board  were  elective 
it  would  be  impossible  for  the  voters  or 
for  any  political  party  by  nomination 
and  carrying  the  election  to  change  the 
complexion. 

It  often  happens  that  there  are  mem- 
bers upon  the  school  board  Avho  are  very 
valuable  members,  and  Avho  cannot  receive 
reappointment  at  the  hands  of  the 
mayor  because  they  may  be  hostile 
to  him,  or  he  may  not  be  particularly 
interested  in  them.  I believe  it  would 
be  very  desirable  for  the  members  of 
the  school  board,  having  confidence  in  a 
man  Avho  has  demonstrated  his  ability, 
to  have  power  to  retain  that  man  upon 
the  school  board.  Therefore,  I belieAre 
the  self-perpetuating  feature,  one-third, 
or  a lesser  quantity,  would  be  very  desir- 
able in  the  school  board.  I believe  that 
such  a school  board,  made  up  by  a se- 
lection in  those  three  ways,  that  you 
could  in  such  a manner  get  a non-par- 
tisan school  board,  and  that  is  the  only 
way  you  could  get  it.  By  an  electee 
board  you  Avill  get  a board  which  is 
partisan ; and  I have  had  citizens  of  the 
City  of  Boston  talk  to  me  about  the 
school  question  and  have  had  them  say 
to  me,  ‘ ‘ Whatever  you  do,  don ’t  have 
any  eleetiATe  school  board.”  And  I have 
heard  citizens  of  Chicago  say,  “You  are 
a member  of  the  Charter  Convention ; 
Avhatever  you  do  in  that  Convention  do 
not  perpetuate  the  appointive  school 
board.”  1 have  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  an  electi\re  board  that  would  be  one- 


December  20 


581 


1906 


half  appointive  and  one-half  of  it  elec- 
tive, that  would  be  suitable  to  some,  but 
I would  like  to  have  an  elective  board, 
because  in  every  case  you  get  a partisan 
board — in  either  case  you  get  a partisan 
board.  I believe  that  we  would  make  a 
step  in  the  right  direction  if  this  Con- 
vention went  to  the  extent  of  having  one- 
half  appointive  and  one-half  elective,  and 
I believe  we  would  not  make  any  mis- 
take, and  we  would  go  to  the  full  length 
if  we  had  a three-part  selection. 

I simply  make  these  suggestions  to 
the  Convention.  I do  not  propose  to  urge 
these  views  upon  this  convention ; as 
between  these  two  propositions  of  an 
elective  board  and  an  appointive  board, 

I shall  vote  for  the  appointive  board,  be- 
cause I am  opposide  to  adding  elective 
officers  on  our  ballot.  I believe  with 
only  one-half  of  our  board  to  be  elective, 
and  with  only  one  member  of  the  school 
board,  or  at  the  utmost  two  members,  at 
any  biennial  election,  that  with  the 
addition  of  these  officers  as  elective  of- 
ficers, that  it  would  not  be  objectionable, 
because  under  our  municipal  elections 
we  shall  have  only  the  mayor  and  the 
city  treasurer,  and  one  aldermen,  three 
men,  as  I understand,  upon  the  ballot 
as  it  now  stands.  I can  see  no  objec- 
tion to  putting  one  member  of  the  school 
board  on,  to  adding  one  member,  or  even 
two  members  of  the  school  board  at  any 
biennial  election,  but  I believe  that  the 
election  of  the  members  as  elective  of- 
ficers would  not  be  objectionable  for 
any  of  the  reasons  that  have  been  urged 
against  an  elective  school  board  as  a 
whole,  but  I believe  it  would  seriously  be 
an  objection  to  having  them  wholly  elec- 
tive. 

I merely  leave  that  thought  with  the 
convention,  that  if  you  want,  really  want 
a non-partisan  board  you  are  not  get- 
ting it  in  the  form  in  which  it  is  now; 
and  the  question  is,  do  you  want  a non- 
partisan board,  do  you  prefer  that,  or 
do  you  prefer  that  we  shall  have  a ' 


partisan  board,  or  an  elective  or  ap- 
pointive board? 

MR.  GUERIN: 

I desire  to  ask  Mr.  Jones  a question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN: 

Mr.  Shedd  has  the  floor. 

MR.  SHEDD:  I yield  to  Dr.  Guerin. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  yield  to 

the  Doctor? 

MR,  SHEDD:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  GUERIN:  Mr.  Jones  suggests 

that  we  should  have  half  of  the  board 
elective  and  half  of  the  board  appoint- 
ive, that  we  might  not  have  a partisan 
board.  Supposing  that  half  of  the 
board  is  elected  at  the  same  time  that 
the  mayor  is  elected,  what  is  there  to 
hinder  the  mayor  from  appointing  the 
balance  of  the  board  just  like  these 
men  that  have  been  elected,  in  the  same 
party? 

MR.  JONES:  Dr.  Guerin  overlooked 

the  fact  that  I stated  in  my  suggestion 
this  point,  that  those  members  who  are 
elected,  suppose  the  number  be  twelve 
members,  six  would  be  elected,  and  I 
would  not  suggest  that  these  six  be 
elected  at  one  time;  it  may  be  spread 
out  in  a series  of  years,  and  so  that  at 
no  time  there  be  more  than  two  elected, 
so  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  the 
mayor  by  appointment  to  manipulate 
more  than  say  one-sixth  or  one-eighth, 
and  the  balance  of  the  board  would  be 
regularly  provided  for  as  suggested  by 
me. 

MR.  SHEDD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I will 

not  detain  this  Convention  but  just  a 
moment.  It  has  occurred  to  me  during 
this  discussion  from  the  remarks  of 
some  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken 
that  they  have  lost  sight  of  one  of  the 
greatest  necessities  in  the  management 
of  school  affairs  in  this  city.  We  are 
forgetting,  perhaps,  that  the  Board  of 
Education  has  in  its  control  and  spends 
something  like  $12,000,000  annually. 
Now,  T would  like  to  submit  to  this 
Convention  that  I do  not  believe  there 
is  any  member  of  this  Convention  who 


December  20 


582 


1906 


would  ever  organize  a business  of  his 
own — and  we  should  look  upon  these 
matters  first  as  matters  of  business,  for 
they  are  just  matters  of  business — I do 
not  believe  any  member  of  this  Con- 
vention would  call  to  his  staff  of  em- 
ployes as  assistants,  or  members  of  his 
firm,  an  architect  because  he  thought 
he  might  want  to  build  a building  or 
a plumber  because  he  thought  he  might 
want  to  do  some  plumbing,  or  a brick- 
layer because  he  thought  he  would  have 
to  lay  a lot  of  bricks.  I do  not  be- 
lieve he  would  call  upon  a lawyer  be- 
cause he  might  need  to  consult  a law- 
yer. But,  I do  think  that  he  would  try 
to  bring  into  his  association,  men  of 
business  affairs,  men  of  administrative 
ability.  That,  to  my  mind,  from  my 
observation  of  the  school  board  in  the 
last  few  years,  has  been  the  necessity 
— -the  necessity  of  greater  administra- 
tive ability.  I think  it  is  ,a  very  easy 
matter  for  people  of  good  administra- 
tive ability  to  hire  an  architect  to  de- 
sign a building,  or  a builder  to  build 
a building,  because  such  a person  will 
know  much  more  about  those  things 
than  he  does  himself.  He  will  not  have 
to  consult  a plumber  and  know  all 
about  the  plumbing  in  the  building,  or 
consult  a bricklayer  on  the  board  about 
good  bricks;  I do  not  think  he  would 
have  to  have  a roofer  to  consult  about 
the  roofs  of  his  buildings.  What  he 
wants  on  the  Board  of  Education  is 
men  of  administrative  ability.  Such 
men  know  nothing  about  such  matters. 
If  you  will  give  us  a proper  administra- 
tive Board  of  Education,  we  will  take 
care  of  all  the  rest  and  select  the  proper 
men  to  carry  out  its  purposes. 

I am  very  much  in  favor  of  fixing 
the  responsibility,  not  of  dividing  it 
by  choosing  a miscellaneous  board  by 
electing — part  elective  and  part  nomi- 
native. I am  in  favor  of  fixing  the 
whole  responsibility  upon  the  mayor  of 
this  city  for  the  selection  of  an  ad- 
ministrative board,  and  who  will  solve, 


in  my  mind,  this  problem,  by  their  wis- 
dom in  hiring  their  educators  and  for 
fixing  the  responsibility. 

MR.  CRILLY : I want  to  say  a 

wrord,  Mr.  Chairman,  a single  word,  in 
favor  of  an  appointive  school  board  by 
the  mayor.  I,  as  a school  lessee,  have 
been  dealing  with  this  board  for  thirty 
odd  years,  and  I,  right  here,  want  to  say 
that  the  school  board  has  always  dealt 
fairly  with  me.  I think  they  have  safe- 
guarded interests  of  the  people  of  Chi- 
cago in  handling  school  properties  and 
in  getting  the  best  prices  they  could 
get  for  them,  and  in  making  leases  for 
long  terms;  they  have  done  the  best 
they  could.  And  the  Tribune  Company, 
and  the  Board  of  Assessors  and  the  ap- 
praisers and  other  people  have  done  the 
same  thing.  I think  they  have  been 
very  fair  to  the  people  and  I think 
we  should  favor  the  appointing  power 
being  in  the  hands  of  the  mayor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  State  the  motion? 

MR.  RAINEY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I be- 

lieve that  the  scheme  of  the  creation  of 
the  Board  of  Education,  as  presented 
by  Senator  Jones,  has  considerable 
merit.  Before  the  roll  is  called  I was 
going  to  suggest  that  we  embody  in  a 
resolution  an  idea  for  the  scheme  of 
the  creation  of  the  board  as  has  been 
suggested,  and  that  the  Convention 
give  the  ideas  serious  consideration.  If 
it  is  possible,  and  Senator  Jones  will 
take  that  action,  I was  going  to  make 
a motion  that  we  defer  action  on  this 
matter  until  the  next  meeting  of  the 
Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  heard  the 

motion.  All  those  in  favor  signify  by 
saying  aye;  opposed  no.  A motion  to 
defer  is  lost  and  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Robins’  motion 
that  the  Board  of  Education  be  elec- 
tive. 

Yeas  — Ritter,  Dever,  Kittleman, 


December  20 


583 


1906 


Linehan,  McGoorty,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Post,  Rainey,  Robins,  Yopicka — 11. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Carey,  Church,  Crilly, 
Dixon,  G.  W.;  Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eidmann, 
Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill, 
Hunter,  Jones,  Lathrop,  Lundberg, 
MacMillan,  McCormick,  McKinley, 
'Merriam,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Powers, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Shanahan,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Tay- 
lor, Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 
39. 

(At  the  conclusion  of  the  roll  call.) 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I intended  to  vote 

no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Zimmer 

changes  his  vote  from  aye  to  no. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I made  a mistake  in 

voting. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Rob- 

ins’ motion  that  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  elective,  the  ayes  are  11 
and  the  noes  39.  The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I now 
move  that  the  Board  of  Education  shall 
be  appointive  by  the  mayor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  be  appointive  by  the 
mayor. 

MR.  SNOW : I would  like  to  say — 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Jones. 

MR.  JONES:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Revell  if  he  means  by  the  mayor, 
or  by  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of 
the  City  Council.  I think  the  main 
proposition  must  conclude  with  the  con- 
sent of  the  City  Council. 

MR.  REVELL:  With  the  approval 

of  the  City  Council. 

MR.  SNOW:  I have  an  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  amendment  of  Alderman 
Snow. 

THE  SECRETARY:  To  amend  by 

inserting  after  the  word  “ approval” 
on  the  last  line,  the  following:  “With 


the  consent  of  two-thirds  of  the  elected 
members  of  the  City  Council.” 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  that 

does  not  read  quite  straight.  Evident- 
ly I have  made  some  mistake  there.  It 
should  be  1 1 consent,  ’ ’ after  1 1 approval.  ’ ’ 
I want  the  sense  of  it  to  be:  “With  the 
approval  of  two-thirds  of  the  elected 
members  of  the  City  Council.  ’ ’ 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I think  this  amend- 

ment need  not  be  voted  upon  until  we 
come  to  the  remainder  under  the  order 
of  procedure — resolutions  on  page  543 
should  be  substituted  for  that  on  page 
56. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question 

before  the  house,  Dr.  Taylor,  is  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Robins’  to  adopt 

MR.  TAYLOR:  No,  that  is  not  the 

motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Revell ’s 

motion — Mr.  Robins  moved  to  adopt 
the  first  section,  which  provides  for  the 
election  of  the  Board  of  Education. 
That  is  the  first  section  voted  upon. 
And  that  was  divided  down  to  the  next 
section.  Now — where  is  that  record? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  have 

I not  the  floor? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  question 

was  divided  to  the  next  question  as  to 
the  number  of  members.  The  question 
which  must  be  passed  upon  now  is  as 
to  whether  they  should  be  appointed — 
by  whom. 

MR.  REVELL:  I assumed  that  ques- 

tion was  to  be  settled  before  the  other 
was  taken  up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly. 

MR.  REVELL:  That  was  the  rea- 

son I desired  to  move:  “With  the  ap- 
proval of  the  City  Council.” 

MR.  JONES:  In  order  that  we  may 

not  be  confused  in  considering  this,  I 
would  like  to  call  the  attention  of  this 
body  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Snow’s  11107 
tion  is  practically  as  the  first  paragraph 
of  Section  2,  suggested  by  Mr.  Taylor, 
printed,  on  page  492  of  the  record.  It 
seems  to  me  it  would  probably  be  bet- 


December  20 


584 


1906 


ter  at  this  point  to  take  up  this  plan 
as  presented  by  Professor  Taylor  and 
go  through  it  resolution  by  resolution. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  If  I have  permis- 

sion I would  like  to  move  that  the 
resolutions  on  page  543  be  substituted 
for  Section  18,  on  page  56,  and  be  voted 
on  section  by  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  in  favor  of 

that.  I would  like  to  ask  if  that  reso- 
lution covers  all  the  points  that  are 
to  be  considered  by  this  Convention, 
first? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes,  as  far  as  I 

have  presented  it. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I understand  that 

the  motion  is  as  to  procedure. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Professor  Tay- 

lor moves  to  substitute  the  section  re- 
ferred to  by  him  for  the  section  under 
consideration  and  moves  in  connection 
therewith  that  it  be  taken  up  section 
by  section. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I have  an  amend- 

ment as  to  Section  2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  When  that  sub- 

ject is  reached  it  will  be  taken  up. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

order  to  facilitate  matters  I withdraw 
my  motion  and  accept  the  line  that  is 
mentioned  by  Professor  Taylor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  to  the  sub- 

stitution of  page  543? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I move  that  the  res- 

olution on  page  543  be  substituted  for 
Section  18,  on  page  56,  and  be  voted 
upon  section  by  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan, 

yes,  sir. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Before  that  mo- 

tion is  put  I would  like  to  state  that 
the  Convention  has  been  taking  up  con- 
siderable time  this  evening  in  trying  to 
determine  in  which  manner  the  Board 
of  Education  shall  be  selected,  either 
by  election  or  by  appointment.  I think 
that  we  ought  to  determine  here  and 


now  who  shall  appoint  the  Board  of 
Education,  if  there  are  to  be  appoint- 
ments. We  have  just  voted  on  the 
question  of  electing  the  board,  and  that 
has  been  voted  down.  Now,  let  us  vote 
direct  on  who  will  appoint  the  board. 

I think  Mr.  Revell’s  motion  was  proper 
and  to  the  point  at  this  time. 

MR.  REVELL:  I renew  the  motion. 

MR.  SHANAjHAN:  I think  we  shall 

save  time. 

MR.  WHITE:  That  comes  up  under 

Section  2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan 

has  the  floor. 

MR.  HUNTER:  To  a point  of  or- 

der. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your 

point  of  order? 

MR.  HUNTER:  My  point  of  order 

is  that  we  took  up  a certain  resolution 
and  voted  upon  it.  But  we  divided  it. 
We  have  'considered  one-half  and  we 
are  therefore,  about  to  consider  the 
other  half. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  not. 

MR.  HUNTER:  No?  Very  well. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  that  is 

a different  subject.  Those  in  favor 
of  the  resolution 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I think  Dr. 

White  is  correct  in  stating  that  Mr.  Tay- 
lor ’s  resolution  that  that  question  comes 
up  under  Section  2.  But  we  may  de- 
bate that  for  an  hour  before  we  get 
to  a point  where  we  have  been  acting 
upon  for  the  past  two  hours.  Let  us 
vote  on  the  question  now  as  submitted 
by  Mr.  Revell,  as  to  whether  the  mayor 
shall  appoint  the  board  or  not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 

before  the  house  is  that  the  mayor  of 
Chicago  shall  appoint  the  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation by  and  with  the  consent  of  the 
City  Council.  The  amendment  of  Mr. 
Snow  is  “by  and  with  the  consent  of 
/(wo-thirds  of  the  City  Council.  ’ ’ 

/ MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  object  to  the  “two-thirds,"  I 
believe  that  might  prove  to  be  a very 


V 


December  20 


585 


1906 


dangerous  obstacle  on  many  important 
occasions.  I tbink  that  the  Convention 
should  consider  that  a moment  before 
it  passes  a stringent  rule  like  that.  X 
believe  that  the  majority  of  the  City 
Council  would  be  a sufficiently  large 
. number.  It  will  enable  the  City  Coun- 
cil to  make  very  good  appointments.  I 
am  not  in  favor  of  the  two-thirds  prop- 
osition. 

MK.  TAYLOR:  May  I remark  to 

the  Convention  that  it  has  already 
voted  a two-thirds  majority  in  appoint- 
ments by  the  Park  Commission;  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  no  less  important 
in  the  Board  of  Education. 

MR.  RAINEY:  To  a point  of  order. 

My  point  of  order  is  as  to  the  ques- 
tion before  the  house.  Dr.  Taylor  was 
recognized  and  his  motion  was  stated, 
and  is  therefore  the  business  of  the 
house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  un- 

derstood Dr.  Taylor  consented  that  this 
motion  should  be  put.  That  should  be 
made  clear. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I rise  to  ask 

that  the  question  be  put  on  Alderman 
Snow’s  motion,  first,  whether  the  board 
should  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  and 
then  what  will  be  the  confirming  ma- 
jority. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections  the  question  will  be  divided. 
All  those  in  favor  of  appointment  of 
the  Board  of  Education  will  signify  the 
same  by  saying  yae;  those  opposed  no. 
It  is  carried. 

The  question  now  is  upon  the  number 
required  to  confirm;  and  the  question 
is  upon  Alderman  Snow’s  motion  that 
two-thirds  shall  be  required  to  confirm 
the  nomination. 

MR.  DEVER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  say  one  word  on  that.  It 
would  not  be  good  business  for  us  to 
give  the  minority  of  the  members  of 
the  City  Council  an  opportunity  or  the 
power  to  control  nominations  by  the 
mayor.  The  argument  that  has  been 


made  here  tonight  against  the  elective 
system  of  constituting  our  school  board 
has  been  that  it  was  desirable  to  place 
the  whole  responsibility  on  the  shoul- 
ders of  the  mayor.  Now,  if  that  argu- 
ment is  good,  and  it  was  well  meant, 
it  is  an  argument  against  two-thirds 
of  a majority  for  the  confirmation  of 
his  appointment.  It  will  place  the 
power  in  the  minority  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil, obstructive  powers  that  will  enable 
them  at  least  .if  not  to  nominate  the 
school  board,  prevent  the  mayor  from 
nominating  the  school  board.  If  you 
want  to  leave  the  law  as  it  now  is.  I 
want  to  center  that  responsibility  you 
think  it  was  a mistake  to  require  two- 
thirds  of  a majority  in  reference  to  the 
Park  Commission,  or  the  park  board. 
Personally,  I would  like  to  have  that  a 
majority.  For  instance,  where  there  is 
really  a desire  to  appoint  an  official,  it 
is  always  possible  to  get  a majority 
The  main  feature  is  the  placing  of  re- 
sponsibility for  this  appointment  on 
some  one  man;  on  some  one  head.  If 
you  make  it  a majority  you  can  do 
that.  If  you  make  it  a two-thirds  vote 
there  is  divided  responsibility  over  the 
appointees  of  that  board,  and  it  will  be 
difficult  for  the  public  to  determine 
whether  the  council  is  to  blame  for  a 
bad  appointment  or  the  mayor. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  While  not  strenuous 

for  the  two-thirds  majority,  I want  to 
say  for  the  credit  of  the  City  Council, 
not  having  any  disposition  to  interfere 
with  the  mayor  in  these  appointments, 
that  in  a record  of  thirty-one  years  I 
cannot  find  that  a City  Council  has 
ever  turned  down  a nomination  for  the 
Board  of  Education  by  the  mayor  of 
Chicago. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

T would  like  to  speak  on  Alderman 
Dover’s  suggestion  in  reference  to  the 
City  Council  of  Chicago.  The  City 
Council  of  Chicago  has  always  been 
approximately  half  democratic  and  half 
republican.  The  mayor  of  Chicago  has 


December  20 


586 


1906 


a great  power,  as  was  usually  admitted 
in  the  earlier  sessions  of  this  Conven- 
tion,. If  his  appointment  does  not 
meet  with  universal  approval  then  it 
becomes  incumbent  on  some  alderman 
to'  object,  or  some  group  of  aldermen, 
and  it  comes  to  be  an  issue  between 
them  and  the  mayor,  who  has  not  only 
his  nomination  to  -support,  but  his  rec- 
ord as  being  undisputed  in  appoint- 
ments to  support.  He  has  every  reason 
to  exercise  all  the  power  that  the  mayor 
has  for  the  confirmation  of  his  ap- 
pointment. It  is  more  difficult  under 
any  circumstances,  except  the  very 
most  vicious,  to  get  a majority  of  the 
council  to  vote  against  the  mayor  on  an 
action  of  this  kind.  If  you  require 
two-thirds  majority,  it  is  possible  when 
the  appointment  is  decidedly  doubtful 
for  the  minority  to  make  its  objections 
good.  If  the  mayor  is  appointing  a 
good  man  to  the  place  the  minority  will 
have  no  basis  upon  which  to  object  to 
it.  I do  not  believe  that  the  senate  of 
the  United  States  has  been  two-thirds 
republican  constantly,  if  at  all,  in  the 
last  ten  years. 

MR.  DEVER:  They  have  made  good 

appointments,  though. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I was  going  to 

say  I very  much  doubt  that.  The  ap- 
pointments made  by  the  nomination  by 
the  mayor  with  the  confirming  consent 
of  two-thirds  would  make  it  possible  for 
one-third,  perhaps,  to  stop  it;  or  it  will 
make  it  absolutely  necessary  for  the 
mayor  to  put  up  good  men  for  the  posi- 
tions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Snow’s  amendment,  and  up- 
on that  the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  may 

I 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  When  your 

name  is  called. 

MR.  ROBINS:  That  is  rather  late 

in  the  day. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair’s  at- 


tention has  been  called  and  the  Chair 
does  not  desire  to  cut  Mr.  Robins  off. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Is  this  vote  on  two- 

thirds,  or  a majority? 

MR.  ROBINS:  I want  to  suggest 

that  the  one-third  cuts  both  ways. 
While  the  one-third  would  be  a check 
on  bad  appointments  possibly,  if  any 
particular  interest  wanted  to  stop  the 
appointment  of  any  particular  person 
to  the  school  board  and  got  busy  and 
got  one-third  of  the  City  Council,  that 
person  could  not  be  appointed.  I 
wanted  to  make  that  clear. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary call  the  roll. 

MR,  HUNTER:  Will  the  Chair  state 

the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  a confirming  vote  of  two-thirds. 

MR,  HUNTER:  Two-thirds? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Snow’s 

motion  to  require  two-thirds.  Proceed. 

Yeas — Bennett,  Church,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.;  Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansberger, 
Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Lundberg,  MacMillan,  McCormick,  Mc- 
Goorty,  McKinley,  Paullin,  Pendarvis, 
Raymer,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Snow,  Yopicka — 23. 

Nays — Baker,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Ca- 
rey, Crilly,  Ritter,  Dever,  Dixon,  G. 
W. ; Guerin,  Hill,  Linehan,  Merriam, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Post,  Powers,  Rai- 
ney, Revell,  Robins,  Shanahan,  Sunny, 
Taylor,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Zim- 
mer— 26. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  Mr.  Snow ’s 
amendment  the  yeas  are  23  and  the 
noes  26.  The  motion  is  lost,  and  the 
question  recurs  upon  Mr.  Revell ’s  mo- 
tion that  the  members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  be  appointed  by  and 
with  the  consent  of  a majority  of  the 
City  Council. 

All  those  in  favor  of  the  motion  I 
have  just  stated  signify  the  same  by 
saying  aye;  opposed  no.  It  is  carried. 

The  question  is  now  upon  Dr.  Tay- 
lor’s motion. 


December  20 


587 


1906 


MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Just  one  sugges- 

tion. I will  withdraw  it  if  there  is  not 
an  unanimous  consent.  I move  you  as 
an  original  resolution  that  all  nomina- 
tions by  the  mayor  for  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education  lie  over  for  one 
week  before  action  by  the  City  Council. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  motion 

will  be  printed  and  taken  up  in  its  reg- 
ular order. 

The  question  is  upon  Mr.  Taylor’s 
motion  that  the  next  order  of  busi- 
ness be  that  resolution  on  page  543  be 
substituted  for  the  first  section  on  page 
56,  and  that  the  matter  be  voted  on 
section  by  section. 

MR,  TAYLOR:  May  I add  to  that 

that  it  be  a special  order  for  the  next 
session? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

state  that.  As  many  as  favor  that  sig- 


nify by  saying  aye,  opposed  no.  It  is 
carried. 

The  Chair  would  suggest  that  we 
would  save  time  by  having  the  Conven- 
tion come  to  order  at  7:30  instead  of 
8 o ’clock.  The  Convention,  if  a quorum 
is  furnished,  will  be  open  at  7:30  to- 
morrow evening. 

MR.  POST:  Is  there  no  session  to- 

morrow afternoon? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  next  ses- 

sion is  7:30  tomorrow  evening. 

MR.  POST:  No  session  in  the  after- 

noon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I have  some  amend- 
ments which  I would  like  to  have 
printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  amendments 

in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  will  be 
printed.  This  session  stands  adjourned. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Friday,  December  21,  1906,  at 
7 :30  o ’clock  p.  m. 


Secretary. 


December  20 


588 


.1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR, 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 
ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  * to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 


The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1:  Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ite  provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suifrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 
vision for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 


December  20 


589 


1906 


Y.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  tne  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 


The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter ; it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,'  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state;  and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 


December  20 


590 


1906 


any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  wdthin  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the*  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen- 
eral taxation.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re- 
spective amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector’s  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tion herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the  ' 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 


the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
sion. In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
funds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 
which  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him, 
upon  order  of  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 
year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
(City  Council  a statement  of  its  re- 
ceipts and  expenditures  for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 

I tures  for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 

4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 


December  20 


591 


1906 


year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 


Action  on  the  following  propositions 
h2s  been  deferred  pending  the  report 
of  the  special  commitee  on  revenue  in- 
formation. 

Alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 
taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  City  Council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 


3.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either,  any 
trade,  occupation  or  business  carried  on 
wholly  or  in  part  within  the  city  limits, 
and  all  persons,  firms  or  corporations 
owning  or  using  franchises  or  privi- 
leges. 


4.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles.  The  income  therefrom  shall 
be  used  in  the  repair  and  improvement 
of  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  ex- 
clusively. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 
by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 
50  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 
any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  contiguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 
and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraph  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 
December  14,  190J5,  have  been  re-re- 


December  20 


592 


1906 


ferred  to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan.  The  com- 
mittee report  will  be  found  under  “Res- 
olutions. ’ ’ 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIY.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XY.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  private  temporary  users  of  space 
above  or  below  the  level  of  streets,  al- 
leys or  other  public  places  shall  pay 
compensation  to  the  city  according  to 
some  definite  scale  to  be  fixed  by  gen- 
eral ordinance.  This  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  grants  for  public  utilities. 


XYI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  w'orks  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4 : 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to  the  power  of  the 


l city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 
The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 
floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

Provided  that  when  the  city  shall  own 
and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall 
be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 


December  20 


593 


1906 


dered  or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 
city's  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such, 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 


XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 


The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVITI.  EDUCATION. 

The  management  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  education  of members 


to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  City 
Council. 


The  following  substitute  for  all  mat- 
ters under  the  subject  of  Education  is 
still  pending: 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  Board  of  Education  shall  consist 
of  fifteen  members  who  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor  of  the  city  by  and 
with  the  approval  of  two-thirds  of  the 
City  Council  at  a meeting  subsequent  to 
that  at  which  they  shall  have  been 
nominated. 

They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a per|on  shall  be  at  least  thirty 
years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 


December  20 


594 


1906 


purposes,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

IV.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip- 
pled, schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 
ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 

It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 

V.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
months  of  the  year. 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 
money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 


provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 

VI.  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enacted  or  changed,  money  appro- 
priated or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text- 
books adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 

VII.  OFFICERS. 

The  board  .of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
schools  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term 
of  office  of  the  superintendent  of  schools 
and  'of  the  business  manager  shall  not 
be  less  than  four  years.  And  the  sal- 
ary of  no  otficer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint- 
ment be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall 
not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
schools. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools,  and  a busi- 
ness manager,  and  of  such  other  princi- 
pal officers  directly  appointed  by  the 
board,  as  the  board  may  by  general  or- 
dinance designate,  shall  not  be  subject 


December  20 


595 


1906 


to  the  civil  service  law,  but  they  shall 
be  removable  only  for  cause,  by  a vote 
of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  all  the 
members  of  the  board,  upon  written 
charges  to  be  heard  by  the  board  on  due 
notice  to  the  officers  charged  therewith, 
but  pending  the  hearing  of  the  charges, 
such  officers  may  by  two-thirds  vote 
be  suspended  by  the  board. 

VIII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF 
SCHOOLS. 

(1.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  board  of  educa- 
tion, but  no  vote. 

(2.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers,  principals  and 
other  educational  and  attendance 
officers  shall  be  made,  and  text-books 
and  educational  apparatus  shall  be  in- 
troduced by  the  board  of  education  up- 
on the  recommendation  of  the  superin- 
tendent, but  upon  his  failure  to  make 
such  a recommendation  within  a reason- 
able time  after  demand,  the  board  may 
make  appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers,  and  adopt  text-books  and  edu- 
cational apparatus  by  a two-thirds  vote 
of  all  its  members,  • 

(3.)  He  shall  be  consulted  as  to  loca- 
tion and  plans  of  school  buildings  and 
as  to  plans  and  specifications  for  educa- 
tional supplies. 

(4.)  Text-books  and  apparatus  once 
adopted  shall  not  be  changed  within 
four  years  after  their  adoption,  except 
upon  vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion. 

(5.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  nominate  for  appointment  by  the  ' 
board  of  education,  assistant  and  dis- 
trict superintendents  and  principals  of 
schools,  and  shall  have  power,  with  the 
consent  of  the  board,  to  remove  them 
upon  complaint  and  for  cause. 

IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 


property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

He  shall  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
board  of  education  appoint  his  subordi- 
nate officers  and  employes,  among  whom 
there  shall  be  a trained  architect  and  a 
trained  engineer. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 

X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers  shall  be  made  for 
merit  only,  and  after  satisfactory  ser- 
vice for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  the  needs  of  the  schools  require. 

(2.)  The  standing  of  teachers  for 
appointment  and  promotion  shall  be  en- 
trusted to  a bord  to  be  constituted  by 
the  board  of  education,  of  which  the  su- 
perintendent of  schools  shall  be  the 
head. 

XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XTI.  PENSIONS. 

The  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 
City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 
from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 


December  20 


596 


1906 


retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 
tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  be 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


BY  MR.  RAYMER: 

Amend  Section  2 by  inserting  in  the 
second  line  the  word  “nine”  instead  of 
the  word  “fifteen.” 

And  in  line  3,  of  the  second  clause  of 
Section  2 by  inserting  the  word  “one” 
instead  of  the  word  “three.” 

And  in  line  4,  of  the  same  clause,  by 
inserting  the  word  “two-”  instead  of 
the  word  “four.” 

And  in  line  5,  of  the  same  clause,  by 
inserting  the  word  “three”  instead  of 
the  first  word  “four.” 

And  in  line  5,  of  the  same  clause,  by 
inserting  the  word  “three”  instead  of 
the  second  word  “four.” 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

All  nominations  of  members  of  Board 
of  Education  by  the  mayor  shall  lie 
over  at  least  one  week  before  action 
for  confirmation  or  rejection  thereon 
by  the  City  Council. 

BY  MR.  RITTER: 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  no  po- 


lice station,  fire  engine  house  or  patrol 
barn  shall  hereafter  be  built  within  400 
feet  of  any  school  building. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 

2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 


December  20 


597 


1906 


dinanee  granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below 
as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other 
public  places  for  any  public  utility, 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  o{  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 


2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 


The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  at  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchise  be  altered  [extended],  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 


5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 
con/er  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  “An 
act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages’  ’ approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


December  20 


598 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSRS  WERNO  AND  ROSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers*  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicl-. 

BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

A permanent  educational  commission 
of  advisory  capacity  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the 
council,  to  consist  of  seventeen  mem- 
bers, who  shall  serve  without  compensa- 
tion, including  the  superintendent  of 


December  20 


599 


1906 


the  public  schools  and  the  librarian  of 
the  public  library,  who  shall  be 'mem- 
bers ex  officio.  Each  other  member  shall 
hold  office  until  another  person  is  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  him. 

It  shall  be  the  function  of  the  educa- 
tional commission  to  tender  advice  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  to  correlate  the 
educational  forces  of  the  city  and  to 
prevent  unnecessary  duplication  of  ac- 
tivities by  exercising  their  influence  to- 
word  co-ordinating  the  various  educa- 
tional and  scientific  institutions  of  the 
city. 


BY  MB.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XYI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago te  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of  , 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
oil  shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not  j 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to  | 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 


be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
•livided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


Report  of  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan — B.  A.  Eck- 
hart,  Chairman. 

CHICAGO  CHARTER  CONVENTION, 
Gentlemen:  Your 


committee  on 


December  20 


600 


1906 


Kules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan,  to 
whom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions which  were  introduced  for 
consideration  at  the  meeting  of  Decem- 
ber 14th,  1906, 

XIII.  PROPERTY. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city 
limits  for  any  municipal  purpose. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Shanahan: 

* * * that  the  city  may  acquire 

property  by  purchase  outside  as  well 
as  within  the  city  limits  for  any  mu- 
nicipal purpose,  and  not  have  the  right 
to  condemn  outside  property. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Brown: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side of  the  city,  or  purchase  and  con- 
demn property  for  municipal  purposes 
within  the  city. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
B.  A.  Eckhart: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side as  well  as  within  the  city  limits, 
either  by  purchase  or  condemnation,  for 
park  and  boulevard  purposes. 


would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject-mat- 
ter, and  recqmmends  the  adoption  of 
the  following: 

The  city  may  acquire  by  purchase 
outside  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  and  may 
acquire  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits  by  purchase  or  condemnation  for 
park,  boulevard  or  forest  preserve  pur- 
poses. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART, 

Chairman. 


BY  MR.  PENDARYIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

SECTION  XVII. — Education,  (Friday,  December  21,  at  7:30  o’clock  p.  m.) 
PARAGRAPH  3. — Suffrage,  at  page  52.  (To  be  taken  up  immediately  after 
the  disposition  of  the  subject  of  Education.) 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  JONES:  Page  277,  first  column, 

lines  20  and  21,  change  “without”  to 
“with.”  Page  286,  second  column, 
line  38,  change  “should”  to  “would,” 
and  line  39,  after  “and  so  forth”  in- 


sert “if  this  Convention  so  votes.” 
Page  276,  line  26,  after  “would”  in- 
sert “not.”  Page  356,  first  column, 
line  34,  change  “all”  to  “many  of.” 


December  20 


601 


1906 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  thei 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may^ 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  ofherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  20 


602 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  21,  1906 


(Ehirtujii  (Uljartrr  (Unuurnttmt 

Convened,  December  12,  1905 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J,  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin.  asst.  Secy 


' 


December  21 


605 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
Regular  Meeting,  Friday,  December  21,  1906 
7:30  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention . 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Church,  Crilly,  Ritter,  Dixon,  G. 
W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Guerin, 
Hill,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Line- 
han,  Lundberg,  MacMillan,  McCor- 
mick, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Paullinr  Pendarvis, 
Post,  Powers,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard, 
Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Vopicka, 
Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 49. 

Absent  — Badenoch,  Baker,  Brown, 
Carey,  Clettenberg,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon, 
T.  J.,  Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Graham, 
Haas,  Harrison,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Oehne, 
Patterson,  Rainey,  Rinaker,  Sethness, 
Swift,  Thompson,  Walker,  Wilson, 
Young — 25. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

Are  there  any  corrections  or  amend- 
ments to  the  minutes?  If  so,  they  will 
be  handed  to  the  Secretary,  and,  as  cor- 
rected, the  minutes  will  stand  approved 
as  the  minutes  of  the  last  meeting. 

The  Secretary  will  read  on  page  543 
the  first  paragraph  of  the  substitute 
offered  by  Mr.  Taylor. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Also  found  on 

page  593.  (Reads  first  paragraph.) 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I move  its  aroption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  All  those  in 
favor  of  the  adoption  of  No.  1 will  sig- 
nify the  same  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  It  is  carried.  No.  2. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  2 as  it  ap- 
pears in  the  proceedings  at  page  593. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Two  may  be 

passed,  because  part  of  it  was  passed 
on  at  the  last  meeting.  The  Secretary 
will  pass  it  and  then  pass  on  to  the  last 
section  of  it. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I would  suggest 

that  the  vote  be  taken  first  upon  the 
first  part  and  then  afterwards  on  the 
second  part. 


December  21 


606 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  the  amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Lath- 

rop: 

‘‘Amend  Section  2 of  Department  of 
Education  by  substitutiong  the  word 
‘nine’  for  the  word  ‘ fifteen ’ before 
the  word  members  in  the  second  line. 

‘ ‘ And  the  second  paragraph  to  read 
as  follows: 

‘ ‘ They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  six 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  two  years,  three  for  four 
years,  and  three  for  six  years,  and  every 
appointed  to  succeed  those  whose  terms 
appointed  to  succeed  those  whose  terms 
expire.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  vote 

will  be  taken  upon  the  second  section, 
and  then  the  Secretary  will  read  Mr. 
Raymer’s  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Raymer’s 
amendment  as  printed. 

MR.  RAYMER:  The  amendment 

that  I have  submitted  simply  provides 
for  nine  members  in  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation and  the  amendments  following 
provide  for  the  manner  of  their  appoint- 
ment; that  is,  the  periods  of  their  ap- 
pointment— the  number  that  each  will 
serve  until  the  period  of  four  years  has 
been  covered. 

I move  the  adoption  of  the  amend- 
ment, Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  vote 

will  be  upon  the  amendment  changing 
the  number  from  fifteen  to  nine. 

The  Secretary  will  read  the  amend- 
ment by  Mr.  Lathrop. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

amendment  which  I suggest  corresponds 
with  the  first  part  of  that  of  Mr.  Ray- 
mer.  The  other  is  made  to  conform 
with  the  terms  which  we  have  decided 
upon  in  the  Convention  for  the  Park 
Board  and  for  the  Library  Board,  and 
my  reason  for  suggesting  it  is  that  it 
is  desirable  to  have  as  much  continuity 
in  the  service  of  the  administration  or 


all  these  departments  as  possible.  By 
making  the  term  six  years  there  is  no 
possibility  of  changing  the  board  un- 
der any  one  administration  except  pos- 
sibly at  the  very  end  of  the  adminis- 
tration for  four  years;  and  I am  con- 
vinced, as  I fancy  all  of  us  are,  that 
continuity  is  the  most  valuable  feature 
of  the  administration.  It  has  been  the 
secret — and  I venture  to  say  Mr.  Crilly 
will  confirm  me  in  that — of  the  success- 
ful management  of  the  South  Park  sys- 
tem. There  never  has  been  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  South  Park  a complete 
change  of  the  board,  which  has,  how- 
ever, occurred  in  the  other  park  sys- 
tems. 

If  I might  say  a word  in  regard  to 
the  appointment  of  nine,  it  seems  to  me 
that  on  one  point  we  can  all  agree,  and 
that  is  that  we  desire  the  greatest  pos- 
sible , efficiency  in  the  management  of 
the  schools  and  school  property. 

Another  point  on  which,  I think,  we 
are  all  agreed  is  that  small  boards  are 
more  efficient  than  large  ones.  It  has 
been  decided  by  unanimous  vote  that 
twenty-one  is  too  large  and  unwieldy 
a board,  and  there  was  nearly  unani- 
mous agreement,  I must  admit,  to  sub- 
stitute fifteen;  but  I submit  to  this 
Convention  that  a board  of  fifteen  is 
still  large  and  unwieldy.  A board  of 
nine  members,  in  my  judgment,  is  as 
large  as  is  practically  consistent  with 
the  efficient  administration  of  the 
schools  and  school  property,  or  of  any 
other  property  belonging  to  a great  and 
complicated  institution.  I,  therefore, 
submit  that  it  is  in  the  interest  of  the 
most  efficient  management  of  the 
schools  that  we  should  vote  in  favor 
of  the  resolution  to  make  the  number 
nine  instead  of  fifteen. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I rise  to 

move  that  the  question  of  the  number 
of  the  Board  of  Education,  the  number 
of  members,  shall  be  postponed  until 
we  have  determined  the  function  of 
the  Board  of  Education.  If  the  Board 


December  21 


607 


1906 


of  Education  is  to  be  a deliberate  body 
at  all,  nine  is  not  enough.  It  would  be 
probably  insufficient.  We  do  not  need 
a small  body  in  that  case,  and  ought 
not  to  have  a small  body  in  that  case; 
but  if  your  Board  of  Education  is  to 
have  merely  perfunctory  powers,  or 
hardly  more  than  perfunctory  powers, 
as  is  provided  in  the  rest  of  the  re- 
port, then  not  only  are  fifteen  too  many, 
but  nine  are  too  many.  In  that  case 
it  should  be  reduced  to  nine,  and  would, 
I believe,  be  in  harmony  with  the  policy 
of  the  report  as  a whole.  For  if  the 
board  is  to  have  practically  no  greater 
power  than  to  say  “me  too”  to  the 
superintendent,  and  “me  too”  to  the 
other  side,  to  the  business  manage- 
ment, than  the  fewer  we  have  the  bet- 
ter. We  should  have  in  that  case,  I 
think,  about  three,  who  might  meet 
once  and  nominate  the  superintendent 
and  business  manager,  and  then  adjourn 
subject  to  the  call  of  two  of  them,  be- 
cause the  two  of  them  alone  would  have 
the  power  to  change  the  general  policy, 
and  no  power  whatever  to  remove  the 
business  manager  or  the  superintendent, 
unless  they  could  convict  him,  virtually, 
of  some  offense. 

For  that  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
move  that  the  question  of  the  number 
of  the  Board  of  Education  shall  be 
postponed  until  we  have  determined 
the  question  of  the  functions  of  the 
board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion 

MR.  GANSBERGEN:  What  Mr.  Post 
has  said  about  the  Board  of  Education 
would  apply  to  the  park  boards  of  the 
city.  In  my  opinion,  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation strikes  so  close  to  our  own  homes 
and  our  own  heartstrings;  more  than 
any  other  function  in  this  great  com- 
munity; and  I think  that  second  to  that 
are  the  park  boards, which  in  themselves 
are  educational  functions,  and,  there- 
fore, we  ought  to  have  the  very  best 
park  systems  throughout  the  city. 


We  have  had  in  the  past  seven  park 
commissioners  on  the  North  Side.  I 
think  an  equal  amount  on  the  West 
Side,  and  perhaps  an  equal  amount  on 
this  South  Side.  The  Park  Committee, 
when  they  considered  the  functions  of 
the  park  details,  reduced  the  number 
to  nine  for  the  entire  city.  I do  not 
doubt,  in  my  own  mind,  but  what,  for 
instance,  the  Board  of  Education  has 
more  property  to  manage,  as  Dr.  Tay- 
lor outlined  to  us  the  other  evening. 
In  business  and  in  the  collection  and  in 
the  management  of  its  functions;  but  if 
I had  the  say  to-day  to  fix  the  number 
of  the  park  boards  for  the  entire  city, 
instead  of  naming  the  nine  members,  I 
would  name  five.  I think  the  smaller 
body  that  you  get  for  this  function,  the 
greater  concentration  of  responsibility 
that  you  allot,  the  greater  efficiency  will 
you  receive  for  the  community.  Never 
in  my  experience  on  the  park  board 
of  seven  commissioners,  for  the  past  ten 
years,  has  there  been  more  than  four 
active  members  of  the  board;  no  more 
than  four  active  working  people  of  that 
board,  sufficient  only  for  a majority  to 
conduct  the  business,  and  sometimes  it 
was  absolutely  necessary  to  coax  the 
fourth  member  to  come  to  a meeting 
of  the  board  and  be  present  at  the 
meetings  to  transact  business. 

Therefore,  I believe  that,  for  in- 
stance, in  the  past  arguments  made, 
that  if  there  is  a representative  body 
of  business  men,  representatives  from 
the  various  professions  to  constitute 
a Board  of  Education.  I feel  that  if 
you  have  nine — and  nine  is  a great  num- 
ber— nine  selected  from  this  entire 
community,  nine  efficient  men  will  do 
more  for  you,  will  be  a body  which  will 
be  able  to  transact  more  business,  five 
of  which  will  be  a majority,  and  will, 
in  my  opinion,  be  a force  that  will  be 
able  to  take  care  of  every  question 
that  comes  up  before  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation. 

I feel,  sincerely,  that  fifteen  or  t.wen- 


December  21 


608 


1906 


ty  is  such  a number  that  you  cannot 
ordinarily  get  a quorum.  This  Con- 
vention has  been  happy  in  getting  such 
a quorum  as  it  has  had,  but  when  it 
comes  to  an  entire  year,  the  various 
business  men  that  we  have  in  this  com- 
munity do  not  find  it  convenient  to 
come  to  all  of  these  various  meetings. 
Therefore,  I think  that  the  smallest 
number  you  get  the  better  efficiency 
you  get  and  the  easier  you  get  a 
quorum  to  transact  the  business,  and 
the  better  you  will  be  able  to  concen- 
trate the  responsibility.  Therefore,  I 
am  in  favor  of  having  nine. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Post ’s  motion  before  this  mat- 
ter is  discussed.  Mr.  Post  moves  that 
the  number  of  the  Board  of  Education 
be  deferred  until  the  sections  relating 
to  those  functions  of  the  board  be  dis- 
posed of.  Those  in  favor  of  the  mo- 
tion will  signify  by  saying  aye;  op- 
posed, no.  The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish  a 

roll  call  on  this  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  POST:  I desire  a roll  call  on 

that  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Brosseau,  Crilly,  Ritter,  Gue- 
rin, O ’Donnell,  Owens,  Post,  Robins, 
Zimmer — 9. 

Nays — Beebe,  Bennett, Eckhart,  B. 
A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Gansbergen,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Lundberg,  McCormick,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  Paullin,  Pendarvis, 
Powers,  Raymer,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  She- 
pard, Smulski,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Vo- 
picka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins — 30. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Post’s 

motion  to  defer,  the  ayes  are  nine  and 
the  nays  are  30,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 

The  question  recurs  upon  Mr.  Ray- 
mer’s  amendment.  Dr.  Guerin. 

DR.  GUERIN : Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

opposed  to  the  amendment  for  the  fol- 
lowing reasons:  In  the  first  place,  if 


all  that  is  necessary  is  simply  a super- 
intendent of  education  and  the  choice  of 
the  district  superintendents,  or  inspec- 
tors, as  I think  you  might  properly  call 
them,  to  assist  him,  I do  not  think  any 
board  at  all  is  necessary;  because  the 
Council,  or  the  mayor,  rather,— the  may- 
or, with  the  approval  of  the  council,  could 
so  easily  appoint  district  superintend- 
ents; he  could  appoint — I mean,  a gen- 
eral superintendent,  who  could  appoint 
district  superintendents.  But  it  seems  to 
me  there  is  more  than  that  to  be  done. 
Now,  we  have  a cosmopolitan  city  here, 
as  every  one  knows;  people  composed 
of  different  elements.  They  are,  in  fact,, 
from  all  parts  of  the  earth,  with  differ- 
ent views  on  various  things.  These 
people  should  be  represented  in  the  sys- 
tem of  education.  That,  to  my  mind,  is 
absolutely  necessary  in  order  to  have 
things  prevail  harmoniously.  Therefore, 
it  would  be  necessary  that  we  should 
have  something  more  than  one  man  to 
govern  the  Board  of  Education. 

Again,  let  us  understand  of  what  this 
new  system  consists.  We  have  here  in 
this  city  about  253  elementary  schools; 
in  addition  to  that,  we  have  several 
high  schools,  I have  forgotten  about  how 
many ; and  normal  schools.  In  these 
250  schools  there  are  about  6,000  teach- 
ers. And  also  in  those  250  schools  there 
are  children,  as  I said  before,  of  the 
parents  of  all  the  different  nationalities 
of  the  earth,  which  are  too  numerous  te 
mention.  And  each  and  every  one  of 
them  has  an  interest  in  the  public  school. 
It  seems  to  me  the  closer  you  bring 
those  people  to  the  public  schools  the 
better  it  will  be  for  the  school  system. 
As  they  understand  the  system  they  will 
like  it  better,  all  of  them.  For  that  rea- 
son I think  we  ought  to  have  a Board  of 
Education,  and  that  it  ought  to  consist 
of  at  least  fifteen. 

Then,  another  thing,  as  I stated  last 
night,  I believe  that  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation should  consist  of  educators  as 
well  as  of  business  men.  There  ought 


December  21 


609 


1906 


to  be  enough  men  on  the  Board — or  wo- 
men on  the  Board  of  Education — to  be 
able  to  visit  at  least  a portion  of  the 
schools  and  to  know  what  sort  of  work 
is  being  done  in  the  schools,  and  what 
is  the  physical  condition  of  each  and 
every  school  which  they  chose  to  visit. 
That  cannot  be  done  to  any  advantage 
by  nine  men  who  have  so  many  other 
duties  to  perform. 

There  is  another  matter  which  is,  I 
think,  more  important  than  anything 
else,  from  the  history  of  the  past.  I 
hold,  notwithstanding  the  view  that 
some  people  hold  in  this  assemblage,  that 
the  school  property  has  been  given  away 
in  the  past.  The  property  that  belongs 
to  your  children  will  belong  to  your 
grandchildren  if  it  is  only  saved  for  them. 
And  who  gave  it  away?  The  School 
Board — I don ’t  know  which  one,  or  when 
it  was  done,  or  how  it  was  done.  You 
look  at  the  question  and  you  will  find 
today  that  we  are  not  getting  more  than 
fifty  per  cent,  of  the  rents  that  we 
should  be  getting  for  the  school  prop- 
erty. That  means  that  we  are  losing 
$100,000 — yes,  a million  dollars  in  the 
course  of  99  years.  I hold  it  is  much 
easier  to  control  a board  of  nine  men 
so  that  they  may  not  be  giving  away 
your  property  in  the  future  as  they  have 
in  the  past,  than  it  will  be  to  control  a 
board  of  fifteen  men.  And  that  is  the 
principal  and  great  reason.  That  your 
boards  have  been  controlled  in  the  past, 
I have  not  the  slightest  doubt.  I have 
watched  the  Board  of  Education,  more 
or  less,  for  the  last  forty  years  in  Chi- 
cago; and  if  you  look  back  over  the 
last  twenty  years  you  will  find,  for  ex- 
ample, that  leases  have  been  made  in 
such  a way  that  there  has  been  no  re- 
valuation for  over  ten  years.  When 
the  end  of  the  first  ten  years,  or  of  the 
second  ten  years  came  around,  what  was 
the  trouble?  The  leases  were  not  satis- 
factory to  the  tenant.  Why?  lie  knew 
very  well  that  the  property  of  Chicago 
was  going  up,  and  he  wanted  a lease 


for  ninety-nine  years,  and  every — and 
many  agents  have  got  leases  for  ninety- 
nine  years.  Then  he  will  turn  round 
and  sell  the  lease  in  some  instances  for 
a hundred  thousand  dollars,  and  it  never 
costs  him  a penny.  This  has  taken  place 
more  than  once,  and  if  it  went  on  with 
a board  of  twenty-one  how  much  more 
easily  could  it  go  on  with  a board  of 
nine? 

Now,  then,  in  other  cities  I do  not 
know,  but  I assume  that  the  property 
of  the  Board  of  Education  or  the  prop- 
erty of  the  school  system  is  not  similar 
to  our  property.  If  your  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation or  your  school  system  was  sup- 
ported by  the  direct  taxes  of  the  people 
instead  of  the  rents  from  leased  prop- 
erty, why,  I do  not  know  that  there 
would  be  any  objection.  I do  not  know 
that  there  would  be  any  objection  what- 
ever to  having  it  put  in  the  hands  of 
one  single  man  to  let  him  choose  his 
assistants.  But  there  is  a vital  difference. 
This  is  a cosmopolitan  city.  If  we  were 
a city  of  one  sort  of  people  here  and 
all  thought  alike,  there  would  be  no 
objection  to  having  only  one  man,  pro- 
vided we  had  the  sort  of  property  that 
we  needed. 

As  it  is,  you  want  a sufficient  number 
of  men  on  the  Board  of  Education  to 
take  care  of  your  property  and  also  to 
manage  your  schools,  and  you  ought  to 
have,  for  another  reason,  in  any  case, 
men  on  the  Board  of  Education,  men 
who  are  qualified — yes,  men  who  are 
qualified  as  well  as  any  superintendent 
whom  you  may  select,  to  know  what  is 
going  on  in  the  schools,  and  if  you  have 
not,  the  superintendent  can  do  just  as  he 
pleases,  and  you  won’t  know  anything 
about  it,  and  you  don’t  know  so  very 
much  about  it  now. 

And  I challenge  now,  how  many  men 
here  tonight  have  visited  the  public 
schools  within  the  last  five  years?  What 
do  you  know  about  what  your  children 
are  being  taught?  You  don’t  know  any- 
thing about  it,  gentlemen.  You  don’t  try 


December  21 


610 


1906 


to  know  anything  about  it.  And,  fur- 
thermore, the  Board  of  Education  in  the 
past  has  not  tried  to  know  anything 
about  it,  and  I hold  it  is  the  duty  of 
the  Board  of  Education  to  know  some- 
thing about  it,  and  they  should  be  qual- 
ified to  know  something  about  it.  That 
is  one  reason  why  you  ought  to  have 
more  than"  nine  members  on  the  Board 
of  Education:  that  is  one  reason! 

Now,  gentlemen,  so  far  as  I am  con- 
cerned, personally,  it  don ’t  make  any 
difference  to  me.  My  children  have 
ceased  to  go  to  the  public  schools ; they 
went  there  once — except  that  I have  two 
grandchildren — further  than  that,  I have 
no  direct  personal  interest  in  the  public 
schools — except  that  I am  interested  like 
all  other  citizens  that  our  school  chil- 
dren should  be  brought  up  in  a proper 
way — properly  educated — and  make  good 
citizens  of  them;  that  is  all. 

Anothet  thing,  if  you  have  only  nine 
members,  you  will  have  perhaps  about 
four  or  five  to  do  the  work.  You  have 
to  have  at  least  three  committees.  You 
have  to  have  a committee  on  school  man- 
agement; you  have  to  have  committee  on 
buildings  and  grounds,  and  you  have  to 
have  a finance  committee. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  men  are  not  paid 
for  their  services  on  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, you  cannot  expect  them  to  give 
up  all  their  time  to  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation; they  have  something  else  to  do, 
and  the  result  will  be  that,  from  having 
nine  members,  there  will  be  times  when 
there  won’t  be  a quorum,  and  they  can- 
not do  any  business;  they  will  postpone 
business,  and  the  result  will  be  that  the 
Board  of  Education  will  be  neglected. 
Therefore,  I am  in  favor  of  at  least  fif- 
teen members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion to  conduct  the  business. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I think  that  the  smaller  number  is 
proper,  but  the  school  board  of  this  city 
has  the  expenditure  of  almost  half  of 
the  money — a little  less  than  half  of 
the  money — raised  by  taxation  in  this 


city,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  a board 
that  has  .the  management  of  the  schools 
of  a cosmopolitan  city  like  this,  should 
consist  of  at  least  fifteen  members/  The 
fact  that  it  takes  a smaller  number 
to  have  a quorum,  the  argument  used 
on  that  line,  it  seems  to  me,  would  be 
in  favor  of  a larger  number,  and  fifteen 
members  is  small  enough,  it  seems  to  me, 
to  manage  the  affairs  of  the  schools 
of  this  great  city. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  as 

I understand  it,  Section  2,  as  amended 
by  Alderman  Raymer,  is  before  the 
house.  The  amendment  is  the  insertion 
of  nine  instead  of  fifteen. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  LINEHAN : Does  that  take  the 

whole  of  Section  2? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  that  question 
was  divided,  and  the  question  before 
the  house  is  upon  the  single  question 
as  to  the  number  of  the  members  of 
the  board. 

MR.  LINEHAN : It  seems  to  me  an 

important  point  in  connection  with  that, 
Mr.  Chairman,  is,  that  if  you  were  to 
reduce  the  membership,  you  are  going 
to  increase  the  duties  of  the  members 
of  the  Board  of  Education.  Now,  if  it 
is  possible  to  offer  an  amendment,  I 
would  like  to  offer  an  amendment,  in- 
serting, instead  of  the  two  lines,  1 1 The 
members  of  the  Board  of  Education 
shall  serve  without  compensation,  ’ ’ the 
following : ‘ 1 They  shall  receive  a salary 
of  $2,500  per  annum.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  has 

been  divided,  Mr.  Linehan,  and  the  first 
vote  will  be  upon  the  number.  The  ques- 
tion of  compensation  follows. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  That  makes  it  rath- 

er difficult,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  this  rea- 
son. I would  favor  the  payment  of  a 
salary  for  this  small  number,  and  I be- 
lieve a good  many  of  this  convention 
would  feel  the  same  way,  but  if  the 
number  is  to  be  twenty-one,  or  even  fif- 
teen, it  is  a question  of  whether  some 
of  us  would  believe  in  paying  a salary 


December  21 


611 


1906 


to  such  a large  number.  If  there  are 
only  five  on  the  entire  board,  it  would 
mean  almost  an  entire  abolishment  of 
sub-eommittees,  and  the  entire  time  of 
the  membership  ^ill  be  taken  up  in  the 
work  of  the  board,  and  if  that  is  so, 
I think  it  would  be  a good  idea  if  we 
started  in  by  paying  salaries.  Then  we 
would  have  them  as  employes,  and  if 
necessary,  we  could  give  them  assistance 
from  the  City  Council,  but  if  you  have 
them  just  as  temporary  members,  they 
would  still  be  open  to  the  charges  of 
being  tampered  with  by  the  book  trust 
and  all  these  other  trusts  we  hear  of. 

I think  the  first  step  is  the  payment 
of  a good,  respectable  salary;  that  will 
put  a man  in  position  where  he  can 
support  his  family  and  live  decently,  and 
attend  to  his  duties  in  connection  with 
his  job. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

sure  I have  not  any  very  weighty  argu- 
ments to  advance  in  favor  of  a board  of 
fifteen,  or  even  a larger  board  in  the 
City  of  Chicago,  over  the  number  pro- 
posed in  the  amendment.  I do  not  think 
any  one  has  any  very  weighty  arguments, 
either,  for  a smaller  or  larger  board. 
It  is  very  largely  a matter  of  personal 
considerations  and  personal  experiences. 
We  have  some  instances,  to  be  sure, 
throughout  the  country,  of  small  boards, 
which  those  who  are  in  favor  of  a 
board  of  nine  might  refer  to  with  ad- 
vantage, possibly,  to  their  side  of  the 
argument.  The  City  of  Boston  has  a 
commission  of  five.  That,  however,  is 
rather  a recent  fad,  and  while  the  educa- 
tional matters  of  Boston  are  progress- 
ing under  this  small  commission,  it  is 
very  evident  that  it  is  not  yet  deter- 
mined whether  the  new  educational  life 
which  has  come  into  the  affairs  of  the 
schools  of  Boston,  is  due  merely  to  the 
existence  of  the  small  board,  or  whether 
it  is  not  more  likely  due  to  a certain 
feeling  against  the  conditions  existing 
in  the  system  of  education  prevailing 


in  Boston,  but  no  doubt  Boston  is  suc- 
ceeding under  those  conditions. 

But  if  there  is  any  reason  for  taking 
into  consideration  the  policy  and  rela- 
tion of  the  Board  of  Education  to  the 
population  of  the  city,  as  to  size,  then 
you  must  remember  that  the  City  of 
Boston,  with  five  commissioners,  has  a 
population  between  500,000  and  600,000, 
and  in  the  ratio  of  population,  it  really 
'would  follow  that  Chicago  should  have 
a larger  board  than  fifteen.  If  there 
is  any  argument  at  all  in  the  relation- 
ship of  the  board  to  the  population  of 
the  city,  that  would  necessarily  follow. 

I would  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  the  fact  that  the  City  of 
St.  Louis,  which,  in  my  judgment,  has 
the  best  educational  charter  in  the  coun- 
try, up  to  the  present  time,  working 
under  that  charter,  is  perhaps  conducting 
as  successful  a system  of  public  schools 
as  are  conducted  in  any  city  of  this  na- 
tion, asi  a board  of  education  in  a city 
with  a population  of  between  500,000 
and  600,000 — and  possibly  a less  popu- 
lation than  that.  If,  therefore,  we 
should  take  into  consideration  the  ques- 
tion of  the  relationship  of  the  size  of 
the  board  and  the  population  of  the  city 
then  fifteen  is  none  too  large  for  the  City 
of  Chicago;  in  my  judgment  it  is  too 
small.  I was  personally  in  favor  of  the 
retention,  in*  view  of  the  large  popu- 
lation of  the  City  of  Chicago,  of  the 
present  number,  twenty-one,  and  I 
think,  although  I have  forgotten  whether 
the  committee  was  a unit  on  this  matter 
or  not,  1 think  that  with  some  of  us  the 
question  of  fifteen  was  a matter  of 
compromise. 

Now,  I believe,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  that  you 
will  make  a most  serious  mistake  if  you 
attempt  to  establish  a board  of  nine  mem- 
bers. I am  not  one  of  those  who  be- 
lieve for  one  moment  that  every  nation- 
ality and  every  factional  section  of  this 
city  shall  have  a representative  upon  the 
Board  of  Education,  but  I do  maintain 


December  21 


612 


1906 


that  it  will  conduce  to  a certain  con- 
ifidence  in  your  Board  of  Education,  and 
it  will  put  your  Board  of  Education  in 
a certain  vital  relation  and  close  touch 
to  the  various  interests  of  this  city,  if 
you  have  a board  large  enough  and  prop- 
erly distributed  over  this  city,  to  come 
into  some  vital  touch  with  the  City  of 
Chicago,  and  its  educational  interests, 
with  which  the  Board  of  Education 
comes  in  close  touch.  I believe  a board 
of  fifteen  in  a city  of  2,000,000  inhabi- 
tants is  not  too  large  a board; — I believe 
it  is  too  small;  and,  it  seems  to  me,  Mr. 
Chairman,  you  ought  to  take  into  con- 
sideration another  question:  It  is  un- 

doubtedly true  that  if  you  succeed  in 
the  appointment  of  a board  of  nine,  who 
are  absolutely  in  every  way  devoted  en- 
tirely to  the  best  interests  of  the  school 
system  of  Chicago,  that  so  far  as  the 
expedition  of  business  is  concerned, 
there  is  no  question  but  what  nine  mem- 
bers, under  ordinary  circumstances,  can 
transact  business  more  rapidly,  and  gain 
the  proper  action  necessary  for  the  best 
interests  of  the  educational  system  of 
Chicago,  more  successfully  than  a larger 
board.  A larger  board,  containing  a 
larger  variety  of  opinions,  necessarily 
blocks  progress  of  business,  but  I want 
to  tell  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  after  some 
experience  with  the  Board  of  Education 
here  in  Chicago,  and  having  been  for 
several  years  prior  to  my  coming  to 
the  City  of  Chicago,  a member  of  the 
school  board  in  an  Eastern  city, — I want 
to  say  to  you  that  in  my  judgment  it 
is  sometimes  a little  to  the  advantage  of 
the  educational  system  of  a great  city, 
and  to  the  people  of  a city  like  Chi- 
cago, that  there  is  a board  with  such  a 
variety  of  opinions  that  under  certain 
circumstances  certain  matters  often  are 
delayed. 

There  is  such  a thing,  Mr.  Chairman, 
as  advancing  too  rapidly  in  the  trans- 
action of  public  business;  and  what  Mr. 
Linehan  said — and  which  seemed  to  pro- 
voke a smile  in  this  Convention — is  not 


beyond  our  consideration  tonight.  A 
board  of  nine  means  a majority  of  five; 
it  means  that  to  enact  any  legislation 
that  the  Board  of  Education  under  the 
charter  is  permitted  to  enact,  you  need 
only  to  control  five  votes  on  that  board. 
Now,  then,  let  us  face  the  situation  as 
it  may  be;  don’t  let’s  indulge  in  any 
idealism  about  what  the  nature  of  the 
future  boards  of  education  will  be;  let 
us  admit  to  ourselves  that,  in  all  prob- 
ability, there  may  be  times  when  we 
will  have  a bad  Board  of  Education, 
times  when  we  will  have  venal  men  on 
your  Board  of  Education,  and  if  that 
time  should  ever  arise  and  the  great 
interests  in  this  city  desiring  to  control 
the  Board  of  Education,  I want  to  say 
to  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  easier  to 
control  five  men  than  it  is  to  control 
eight,  and  it  is  easier  to  control  eight 
men  than  it  is  to  control  eleven  men. 

Now,  there  are  interests  in  this  City  of 
Chicago  that  have  tremendous  interests 
not  only  in  the  city,  but  in  the  nation, 
that  have  tremendous  interests  in  con- 
trolling a majority  of  the  Board  of 
Education  in  this  city,  and  of  any  large 
city.  I do  not  need  to  mention  those 
interests;  some  of  us  know  perfectly 
well  that  we  are  merely  stating  facts 
when  we  refer  to  those  things. 

Now,  sir,  Mr.  Chairman,  I believe 
that  there  may,  at  some  future  time,  arise 
great  danger  when  the  great  commercial 
interests,  great  financial  interests  are  at 
stake,  and  when  there  are  organizations 
conducting  such  enormous  matters  of 
business  in  connection  with  school  mat- 
ters, that  they  can  afford  to  go  to  al- 
most any  length,  and  the  question  of 
money  is  absolutely  no  object  to  them. 
It  would  be  entirely  to  their  benefit,  pro- 
viding you  happened  at  any  future  time, 
as  you  may  have,  sir,  a board  that  is 
not  altogether  worthy  the  confidence  of 
the  City  of  Chicago.  You  have  made 
a very  easy  proposition  for  those  inter- 
ests to  control  five  members. 

This  is  perhaps  as  weighty  argument 


December  21 


613 


1906 


as  any  can  advance  in  favor  of  the 
large  board ; they  are  certainly  quite 
as  strong  argument  as  can  be  advanced 
against  a small  board;  many  good  argu- 
ments cap  be  advanced  in  favor  of  the 
smaller  boards,  but  the  only  object  I 
can  see  in  having  a smaller  board  is 
the  expedition  of  business.  A great  ad- 
vantage arises  at  times  because  of  dif- 
ference of  opinion  of  twenty-one  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  of  Education.  But, 
let  me  repeat,  for  the  sake  of  emphasis, 
there  are  other  times  when  it  is  to  the 
advantage  of  this  city  that  business  be 
not  expedited.  This  city  has  to  thank 
the  larger  Board  of  Education,  in  my 
judgment,  in  many  cases,  because  the 
difference  of  opinion  of  the  large  board 
has  delayed  business  matters  of  great 
interests,  both  to  the  education  and  fi- 
nancial side  of  this  proposition,  when 
things  might  have  been  done  on  the  im- 
pulse of  the  moment  with  a smaller 
board,  but  have  been  changed  or  modi- 
fied largely  to  the  advantage  of  the  fi- 
nancial interests  of  the  city  and  the 
educational  interests  of  this  city. 

I am  in  favor  of  at  least  fifteen;  I 
should  prefer  the  original  board  of 
twenty-one. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  1 wish  to  ask 

Dr.  White  a question,  and  would  pre- 
face my  question  by  saying  that  I am 
not  asking  it  in  an  argumentative  mood, 
but  to  understand  the  statement  he  made. 
Dr.  White  said  that  Boston  had  a popu- 
lation of  500,000,  Chicago  about  2,000,000 
and  therefore  Chicago  should  have  a 
larger  board  than  Boston.  I don ’t  see 
the  application  of  the  argument,  Dr. 
White,  and  I would  like  to  have  it  ex- 
plained. 

MR.  WHITE:  With  regard  to  the 

application  of  the  argument,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I thought  I made  that  very  plain. 
It  is  curious  how  we  think  we  are  pro- 
ceeding with  great  lucidity  and  only 
succeed  in  embarrassing  our  auditors. 

I said  that  if  the  matter  was  worth  con- 
sidering at  all,  the  relationship  of  the 


size  of  the  board — the  number  of  the 
board  to  the  entire  population  of  the 
city  which  it  was  to  serve — then  fifteen 
in  relationship  to  five  in  the  smaller 
city  of  Boston  was  not  at  all  excessive. 
I really  believe  there  should  be  some 
relationship  between  the  population  of 
the  city  and  the  size  of  the  board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  on  Mr.  Raymer's 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  after 
the  excellent  argument  which  I have 
heard  from  Dr.  White,  I have  very  lit- 
tle to  add  to  what  he  said  before.  One 
thing  I want  to  call  the  attention  of 
this  Convention  to,  and  that  is  that 
Chicago  has  250  school  buildings,  and 
if  a person  is  elected  a school  trustee 
his  duty  is  to  go  and  visit  the  schools. 
I have  always  thought  it  my  duty  to 
go  and  visit  the  schools,  because  the 
superintendent  cannot  visit  the  schools. 
He  is  busy  in  his  office.  The  head  en- 
gineer cannot  visit  the  schools  because 
he  is  in  his  office — he  is  too  busy.  He 
cannot  go  out  and  bring  in  a correct  re- 
port. And  for  that  reason  after  we  are 
elected  for  trustees  and  after  we  are 
elected — imagine  yourself  in  business. 
You  yourself  have  to  do  with  the  whole 
machinery.  Is  not  that  right?  For 
that  reason  I believe  that  the  larger 
the  board  the  better  it  can  visit  the 
buildings  and  the  better  it  will  be  for 
the  City  of  Chicago  than  otherwise. 

MR,  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman 

MR.  CRILLY:  I should  like 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I give  way  to  Mr. 

Crilly. 

MR.  CRILLY:  I would  favor  the  fif- 

teen, but  Dr.  Guerin  made  it  rest  on  the 
matter  of  leases.  What  would  the  sit- 
uation be  if  there  was  only  nine,  on 
account  of  the  school  funds  in  regard 
to  property.  I think  if  Dr.  Guerin  will 
come  and  visit  me  for  a little  I could 
convince  him  he  is  wrong.  I have  data 
of  the  school  leases  of  this  city  in  re- 
gard to  school  property,  as  compared 
with  other  property.  I am  convinced 


December  21 


614 


1906 


that  the  school  property  is  leased  as 
well  as  any  other  property  in  this  city. 
The  First  National  Bank  cost  $80,000 
more  than  they  thought  it  would,  and 
they  never  paid  a dividend  to  the 
stockholders.  It  takes  all  of  the  in- 
come of  that  building  to  pay  interest  on 
bonds  and  the  running  expenses  and 
the  ground  rent.  Now,  that  is  the  case 
in  a number  of  instances.  We  speak 
of  the  Tribune  building.  I have  no 
doubt  the  Tribune  building  has  got 
some  return  from  the  investment,  but 
other  people  that  have  buildings  ,in  this 
city  do  not  get  returns.  I have  an  in- 
vestment in  four  modern  buildings  down 
town  and  never  got  a dollar  out  of  one 
of  them  except  the  Auditorium.  There 
a~e  no  ground  rents  compared  with  the 
leases  that  the  school  board  have  been 
making  lately.  It  is  a mistake,  I say, 
that  the  school  board  is  being  robbed 
of  the  property  by  the  former  school 
boards.  That  is  a mistaken  idea.  There 
has  been  nothing  of  the  kind  done.  In 
every  instance  where  they  made  leases 
they  had  all  the  real  estate  men  come 
over  to  the  board  to  make  that  lease. 
If  there  is  any  man  corrupting  the 
Board  of  Education  or  any  other  board 
he  don’t  want  more  than  a majority. 
It  takes  money.  You  would  not  want, 
in  my  judgment,  a school  board  that 
had  entire  power  with  the  exception 
of  four  members  to  vote  for  the  lease. 
They  could  not  build  such  modern 
buildings  as  they  have  done  unless  they 
got  such  rents.  Mr.  Patterson  told  me 
when  he  made  the  first  lease  that  on  his 
corner  of  72  feet  he  could  not  figure 
out  where  he  could  make  any  money  on 
such  a piece  of  ground,  and  they  were 
therefore  compelled  to  buy  72  feet  ad- 
joining upon  which  they  made  it  a val- 
uable piece  of  property,  although  at 
that  time  the  ordinance  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  provided  only  for  a twelve- 
story  building.  They  got  a roof  on  to 
the  twelve-story  building,  but  the  or- 
dinance was  changed  at  that  time  so 
they  added  five  more  stories  to  it 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  number  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, not  upon  the  school  leases. 

MR.  CRILLY:  This  question  is  up- 

on Mr.  White’s  remarks.  I have  stated 
the  reasons  why  I favor  fifteen  on  ac- 
count that  the  school  board  should  rep- 
resent the  people  in  regard  to  the  prop- 
erty. 

MR.  GUERIN:  May  I ask  a ques- 

tion— 

MR.  ROBINS:  I know  it  does  not 

seem  to  be  a question  of  school  leases 
of  the  property  here.  I think  enough 
will  be  said  about  that  in  the  courts 
of  the  county  and  the  state  before  the 
matter  is  over  to  satisfy  everybody  in 
the  matter.  As  to  the  number  of  school 
trustees  I have  a very  definite  judg- 
ment, based  upon  the  little  time  that  I 
have  been  able  to  be  quite  familiar  with 
the  administration  of  the  schools.  There 
is  a curious  'idea  that  seems  to  be 
voiced  quite  generally  in  this  Conven- 
tion that  seems  to  put  the  business 
efficiency  of  the  school  board  as  its  su- 
preme function.  I maintained  a dif- 
ferent view,  Mr.  Chairman,  and  gentle- 
men of  the  Convention.  If  there  is  one 
thing  that  is  more  fundamental  to  the 
ideas  of  American  institutions,  more 
absolutely  holding  the  heritage  of  the 
past  and  the  promise  of  the  future,  it 
is  the  public  school  system,  and  if  there 
is  one  way  better  than  another  to  di- 
vorce the  people  from  sympathy  with 
that  interest  and  to  arouse  all  sorts  of 
questions  and  possibly  foolish  criticism 
it  is  to  have  & board  of  small  number, 
unknown  to  the  people  personally,  and 
chosen  for  business  efficiency.  If  there 
is  one  thing  the  school  board  needs 
above  any  other,  it  seems  to  me  it  is 
actual  knowledge  of  the  school  condi- 
tions; the  proper  conditions  of  the  in- 
dividual schools,  if  you  please;  their 
condition  in  regard  to  cleanliness  and 
sanitation;  and  where  the  school  is  re- 
acting through  its  teaching  force  upon 
the  people  of  the  city;  the  ideas  of  the 
patrons  in  regard  to  the  management 


December  21 


615 


1906 


of  the  schools;  and  the  possibility  by 
the  patrons  of  the  school  to  see  and  to 
talk  with  somebody  who  is  responsible 
for  their  administration.  In  the  little 
time  that  I have  been  a member  of  the 
school  board  I have  had  more  com- 
plaints, more  personal  touch  from  peo- 
ple who  were  directly  interested  on  ac- 
count of  their  children  in  one  respect 
or  another  than  in  any  other,  and 
in  all  other  public  relations  of  any 
sort  that  I have  ever  enjoyed  in 
this  city.  I had  no  idea  before  I be- 
came a member  of  the  intimacy  that  ex- 
isted in  that  relationship.  I had  no 
idea  of  the  number  of  personal  com- 
plaints. Some  were  petty,  some  of  them 
were  easily  disposed  of,  but  they  repre- 
sented the  parents,  the  mothers  or  the 
fathers;  they  represented  the  hope  in 
the  child,  the  hope  in  the  family,  the 
hope  of  the  education  of  the  future,  and 
the  hope  of  the  home.  And  I want  to 
say  to  you  that  while  business  effi- 
ciency is  a good  thitfg,  and  I believe 
some  of  us  would  go  a long  way  to  get 
business  efficiency,  it  is  not  the  first 
thing  to  think  about,  and  in  determin- 
ing this  question  upon  that  view,  in  my 
judgment,  is  a false  determination,  and 
will  find  a reaction  in  public  sentiment 
that  will  be  its  just  due.  If  there  is 
any  excuse  for  a council  of  a large  num- 
ber it  seems  to  me  that  it  goes  quite 
as  definitely  in  excusing  a large  number 
composing  the  Board  of  Education  even 
though  that  large  number  be  a bit  un- 
wieldy in  business  administration. 

I wish  to  say  that  the  fault  does  not 
lie  with  the  number  of  the  board.  The 
board  should  not  be  administering  the 
business  of  the  Board  of  Education.  It 
should  have  able  business  management 
on  the  part  of  a manager  of  that  busi- 
ness, if  you  please.  It  should  not  man- 
age the  educational  policies — the  educa- 
tional administration,  if  you  please.  It 
should  have  an  able  administrator  for 
that  side  of  the  work.  But  the  board 
should  be  in  close  and  intimate  rela- 
tionship with  the  different  parts  of  the 


city,  if  you  please,  and  the  people  in 
the  city,  so  that  they  might  talk  with 
them  and  interest  them;  that  they 
might  know  just  what  the  conditions 
were  and  be  advised  from  time  to  time, 
if  you  please,  and  suggestions  from 
time  to  time  of  this  able  business  man- 
ager and  this  able  administrator. 

Those  conditions,  no  two  men,  no  mat- 
ter how  able  they  are,  no  matter  what 
masters  they  may  be  of  their  depart- 
ment— those  conditions  they  can  never 
learn  of  in  any  other  way.  We 
all  know  how  indifferent  the  aver- 
age man  with  large  business  con- 
cerns, as  these  men  will  be,  or  large 
administrative  concerns  as  the  superin- 
tendent of  education  would  be — how 
indifferent  they  are  to  just  complaints. 
Now,  a complaint  is  a complaint,  and 
they  are  not  infrequently  without  any 
method.  But  almost  always  there  is 
something  behind  them,  and  almost  al- 
ways dealing  with  them  directly  will 
remove  the  cause  of  the  trouble.  Some- 
times they  need  careful  deliberation. 

I have  had  occasion  in  two  schools 
to  inquire  into  and  find  conditions  that 
were  reprehensible  that  have  been 
passed  over  by  the  administrative  au- 
thorities of  the  school,  not  because  they 
were  poor  authorities,  incompetent  or 
ignorant,  not  because  they  were  not  in- 
terested in  the  welfare  of  the  schools, 
but  because  they  took  superficial  views 
of  it  instead  of  a real  view,  and  passed 
judgments  on  the  facts  that  came  to 
them  that  proved  to  be  erroneous.  And 
that  judgment  has  been  reversed  upon 
inquiry.  It  would  not  have  been  re- 
versed unless  it  had  been  taken  up 
with  the  consent  of  the  authorities  di- 
rectly by  a trustee  who  had  the  right 
to  take  it  up,  and  who  was  ready  to 
do  so. 

Now,  of  course,  it  lies  in  the  power  of 
this  Convention  to  deal  with  this  mat- 
ter of  nine  or  fifteen  as  it  pleases.  All 
I wish  to  do  is  to  make  this  statement, 
and  suggest  to  you  that  the  relation- 
ship of  the  board  to  the  people  is  a very 


December  21 


616 


1906 


important  thing.  I suggest  to  you  that 
nine  able  business  men  in  their  offices, 
where  a man  or  woman  has  some  diffi- 
culty to  get  up  into  an  elevator  and 
break  by  three  or  four  office  boys  to  get 
into  communication  with  that  business 
man,  will  result,  in  my  judgment,  in  a 
condition  of  feeling  among  the  people 
in  regard  to  the  schools  that  is  not  a 
condition  that  will  be  helpful  for  the 
best  interests  of  our  city  and  our 
schools. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  will 

you  permit  me  to  add  that  the  vote  was 
unanimous  for  the  number  of  fifteen, 
and  that  the  emphasis  was  not  placed 
exclusively  upon  business  efficiency,  but 
upon  administrative  efficiency,  includ- 
ing educational  administration  as  well 
as  financial  administration. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I do 

not  wish  to  make  any  extended  remarks 
on  this  matter;  I simply  wish  to  say 
that  my  experience  on  the  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation was  that  it  would  be  almost  im- 
possible for  nine  members  to  attend  to 
all  of  the  details  necessary  to  the  proper 
handling  of  the  affairs  of  the  school 
system  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  It  is 
entirely  different  from  a business  or- 
ganization. There  are  so  many  differ- 
ent parts  of  the  work  to  look  after,  and 
committees  must  be  appointed  to  look 
after  them,  and  when  I was  on  the 
board  committees  were  appointed  to  look 
after  them,  and  they  did  look  after 
them.  It  was  a common  thing  for  the 
members  of  the  board  every  month  to 
go  out  on  expeditions  throughout  the 
city  to  visit  the  schools.  I made  it 
a rule  to  do  that  about  nine  times  a 
year,  with  one  of  the  assistant  super- 
intendents, and  I believe  it  would  be 
a serious  mistake  to  reduce  the  num- 
ber recommended  by  the  committee. 

MR.  RITTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  there 

is  one  point.  It  sometimes  gives  a per- 
son a little  advantage  to  have  personal 
information,  and  as  one  who  has  had  a 
little  to  do  with  the  schools  during  the 
last  year  and  a half  I would  like  to 


speak  from  the  record,  if  you  please. 
That  is  to  say,  to  call  your  attention 
to  one  thing  which  you  need  not  take 
my  word  for,  but  which  you  can  sub- 
stantiate by  the  stenographer’s  reports 
of  the  committee  meetings,  namely: 
That  at  every  meeting  of  the  Buildings 
and  Ground  Committee,  and  I believe 
every  meeting  of  the  School  Manage- 
ment Committee,  members  of  the  board 
would  come  in  and  make  recommenda- 
tions for  improvements  based  upon 
their  visits  to  the  school  buildings.  I 
think  the  advantage  of  that  is  so  great 
that  by  no  means  should  the  number  of 
members  be  reduced  to  a point  where 
the  schools  could  not  be  visited  by  the 
members  of  the  board.  The  record  will 
bear  that  out,  that  improvements  have 
been  made  following  visits  by  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  of  Education  to  the 
schools;  and  if  nothing  else,  I believe 
that  the  advantage  of  that  one  point 
would  be  enough  to  defeat  the  pend- 
ing motion  to  divide  this  large  city  into 
practically  nine  districts,  or,  rather,  to 
turn  the  inspection  over  to  only  nine 
people. 

We  have  in  Chicago  260  and  some  odd 
schools  with  a Board  of  Education  of 
volunteers.  You  can  readily'  see  that  it 
is  a hard  task  on  the  committees  and 
various  members  to  get  around  to  those 
schools. 

I know  of  one  of  the  finest  schools 
in  the  country,  that  would  not  be  so  in 
the  present  state,  except  for  the  visits 
of  certain  members  of  the  board;  I 
know  that  schools  on  the  Northwest 
side  would  be  in  better  condition  than 
they  are  if  they  were  visited  by  the 
members  from  that  district.  The  num- 
ber of  schools  is  increasing  all  the  time; 
and  I am  sure  that  fifteen  is  too  small, 
if  anything. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

on  Alderman  Raymer’s  amendment. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I desire  to  say  a 

word  or  two;  I don’t  desire  to  take  up 
the  time  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Ritter,  who  has  just  spoken,  said 


December  21 


617 


1906 


that  it  sometimes  gave  a man  an  advan- 
tage to  know  something  about  the  sub- 
ject on  which  he  was  talking.  He  said 
that  he  was  speaking  from  the  record. 
I have  not  any  doubt  but  what  that  is 
absolutely  true;  I think  the  record, 
however,  will  show,  that,  on  numerous 
occasions,  the  school  board  had  about 
resolved  itself  into  a debating  society 
rather  than  a consideration  of  the  busi- 
ness propositions  with  which  it  had  to 
deal. 

MR.  RITTER:  May  I ask  the  aider- 

man  a question? 

MR.  RAYMER:  You  may. 

MR.  RITTER:  You  mean  the  record 

of  the  Board  of  Education  or  the  rec- 
ords of  the  newspapers? 

MR.  RAYMER:  I assume  that  the 

records  of  the  newspapers  are  quoted 
from  the  records  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. 

MR.  RITTER:  That  is  an  assump- 

tion, isn’t  it,  alderman? 

MR.  RAYMER:  No;  I don’t  think 

so.  I have  attended  some  meetings  of 
the  Board  of  Education,  and  that  was 
usually  my  experience. 

I don’t  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  and 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  that  the 
members  o’f  the  Board  of  Education 
should  assume  that  the  school  board 
rooms  are  a public  quorum;  and  I am 
inclined  to  think  that  this  is  the  posi- 
tion that  some  of  the  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education  have  taken  in  times 
past.  I do  not  refer  entirely  to  the 
present  board.  I know  that  the  situa- 
tion has  been  pretty  much  the  same 
in  other  boards  of  education  that  we 
have  had. 

I believe  that  the  fewer  members  of 
the  Board  of  Education  we  have,  the 
better  the  business  of  education  will 
be  transacted  in  this  community.  I be- 
lieve that  the  situation  has  been  fully 
covered;  I feel  satisfied  to  leave  the 
question  to  the  vote  of  this  Convention; 
and  I think,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  if  this 
Convention  will  adopt  the  amendment 
as  suggested,  they  will  be  doing  a great 


deal  for  the  advancement  of  education 
in  Chicago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Alderman 

Raymer’s  amendment  to  change  the 
number  of  members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  from  fifteen  to  nine;  all  those 
in  favor  of  the  amendment  will  signify 
by  saying  aye. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Let  us  have  a 

roll  call,  please,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Gansbergen,  Lathrop,  McCor- 
mick, Merriam,  Raymer,  Shedd,  Smul- 
ski — 7. 

Nays — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Burke,  Church,  Ritter,  Dixon,  G. 
W.;  Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.; 
Eidmann,  Erickson,  Guerin,  Jones,  Kit- 
tleman,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMillan, 
McGoorty,  McKinley,  O ’Donnell,  Owens, 
Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Powers,  Revell,  Rob- 
ins, Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Tajdor,  Yopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wil- 
kins, Zimmer — 37. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  POST:  As  I am  not  very  clear 

upon  the  question,  in  my  own  mind, 
that  a board  of  a certain  type  ought  to 
be  small,  a board  of  a certain  type 
ought  to  be  large,  I do  not  feel  compe- 
tent to  pass  an  opinion  upon  this  ques- 
tion until  I know  what  the  powers  and 
functions  of  the  board  are;  I,  therefore, 
ask  to  have  my  vote  passed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Ray- 

mer’s motion  to  change  the  number 
from  fifteen  to  nine,  the  yeas  are  7,  and 
the  nays  are  37,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 

The  question  recurs  upon  the  report 
as  printed.  All  those  in  favor  of  fifteen 
will  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
nay.  Carried. 

The  next  clause  is  already  passed  up- 
on by  this  Convention. 

The  third  clause  is:  “ Shall  be  con- 
firmed at  a meeting  subsequent  to  that 
at  which  they  shall  have  been  nomina- 
ted.” 

MR.'  RITTER:  I think  that  should 

be  changed  to  approval  of  the  majori- 
ty. * 


December  21 


618 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  was 

changed  at  the  last  meeting — majority; 
the  record  so  shows  it. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

move  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which 
that  was  passed  last  evening,  to  a ma- 
jority of  the  council — to  have  a ma- 
jority of  the  council  confirm  the  mem- 
bers of  the  school  board;  I have  no 
personal  opinion  as  to  whether  a ma- 
jority or  two-thirds  is  the  best,  but  I 
think  that  the  members  of  this  Con- 
vention ought  to  be  consistent.  If  you 
are  going  to  compel  a two-thirds  con- 
firmation of  the  corporation  counsel, 
and  two-thirds  confirmation  of  the  Park 
Board,  I think  it  is  no  more  than  right 
that  you  ought  to  have  a two-thirds 
confirmation  of  the  school  board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  did  Mr. 

Shanahan  vote? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I voted  in  favor 

of  a majority  last  night. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Would  it  not  be 

more  consistent  to  consider  the  measure 
of  Doctor  White  and  make  that  a ma- 
jority? 

MR.  SHANAHAN : I will  leave  that 
to  the  Convention. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I think  the  White 

one  is  the  one  that  ought  to  be  re-con- 
sidered. 

MR.  LATHROP:  It  has  been  sug- 

gested already,  that,  as  the  Convention 
had  committed  itself  to  a majority  in 
the  other,  that  they  would  ask  a recon- 
sideration of  that  question  in  regard  to 
the  parks,  and  make  that  a majority. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

we  have  got  a rather  small  meeting  to- 
night, and  we  have  had  small  meetings 
for  some  nights  past,  and  now,  when  we 
get  a full  meeting  of  pretty  near  the 
whole  Convention,  it  may  be  that  we 
will  have  radically  different  majorities 
from  what  we  have  had.  When  we  are 
so  lucky  as  to  have  a large  meeting, 
would  it  not  be  better  to  have  all  these 
matters  of  reconsideration  come  up  at 
tlje  same  time? 


Now,  that  I am  on  my  feet,  and  be- 
fore making  a motion  to  lay  this  over 
to  a future  day,  I wish  to  make  a 
suggestion — that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Convention,  at  his  next  call,  instead  of 
sending  out  a postal  card,  send  out  a 
printed  letter  to  the  various  members 
of  the  Convention,  calling  their  atten- 
tion to  the  fact  that  we  are  acting  with 
very  few  members  present,  and  remind- 
ing them  of  their  duty  to  come  here  to 
the  Convention. 

This  might  not  seem  an  entirely 
proper  suggestion,  were  it  not  a fact, 
proven  in  council  committees,  that 
often  that  is  the  only  way  we  can  get 
the  members  to  come. 

So,  Mr.  Chairman,  I will  make  it  a 
motion — first,  that  the  question  of  re- 
consideration be  deferred 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  that 

the  reconsideration  be  deferred. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I accept  Mr. 

McCormick  *s  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I wish  to  call 

your  attention  to  the  fact  that  we  have 
fifty  delegates  here  tonight — two-thirds 
of  the  Convention,  and  that  is  almost 
as  much  as  we  have  at  any  Convention; 
fifty-six  is  the  largest  meeting  that  we 
have  had. 

All  those  in  favor  of  deferring  the 
reconsideration  of  this  question  will 
please  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  Carried. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I differ  with  the 

Chair  that  two-thirds  is  enough,  and 
move  that  the  next  time  notice  is  sent 
out  it  be  sent  out  by  letter,  calling  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  a full  member- 
ship is  desired — in  addition  to  the  card. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Without  putting 

that  to  a vote,  the  Chair  will  see  that 
it  is  done,  although  I must  state  that 
the  postal  cards  have  already  gone  out 
for  tomorrow. 

MR.  WILKINS:  I have  a couple  of 

resolutions  that  I would  like  to  have 
read  tonight,  and  printed  in  the  min- 
utes, for  the  consideration  of  the  Con- 
vention. 


December  21 


619 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  They  will  be  re- 

ceived and  read  before  the  Convention 
adjourns. 

MR.  SHEDD : I have  also  sent  a res- 

olution to  the  Secretary’s  desk  which 
I wish  to  have  read,  deferred  and  pub- 
lished, and  I hope  the  members  of 
the  Convention  will  give  it  attention, 
and  that  they  will  come  here  prepared 
to  adopt  it  by  a unanimous  vote. 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Shanahan  sug- 

gested a reconsideration  of  that  ques- 
tion; Mr.  Linehan  and  Mr.  Lathrop,  I 
understood,  suggested  a reconsidera- 
tion of  the  Park  Board.  I understand  a 
vote  was  put  on  the  reconsideration 
question;  what  was  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  was  agreed 

that  all  reconsiderations  be  deferred 
for  the  time  being. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I have  a mo- 

tion before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  did 

not  think  a vote  was  necessary,  inas- 
much as  the  Secretary  has  already  been 
instructed  to  carry  out  Mr.  McCor- 
mick’s desire  in  the  matter. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I am  very  glad 

I don ’t  need  to  have  the  Convention 
vote  on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  matter 

is  the  question  of  the  confirmation  at 
a meeting  subsequent  to  the  meeting  at 
which  the  Board  of  Education  are  nomi- 
nated. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I don’t  think  there 
will  be  any  difference  of  opinion  on  the 
advisability  of  permitting  the  council 
to  have  an  opportunity  of  knowing  who 
the  appointments  are  before  they  are 
called  to  act,  and  I think  there  is  no 
question  about  that  at  all,  and  I do  not 
think  we  ought  to  spend  any  time  dis- 
cussing that,  but  put  it  to  a vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  that  clause  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  Carried. 

The  Secretary  will  read  the  next  par- 
agraph, No.  2.  That  has  been  passed. 


The  next  paragraph  to  that,  Mr.  Secre- 
tary, “They  shall  serve,”  etc. 

The  Secretary  read  the  paragraph. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Lathrop ’s 

amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Lathrop 

has  an  amendment  here. 

The  Secretary  re-read  Mr.  Lathrop ’s 
amendment. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman, 

pardon  me,  that  amendment  would  not 
fit  with  this  number  of  fifteen. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  is  upon  the 

term  of  office. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Yes,  but  the 

amendment  is  drawn  to  a specific  num- 
ber, and  it  would  not  fit  with  this  num- 
ber. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  second  par- 

agraph, you  have  an  amendment  here 
for  that,  that  they  shall  serve  for  a 
term  of  six  years,  and  that  is  the 
amendment;  to  the  pending  matter, 
and  the  question  is  upon  Mr.  Lathrop ’s 
motion  to  make  the  term  six  years  in- 
stead of  four  years.  Are  you  ready  for 
the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  motion  will  signify  by  say- 
ing aye;  opposed,  no.  The  motion  is 
lost. 

The  motion  is  now  upon  the  adoption 
of  the  four-year  term.  All  in  favor 
will  say  aye;  opposed,  no.  The  motion 
is  carried. 

The  question  is  now  upon  the  adop- 
tion of  the  second  paragraph. 

The  Secretary  read  the  paragraph. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  adoption  of  the  section  will 
signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  The 
motion  is  carried  and  it  is  adopted. 
Next. 

The  Secretary  read  the  paragraph. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I move  its 

adoption, 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  offer  an  amendment  to  that, 
that  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation shall  receive  an  annual  salary 
of  $2,500. 


December  21 


620 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Linehan 

moves 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I move  that  as  a 

substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Linehan 

moves  an  amendment  that  it  provide 
that  the  members  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation shall  receive  an  annual  salary  of 
$2,500. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I hope  that  motion  will  not  pre- 
vail. I believe  that  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education  as  well  as  members 
of  the  Park  Board  should  serve  without 
compensation.  I believe  it  is  possible 
for  the  mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
to  find  men  who  will  serve  and  be  glad 
to  serve  without  compensation.  Men 
who  have  had  experience  in  business  af- 
fairs, and  who  have  capacity  for  work 
of  that  character,  and  who  have  the 
time  to  devote  to  it,  and  who  will  de- 
vote their  time  to  it.  I do  not  believe 
it  is  necessary  in  every  instance  to  pro- 
vide compensation  for  positions  of  this 
character  where  men  will  serve  because 
they  have  had  public  experience  and 
because  they  have  some  civic  pride.  I 
am  of  the  opinion  too,  that  you  will 
get  a much  abler  class  of  men  and 
more  competent  men  if  you  will  rely 
upon  their  willingness  to  serve  this 
community.  Men  who  desire  to  be 
known  in  this  community  as  having 
done  something  for  their  fellow  citizens. 
Not  engaged  entirely  for  the  almighty 
dollar,  men  who  do  not  believe  every 
effort  they  make  ought  to  be  for  the 
dollars  and  the  cents.  There  is  no 
difficulty  at  all  in  a city  like  Chicago 
for  any  mayor  to  find  fifteen  men,  men 
who  have  leisure,  plenty  of  leisure,  and 
who  -have  experience,  and  who  are  will- 
ing to  devote  their  time  to  such  a 
cause  as  the  education  of  the  young; 
and  I trust  that  we  will  not  in  addi- 
tion to  what  we  have  already  done  in 
providing  for  the  expenditure  of  large 
sums  of  money  add  this  increased  bur- 
den upon  the  city. 


We  have  already  increased  the  salar- 
ies of  the  aldermen  to  an  aggregate 
amounting  in  the  neighborhood  of 
$140,000.  And  now  you  propose  an 

amendment  that  will  again  cause  the 
treasurer  of  this  city  to  disburse  money 
at  the  same  time  saying  in  your  charter 
that  you  shall  provide  for  a limitation 
of  the  taxes.  Because  why?  It  is  be- 
cause that  all  of  these  people  who  in 
the  nature  of  things  become  tax-eaters 
should  be  kept  within  reasonable  bounds, 
that  you  make  these  limitations,  and  I 
do  not  believe  at  this  time  it  is  neces- 
sary when  we  find  our  city  in  such  a 
deplorable  financial  condition  that  we 
should  provide  for  large  salaries  for  all 
these  places  that  can  be  well  filled  by 
men  who  are  willing  to  make  personal 
sacrifices  for  the  honor  which  necessar- 
ily attaches  to  such  a position. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I will 

not  attempt  to  refute  the  statement  made 
by  Mr.  Eckhart  that  the  mayor  could  find 
without  difficulty  men  who  would  serve 
without  compensation  on  the  Board  of 
Education,  and  I am  not  going  to  argue 
that  question,  Mr.  Chairman;  but  I sim- 
ply want  to  ask  this  Convention  whether 
it  is  fair  to  all  the  people  of  this  city 
to  have  a Board  of  Education  repre- 
sented by  the  class  who  can  afford  to 
serve  without  compensation  alone?  I 
for  one  do  not  believe  it  is  fair  to  the 
entire  people  of  the  City  of  Chicago  that 
our  Board  of  Education  should  be  so 
constituted,  and  I believe  in  the  spirit 
of  Mr.  Linehan ’s  amendment. 

I believe  that  salary  should  be  fixed. 
There  are  certain  elements  in  the  popu- 
lation of  the  City  of  Chicago  which  are 
entitled  to  be  represented  on  the  Board 
of  Education,  and  in  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  contemplated  to  constitute 
this  Board  of  Education  their  representa- 
tives could  not  serve  unless  compensation 
is  paid  them  for  the  time  which  they 
are  required  to  give;  and  I believe  that 
it  is  far  more  important  that  a salary 
be  fixed  or  at  least  as  important  that  a 


December  21 


621 


1906 


salary  be  fixed  for  the  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education  as  it  is  that  a salary 
should  be  fixed  for  the  members  of  the 
City  Council  or  any  of  the  departments  of 
our  city  government. 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  and  gen- 
tlemen: It  seems  to  me  that  this  is  too 

important  a question  to  pass  over  or  to 
take  a vote  upon  without  a little  con- 
sideration. While  there  is  great  force 
in  the  remarks  which  have  been  made  by 
Mr.  Eckhart  as  to  the  financial  phase  of 
the  question,  still  I am  heartily  in  sym- 
pathy with  the  remarks  which  have  just 
been  made  by  Mr.  Church.  I do  not 
think  there  is  a more  important  depart- 
ment in  our  city  government  than  that 
of  the  schools.  I do  not  think  there  is 
a department  that  requires  more  care 
and  more  ability  to  properly  conduct. 

Now,  I believe  that  we  are  proceeding 
on  a wrong  principle  when  we  ask  men 
to  come  forward  and  serve  in  a position 
that  is  going  to  take  a great  part  of  their 
time,  and  serve  without  compensation. 
If  a man  serves  on  this  board  as  he 
ought  to  serve,  he  must  necessarily  sacri- 
fice his  own  business  very  largely.  If 
he  is  a man  of  large  business  interests, 
he  must  necessarily  sacrifice  a large  por- 
tion, of  his  time,  and  I think  it  would 
be  improper  to  establish  this  principle 
at  this  time  when  we  are  preparing  a 
charter  for  the  City  of  Chicago,  that  the 
school  board  must  practically  be  made 
up  in  every  instance  of  wealthy  men. 
There  may  be  men  of  moderate  means 
and  great  ability  who  are  in  every  way 
desirable  to  be  placed  upon  that  board, 
but  who  are  absolutely  debarred  from 
being  placed  upon  the  board  if  they  are 
required  to  give  their  time  and  services 
without  any  compensation. 

MR.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chairman,  may 

I ask  the  gentleman  a question:  J)o 

you  say  that  the  members  of  the  Board 
of  Education  are  all  wealthy  men? 

MR.  HILL:  I have  no  information, 

Mr.  Eckhart;  I do  not  know. 

MR.  ECKHART:  Have  you  ever 


heard  that  it  has  been  difficult  to  secure 
men^to  serve  on  the  Board  of  Education? 

MR.  HILL:  I never  asked  a man  to 

work  for  me  in  my  life  that  I did  not 
expect  to  pay  him  for  it.  1 do  not 
believe  the  public  ought  to  ask  people 
of  ability  and  experience,  competent  to 
give  the  very  best  service  and  aid  in 
the  service  of  the  city,  to  do 

so  unless  they  are  paid  for 

it.  I think  a man  of  moderate  means 
and  ability  ought  to  have  an  opportunity 
to  serve  upon  this  board. 

I think  a man  of  great  business  in- 
terests, if  he  sacrifices  those  interests  to 
serve  us,  ought  to  receive  some  recom- 
pense. I do  not  believe  that  a man  can 
afford  to  sacrifice  his  own  business  and 
give  it  up  entirely  and  expect  to  live  off 
the  salary  he  receives,  but  I do  think 
there  ought  to  be  some  consideration 
with  it. 

Now,  it  is  a fact  and  statistics  show 
it,  that  the  wealthy  men  do  not  seem  to 
be  the  most  interested  in  this  question, 
so  far  as  public  schools  are  concerned. 
They  are  able  to  send  their  children  to 
other  schools  if  they  are  not  satisfied 
with  common  schools ; they  have  the 
means  to  do  it,  and  if  it  is  not  satisfac- 
tory to  them  they  simply  send  them  some- 
where else  where  it  is  satisfactory.  But 
it  is  not  so  with  the  poor  people  of  the 
city;  they  must  rely  upon  the  schools  of 
the  city,  and  I think  that  a man  of  mod- 
erate means,  who  has  the  ability,  should 
be  able  to  give  the  city  his  services  and 
receive  some  recompense  for  the  sacrifice 
he  must  make  in  giving  those  services.  I 
think  we  ask  too  many  people  to  sacri- 
five  their  own  business  and  give  up  their 
services  for  nothing.  We  do  not  do  it 
in  our  private  business,  and  why  should 
a city  like  the  City  of  Chicago  ask  men 
to  sacrifice  their  own  business  and  to 
serve  the  city  when  it  has  been  remarked 
by  men  of  experience  on  the  school 
board,  by  our  educators  here  as  to  the 
onerous  duties  that  are  placed  on  them, 
and  if  they  do  their  work  as  it  should 


December  21 


622 


1906 


be  done  it  will  take  a large  portion  of 
their  time,  and  therefore  I think  we 
should  consider  this  a little  more  care- 
fully and  not  vote  on  it  without  giving 
it  a little  more  thought. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  may 

I ask  Mr.  Hill  a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Revell: 

MR.  REYELL:  Have  you  ever  heard 

of  a case,  Mr.  Hill,  where  a man  re- 
fused to  serve  on  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion or  on  the  Park  Board  because  he 
could  not  afford  it? 

MR.  HILL : I do  not  know  that  I 

have.  I do  not  know  that  you  have 
ever  asked  a man  of  moderate  means  to 
serve  on  the  Board  of  Education  or  the 
School  Board.  I do  not  believe  there 
are.  There  are  men  serving  on  the 
Park  Board  at  the  present  time  and  re- 
ceiving no  salary  at  all,  and  in  private 
conversation  with  me  they  have  said  that 
they  did  not  think  it  was  right.  I say 
a man  who  has  ability  to  serve  on  the 
school  board,  and  more  particularly  on 
the  school  board  than  on  the  Park  Board, 
to  my  mind, — I do  not  think  it  ought 
to  be  made  a burden  upon  him;  I do  not 
think  a man  of  moderate  means  ought  to 
be  compelled  to  sacrifice  his  time  with- 
out recompense  for  it. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  there  ought  to  be  a few  civic 
duties  left  in  the  City  of  Chicago  to 
which  the  citizens  of  this  city  shall  have 
the  opportunity  of  securing  and  perform- 
ing without  pay,  and  for  the  sake  of 
whatever  honor  may  be  involved  in  the 
situation,  and  the  opportunity  that  is 
thereby  offered  them  to  benefit  their  city. 

I confess  that  I am  not  at  all  in  sym- 
pathy with  this  commercial  aspect  of 
the  presentation  of  the  salary  side  of 
the  question.  Aldermen,  of  course, 
should  be  paid;  but  men  Avho  serve  in  the 
highest  possible  capacity  and  serve  the 
most  important  function  of  the  city, 
the  education  of  children,  should  be  glad 
to  serve  for  nothing. 

Only  one  thing  more,  the  suggestion  I 


that  if  you  pay  men  a salary  of  $2,500 
that  you  are  going  to  improve  your 
school  board,  in  my  judgment,  will  work 
precisely  the  other  way,  and  it  will  sim- 
ply attract  to  this  office,  in  so  far  as 
influence  can  get  the  office  for  them,  a 
small  class  of  men  who  could  not  earn 
$2,500  a year  in  any  other  capacity;  and 
it  would  simply  be  a political  scramble 
on  the  part  of  small  men  for  what  seems 
to  them  to  be  a large  salary.  Of  what 
interest  would  it  be  to  a reformer  like 
Mr.  Robins,  or  a clergyman  like  myself, 
the  presentation  of  a salary  of  $2,500? 
Why,  we  would  scorn  the  implication  con- 
tained in  it  that  we  needed  the  money. 
I believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  you  will 
deteriorate  your  school  board  by  a prop- 
osition of  this  kind.  Of  course,  if  you 
are  going  to  pay  anything,  let  us  make 
the  salary  $5,000,  but  in  the  name  of 
heaven,  Mr.  Chairman,  let  us  have  one 
or  two  places  in  this  town  where  people 
who  are  willing  to  serve  the  people  for 
nothing  may  have  a chance  to  do  so. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins— or, 

Mr.  Linehan  claimed  the  floor. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

is  not  argument  at  all!  that  is  not  argu- 
ment at  all;  it  is  simply  throwing  a 
little  foozle  around  the  question.  The 
principle  stands  just  the  same,  whether 
the  amount  suits  you  or  not.  If  $2,500 
isn’t  enough,  increase  it  or  reduce  it; 
but  the  principle  of  paying  a salary  is 
the  important  part,  and  that  principle  is 
based  mi  purity,  irrespective  of  Brother 
Robins  or  Brother  White 

MR.  ROBINS:  Say,  brother,  let  me 

speak  for  myself. 

MR.  LINEHAN : The  great  civic 

pride  which  brings  a millionaire  who  has 
no  children,  or  half  a dozen  millionaires 
who  have  no  children,  which  brings  them 
into  the  mayor’s  office  every  year  en- 
deavoring to  get  an  appointment  on  the 
school  board  is  not  any  more  worthy  of 
recognition  than  the  pride  of  the  work- 
men, who  supply  all  the  children  and 


December  21 


623 


1906 


all  the  money  for  the  maintenance  of 
the  public  institutions  of  this  city. 

Let  me  say  to  you  right  here  until 
this  board  was  appointed  there  never  was 
a laboring  man  appointed  until  Thomp- 
son was  appointed  by  Carter  Harrison, 
who  just  finished  his  term.  Now,  is  that 
man  so  wholly  devoid  of  education  and 
of  consideration  of  the  needs  and  wants 
of  the  children  that  he  is  entirely  barred 
from  representation  on  the  school  board? 
That  is  the  only  way  you  can  bar  him. 
I do  not  think  it  comes  with  the  best 
grace  from  the  cloth  to  refuse  to  pay 
a salary  so  that  he  can  be  disfranchised; 
practically  that  is  what  it  means. 

There  is  another  point,  and  it  is  of 
still  more  importance:  Why  will  the 

rich  man,  the  business  man  of  this  city, 
whose  life  has  been  spent  chasing  the 
almighty  dollar  so  much  that  his  broad- 
ness of  education  is  lacking,  be  chosen 
for  the  Board  of  Education  instead  of 
the  professor  of  a college,  the  student  of 
the  higher  education,  the  best  educated 
men,  whose  lives  are  put  in  on  higher 
education,  but  who  never  get  over 
$1,500  as  a general  rule,  and  who  are 
not  seeking  the  job.  It  is  very  sel- 
dom you  see  one  of  them  courting  the 
job.  Generally  they  have  to  send  out 
and  ask  for  the  minister  or  the  professor. 

And  what  do  we  get  from  the  business 
men?  It  is  true,  broad  minded  men,  big 
men,  put  in  their  time  and  they  make 
personal  sacrifices,  but  a great  many  of 
them  do  not  put  in  their  time  and  those 
wealthy  business  men  are  always  content 
t»  send  out  a sub-committee  on  the  visits 
around  to  the  various  school  houses,  hunt 
up  some  sub-committees,  or  some  fellow 
who  has  not  got  as  much  business  to 
attend  to,  and  the  things  arc  not  at- 
tended to.  Now,  I want  that  fellow 
paid.  I don ’t  care  whether  this  wealthy 
fellow  cares  for  the  salary  or  not.  If 
he  don’t  want  it  he  can  pay  it  back,  but 
why  should  he  stand  in  the  road  of  the 
man  who  wants  the  salary  and  is  willing 
to  give  his  time  and  his  services  to  the 


board.  I know  there  are  some  laboring 
men  who  have  not  had  the  benefits  of 
a common  school  education,  but  we  have 
some  today  who  have  had  a higher  edu- 
cation and  who  know  something  about 
education,  men  who  have  gone  to  higher 
schools,  and  that,  of  course,  is  owing  to 
our  public  school  system. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I only  want  to 
make  this  point  in  connection  with  this: 
Do  not  look  at  the  $2,500;  look  at  the 
principle  involved.  If  $2,500  is  too  much, 
cut  it  down,  but  vote  just  on  the  princi- 
ple ; don ’t  vote  on  any  basis  brought 
forth  by  Dr.  White,  but  vote  on  the 
principle  of  paying  the  man  a salary 
whether  it  be  $2,500  or  whatever  it  may 
be. 

ME.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  just  a 

word,  or  two  words,  in  explanation  of 
what  has  been  said:  First,  I am  very 

sorry  Mr.  Linehan  took  what  was  in- 
tended to  be  merely  a pleasantry  so  seri- 
ously. I did  not  intend  that  it  should 
be  considered  seriously.  Secondly,  I 
want  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  I had 
no  reference  to  laboring  men  on  the 
board.  I think  you  will  find  plenty  of 
laboring  men  who  will  be  glad  to  serve 
in  this  capacity  without  remuneration, 
and  I think  they  ought  to  have  repre- 
sentation in  this  Board  of  Education. 

ME.  EOBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is 

very  unfortunate  to  have  to  differ  from 
one  of  the  cloth,  but  I thought  while  he 
was  speaking  that  possibly  because  he 
did  all  his  work  on  Sundays,  a large 
share  of  it,  that  may  be  he  was  more 
particular  on  other  days  of  the  week 
than  some  of  the  rest  of  us. 

I have  been  upon  the  board  for  a,  little 
while.  I am  not  in  need  of  a salary,  and 
that  is  my  fortune.  A great  many  bet- 
ter men  than  myself  are  in  need  of 
one.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I have  known 
three  important  business  matters  on  this 
board  since  I have  been  on  it  in  this 
short  time,  no  less  a business  matter, 
Mr.  Chairman,  than  the  adjustment,  if 
possible,  by  arbitration,  of  outstanding 


December  21 


624 


1906 


leasehold  interests  that  are  in  contest, 
to  be  put  off  three  weeks  from  various 
special  meetings  because  members  of  the 
board  were  not  able  to  attend.  The  ex- 
cuse in  every  case  was,  ‘ 1 Well,  of  course, 
we  have  to  earn  our  living.  You  are 
lucky  you  have  not  to  earn  it.  ’ ’ 

I do  not  know  how  they  know  that, 
but  they  seem  to  know.  However,  it  is 
true,  I do  not  have  to  earn  it. 

The  point  made  by  Mr.  Linehan  seems 
to  me  to  be  the  right  view  to  take  at 
this  time.  I do  not  think  he,  and  I am 
sure  I do  not  care  for  the  $2,500;  if 
$1,500  is  better,  all  right;  if  $5,000,  all 
right;  but  the  principle  that  a man  who 
should  give  his  time  and  attention  to 
the  Board  of  Education  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  should  be  paid  by  the  City  of 
Chicago,  I have  not  the  slightest  ques- 
tion about  that  from  my  few  months’  ex- 
perience on  that  board.  I wish  to  say  to 
the  gentlemen  of  this  Convention  that 
just  as  I have  noted  that  the  real  duties 
that?  should  be  performed,  and  in  some 
notable  cases  are  admirably  and  splen- 
didly performed  by  members  of  the 
City  Council,  it  has  convinced  me  in  the 
course  of  some  years  ’ experience  that  the 
body  should  be  paid  $3,500,  and  then 
$5,000,  as  soon  as  the  - city  funds  per- 
mitted it,  and  precisely  the  same  line  of 
judgment  and  experience  and  observation 
forces  the  conclusion  that  a member  of 
the  school  board  of  Chicago  who  is  to 
do  the  real  work  that  such  a school  board 
member  should  perform  should  be  in  a 
position  to  give  practically  the  whole  of 
his  time  to  those  duties. 

Now,  when  I say  the  whole  of  his  time 
I mean  that  he  should  be  free  to  do 
that,  and  he  should  be  saved  from  the 
necessity  of  making  his  living  before 
he  can  do  it.  I think  there  should  be 
some  members  on  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion who  won ’t  need  this  money  at  all, 
but  I believe  that  the  making  of  a 
salary  for  the  members  and  then  holding 
the  members  responsible  for  the  perform- 
ance of  their  duties  in  every  way,  not 


in  a perfunctory  way,  is  the  best  way 
to  get  effective  administration  of  the 
city  schools. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready  for 

the  question? 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

voted  a while  ago  for  the  school  board 
of  fifteen  members,  and  in  the  light 
of  what  Mr.  Linehan  has  said,  and  the 
other  gentleman  who  just  preceded  me, 
I am  almost  constrained  to  make  a 
motion  to  reconsider,  because  if  you  are 
going  to  pay  men  on  the  school  board; — 
if  you  are  going  to  hire  men,  I am  in 
favor  of  a school  board  of  about  three, 
and  we  will  put  it  on  that  basis  and  give 
them  a good  salary  and  let  them  go  ahead 
and  do  the  business  and  hold  them  re- 
sponsible. 

But  that  is  not  my  idea  of  a school 
board,  and  I believe  that  when  you  put 
them  on  a monetary  basis  that  you  take 
out  all  of  this  interest  you  heard  about 
awhile  ago  when  the  board  should  be 
twenty-one  members,  and  all  the  men 
who  make  a sacrifice  and  women  who 
make  a sacrifice  for  the  good  of  the 
schools  and  give  their  time  because  of 
the  great  institution  it  is!  Now,  I agree 
with  Dr.  White; — there  ought  to  be 
something  left  somewhere  where  men  who 
are  willing  to  make  a sacrifice  for  the 
general  good  could  seek  positions,  and 
there  is  no  place  in  my  judgment  where 
it  is  more  important  than  in  the  school 
board;  and  I am  certainly  opposed  to 
any  salary  being  attached  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  school  board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Linehan ’s 
amendment. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beil  fuss,  Burke,  Church, 
Erickson,  Hill,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  Mc- 
Cormick, McKinley,  Owens,  Robins, 
Shepard,  Snow,  Zimmer — 15. 

Nays— Bennett,  Brossean,  Crilly,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Eidmann,  Gansbergen,  Jones,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  MacMillan,  McGoorty, 
Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Paullin,  Pendarvis, 


December  21 


625 


1906 


Raymer,  Revel],  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Smulski,  Taylor,  Yopieka,  Wer- 
no,  White,  Wilkins — 29. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  RITTER : ' Mr.  Chairman,  what 
is  the  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

upon  Mr.  Linehan  ’s  amendment  that 
members  of  the  Board  of  Education  will 
receive  a compensation  of  $2,500  per 

annum. 

MR.  RITTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I would 
like  to  pass  on  that.  I do  not  believe 
in  having  people  work  for  nothing.  At 
the  same  time  I am  not  in  favor  of 
fixing  any  amount.  I would  sooner  have 
the  privilege  of  passing  the  vote. 

MR.  GUERIN:  I pass. 

MR.  POST:  I adopt  Mr.  Ritter’s  re- 

mark, and  want  to  pass  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  amend- 

ment of  Mr.  Linehan  that  the  members 
of  the  Board  of  Education  should  re- 
ceive compensation  of  $2,500,  the  yeas 
are  15,  and  the  nays  29,  and  the  motion 
is  lost. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I have  a resolution 

here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  EIDMANN : Mr.  Chairman 

MR.  SNOW : A point  of  order,  Mr. 

Chairman. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I ask  that  that  be 

published  and  passed  to  a subsequent 
meeting. 

MR.  SNOW:  That  has  been  adopted 

by  the  Convention  already. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  is  that 

amendment?  Let  us  see  it,  please. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  The  amendment 

goes  to  the  point  that  it  covers  all  ap- 
pointments by  the  mayor.  Up  to  now 
it  is  always  a question  whether  the  coun- 
cil must  concur  in  appointments  or 
whether  the  council  need  not  concur; 
and  there  is  some  difference  of  opinion. 
In  order  that  there  shall  be  some  uni- 


formity, I introduce  this  resolution  and 
ask  that  it  .be  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  resolu- 

tion be  printed. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move  the 

adoption  of  the  next  paragraph. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor— 

MR.  WHITE:  What  is  that,  please? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  the  mem- 

bers of  the  Board  of  Education  shall 
serve  without  compensation.  All  those 
in  favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  It  is  carried.  We  will  proceed  to 
the  next. 

MR.  WHITE:  I wish  to  offer  an 

amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  WHITE:  On  lines  four  and 

five,  I wish  to  substitute  twenty-five  years 
for  thirty  years ; I can  see  absolutely 
no  reason  in  this  age  of  young  men,  this 
age  in  which  young  men  are  doing  things, 
and  know  how  to  do  things,  why  we 
should  dispense  with  the  possibility  and 
the  ability  of  men  between  twenty-five 
and  thirty;  I cannot  see  any  reason  for 
making  that  age  thirty.  I am  in  favor 
of  the-  young  fellows  between  twenty- 
five  and  thirty,  who  do  things. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Doctor  White 

moves  to  change  the  word  thirty  to 
twenty-five.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question  ? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I hope 

that  motion  will  not  prevail.  I do  not 
see  why  Doctor  White  and  the  members 
of  this  Convention  should  open  young 
men  to  temptation  just  now,  by  placing 
the  age  at  twenty-five.  I think  it  would 
be  hard  on  the  public  morals  were  we 
to  vote  down  this  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  Doctor  White’s  measure,  reduc- 
ing the  age  to  twenty-five  years,  will 
say  aye ; opposed,  nay.  The  Chair  is 
of  the  impression  that  some  of  the  mem- 
bers voted  on  both  sides.  Call  the  roll, 
please. 

Yeas  -Brosseau,  Crilly,  Ritter,  Dixon, 


December  21 


626 


1906 


G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Erickson,  McCor- 
mick, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 

0 ’Donnell,  Paullin,  Peridarvis,  Powers, 
Revell,  Shanahan,  Smulski,  Yopieka, 
Werno,  White,  Wilkins — 21. 

Nays  — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Burke, 
Church,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Gans- 
bergen,  Guerin,  Hill,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  MacMillan, 
Owens,  Post,  Eaymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Taylor,  Zimmer 
• — 25. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Mr.  Chairman, 

1 desire  to  be  recorded  as  voting  aye. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I desire  to 

be  recorded  as  voting  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  yeas  are 

21,  nays  25,  and  the  motion  to  change 
the  age  is  lost. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I then  move  to 

reconsider. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

now  upon  the  adoption  of  the  section  as 
printed.  As  many  as  favor  it  signify 
by  saying  aye;  opposed,  nay.  Carried. 
Section  3. 

The  Secretary  read  Section  3. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I was  called-  upon 

at  the  opening  of  this  discussion  to 
state  any  material  difference  by  omis- 
sion or  addition  between  the  reports  we 
are  now  acting  upon,  or  the  resolution 
we  are  now  acting  upon,  and  the  com- 
mittee’s original  report.  It  is  but  just 
to  the  committee,  then,  to  inform  the 
Convention  that  in  their  report  they 
decided,  by  a large  majority,  if  not  by 
a unanimous  vote,  that  property  should 
be  acquired  by  condemnation  only,  and 
that  is  not  included  in  the  resolution  be- 
fore us. 

I would  also  call  attention  to  the  pro- 
visions of  the  existing  law  which  are  re- 
ferred to  here,  and  which,  as  far  as  we 
could  learn,  have  operated  satisfactor- 
ily. I will  not  read  them  in  detail,  un- 
less called  upon,  though  I have  them 
ready. 

The  latter  part  of  this  resolution  is 


an  addition  of  very  grave  and  great  im- 
portance, and  nothing  that  we  will  have 
to  act  upon  in  this  whole  report  should 
be.  more  carefully  considered  that  this 
last  clause:  that  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  a concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  mo- 

tion? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I move  the  adoption 

of  the  resolution  as  it  stands. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I would  like  to 

ask  for  information,  Doctor  Taylor. 
Does  that  mean  that  property  shall  not 
be  acquired  by  lease,  or  that  no  lease 
shall  be  made  of  school  property? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  The  leasing  of  school 

property  shall  only  be  for  five  years  at 
a time,  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
City  Council. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  Mr.  Taylor  a question:  Do  I under- 

stand, by  the  reading  of  this  section,  that 
no  property  belonging  to  the  school  board 
can  be  leased  for  a longer  term  than 
five  years? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Without  the  concur- 

rence of  the  council. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I do  not  believe 

that  is  what  is  intended  by  this  section. 
The  way  this  section  reads:  “No  school 

property  shall  be  leased  for  a longer 
term  than  five  years ; ’ ’ then  it  goes  on : 

1 1 nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council.” 

I expect  the  intention  was  that  no 
school  property  could  be  leased  for  a 
longer  term  than  five  years  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  City  Council : that 
is  the  way  this  section  reads. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I move,  as  a sub- 

stitute for  the  motion  of  Mr.  Taylor, 
that  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Education  be  substituted  for  this  mo- 
tion. 

MR.  TAYLOR : Will  you  read  it, 

page  10,  Section  3? 


December  21 


627 


1906 


The  Secretary  read  the  report. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Yopicka 

moves  to  substitute  that  for  the  pend- 
ing motion. 

MR.  YOPICKA : Not  the  whole  of  it ; 
just  the  first  part  in  regard  to  the  acquir- 
ing of  real  estate  for  the  schools. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Do  you  mean  to  sub- 

stitute the  first  section  for  the  whole 
section  ? 

MR.  YOPICKA:  No,  only  that  part. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

call  attention  to  the  language  used  in 
this,  also.  (Reads  section.)  I take  it 
that  is  rent  property  for  school  pur- 
poses. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I think  we  must 

have  that  in  the  body  of  the  report, — 1 
cannot  find  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Pages  10  and 

11  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  What  is  it? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Section  3, 

school  property. 

MR.  RITTER:  Mr.  Chairman:  Is 

the  pending  motion,  a substitution,  tak- 
ing a corrected  copy  of  the  report?  Is 
the  intention  to  substitute  Section  3, 
on  the  left  hand  side  of  the  page,  or 
the  right  hand  page? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  will  have  to 

ask  Mr.  Vopicka  that. 

THE  SECRETARY:  The  left  hand 

side  of  the  page. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  The  left  hand  side; 

but  what  I think  I will  do,  Mr.  Chair- 
man— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Order,  gentle- 

men. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  The  report  is  too 

long.  I do  not  think  we  have  succeeded 
in  getting  to  the  right  point  in  this  ques- 
tion. At  least,  Mr.  Chairman,  T believe 
it  would  be  a good  point  if  you  would 
read  paragraph  1 of  our  report  on  page 
54,  under  the  title  of  Property:  “The 
state  may  acquire  property  by  pur- 
chase,M etc.  Mr.  Chairman,  I move  that 
this — the  adoption  of  this  article  13, 
school  property. 


THE  SECRETARY:  That  was  car- 

ried, Mr.  Yopicka. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I mean — where  is 

Education? 

MR.  LATHROP : There  are  so 

many  different  reports  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  LATHROP:  There  are  so  many 

different  reports  here.  I have  four  or 
five  in  this  same  volume. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  so- 

called  corrected  copy  of  the  report  is 
not  a corrected  copy  of  the  report,  and  is 
not  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Edu- 
cation. It  seems  to  me  this  document 
ought  to  be  entirely  eliminated  from 
this  Convention,  because  a member  re- 
fers to  this  document,  and  it ' is  not 
correct.  I therefore  move  for  further 
consideration  of  this  subject,  and  this 
so-called  corrected  report  be  disregarded. 

MR.  TAYLOR : Mr.  Chairman,  the 

left  hand  column  of  that  report  is  the 
exact  report  of  the  Committee  on  Edu- 
cation with  the  correction  of  many  typo- 
graphical errors  which  were  in  the 
original  report. 

MR.  JONES:  If  you  look  at  the  top 

of  this  document,  the  right  hand  column, 
it  says : ‘ ‘ Corrected  report,  ’ ’ and  gives 
the  column.  I happened  to  be  a mem- 
ber of  the  Educational  Committee;  that 
committee  was  not  called  for  the  pur- 
pose of  considering  any  corrected  report, 
and  I do  not  consider  that  the  matter 
in  the  right  hand  column  is  the  correct 
report  of  the  committee. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  No,  I explained 

that. 

MR.  JONES:  I do  not  think  it  is  a 

correct  report  at  all.  In  compliance 
with  orderly  procedure,  I think  we  should 
dismiss  this  document  from  considera- 
tion and  refer  the  matter  to  another 
meeting. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I have  no  objection. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I would  like 

to  offer  a substitute.  On  page  594  I 
would  like  to  move  the  insertion  of  that. 


December  21 


628 


1906 


The  Secretary  read  the  substitute,  as 
hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I think  that 

would  clear  up  that  provision  that  we 
are  now  discussing. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  may 

I make  an  explanation?  I have  discov- 
ered the  omission  of  a comma  from  that 
first  draft  here,  which  would  greatly 
clear  it  up;  and  Mr.  Eckhart’s  amend- 
ment will  make  it  doubly  clear ; there 
Avas  the  omission  of  a comma  here  that 
would  entirely  alter  the  sense  of  it. 
After  the  word  1 1 altered,  ’ ’ it  should  be — 

MR.  EIDMANN : I have  an  amend- 

ment written,  here,  which  would  cover 
the  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Everybody’s? 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Everybody’s,  I 

think.  My  amendment,  I think,  will 
specify  what  kind  of  a vote  is  necessary 
in  .regard  to  long  term  leases. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  vote  on 

Mr.  Eckhart’s  first.  Read  Mr.  Eid- 
mann’s  motion. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Eidmann ’s 
substitute  as  hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I move  the  adop- 

tion of  that  amendment. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  What  is  that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is 

rather  confused  as  to  what  is  before  the 
house.  Doctor  Taylor  moves  the  adop- 
tion of  the  section  as  read;  Mr.  Yopicka 
moves  the  substitution  of  another  sec- 
tion,— I presume  the  Secretary  has  got 
that; — Mr.  Eckhart  has  got  a substi- 
tute or  amendment — the  Chair  is  in 
doubt  whether  it  is  an  amendment  to 
Doctor  Taylor  or  Mr.  Yopicka,  and  Mr. 
Eidmann  has  another  amendment,  and 
the  Chair  is  in  doubt  what  this  amend- 
ment is  to. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I withdraw  my  mo- 

tion, and  that  will  simplify  matters. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  simplifies  it. 

MR.  EIDMANN : The  amendment 

is 

MR.  ROBINS:  I would  like  to  hear 

from  Mr.  Eckhart. 


MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move  the 

adoption  of  the  amendment. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  We  have  Mr.  Eid- 
mann ’s  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  amendment  as  proposed  by 
Mr.  Eckhart  ? 

THE  SECRETARY:  I will  try.  Page 
593,  lower  right  hand  column,  3,  School 
Property:  As  amended  by  B.  A.  Eck- 

hart : ‘ ‘ The  charter  shall  re-enact  in 
substance  the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure  and 
disposition  of  property,  for  school  pur- 
poses; but  no  real  estate  shall  be  leased 
for  a term  longer  than  five  years  with- 
out the  concurrence  of  the  City  Council, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  lease  be  al- 
tered without  such  concurrence.  ’ ’ 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I move,  as  a sub- 

stitute, my  amendment,  which,  I think, 
specifies  just  exactly  what  kind  of  a 
vote  is  necessary.  Mr.  Eckhart’s 

amendment  does  not  provide  for  th,e 
kind  of  a vote  that  is  necessary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Read  Mr.  Eid- 

mann ’s  amendment. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  In  all  sale  of  real 

estate  it  is  necessary  for  a three-fourths 
vote,  and  long  leases  are  the  same  as  a 
sale,  and  the  same  vote  should  prevail. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 

man,— 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Just  one  minute, 

Mr.  Eidmann.  Do  you  want  the  floor, 
Mr.  Shanahan? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  You  said,  “Mr. 

Eidmann  ” ; I want  the  amendment  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Read  Mr.  Eid- 

mann ’s  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Eidmann ’s 
resolution  as  hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

MR.  SHANAHAN : As  I understand 

the  provision  of  this  section,  this  ap- 
plies to  property  that  is  to  be  leased  for 
school  purposes,  and  under  the  wording 
of  this  it  will  not  apply  to  property 
owned  by  the  schools  which  are  leased 
out  for  other  purposes.  It  says  here: 


December  21 


629 


1906 


1 ‘ The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  substance 
the  provisions  of  the  existing  law,  re- 
garding the  acquisition,  tenure  and  dis- 
position of  property  for  school  purposes; 
but  no  real  estate  shall  be  leased  for  a 
term  longer  than  five  years,  nor  shall 
the  terms  of  any  existing  lease  be  al- 
tered without  the  concurrence  of  the  City 
Council,  ’ ’ subject  to  this  amendment, 
“but  no  real  estate  shall  be  leased  for 
a term  longer  than  five  years.  ” Now 
“no  lease, ” — that  reverts  back  to  the 
first  part  of  this  section,  and  that  is  for 
property  that  is  to  be  leased  for  school 
purposes,  and  not  to  property  that  is  now 
held  by  the  school  board  and  may  be 
leased  for  other  purposes. 

ME.  EIDMANN ; I desire  to  with- 
draw my  amendment.  My  idea  was  that 
school  purposes — all  property  leased  by 
the  Board  of  Education,  or  money  lent 
to  people  for  erecting  expensive  buildings 
on  this  property,  was  for  school  pur- 
poses; that  the  revenue  derived  from 
the  lease  of  this  property  was  to  be  used 
for  school  purposes. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  This  entire  sec- 

tion ought  to  be  re-drafted. 

MB.  EIDMANN : If  that  is  not  the 

intention  of  the  committee,  then  I would 
want  to  withdraw  my  amendment. 

MB.  ^IcGOOBTY:  I think  the  sec- 

tion will  bear  the  construction  which  had 
already  been  placed  upon  it,  because  in 
line  4,  the  word  ‘ 1 disposition  ’ ’ appears, 
and,  if  it  means  anything,  it  means  that 
leases  be. made  fcy  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, as  well  as  on  the  property  which 
the  board  might  acquire  by  lease,  and 
that  followed  by  the  clause:  “Nor  shall 
the  terms  of  any  existing  lease  be  altered 
without  the  concurrence  of  the  City 
Council,”  seems  to  make  it  quite  ap- 
parent that  the  drafter  of  this  resolution 
had  in  mind  thaf  any  property  to  either 
be  acquired  by  the  Board  of  Education 
or  to  be  disposed  of  by  the  Board  of 
Education,  by  purchase,  condemnation, 
lease  or  otherwise. 

ME.  SHANAHAN: 


why  would  not  this,  that  the  charter 
shall  re-enact  in  substance  the  existing 
law  regarding ’the  disposition,  tenure  and 
disposition  of  school  property 

MB.  TAYLOE:  Disposition? 

MB.  SHANAHAN  : School  property, 

not  property  for  school  purposes. 

MB.  WHITE:  I think  this  belongs  to 

the  lawyers,  and  it  might  help  matters 
if  we  all  understood  the  present  prac- 
tice, which  I understand  is  that  in  selling 
property  or  acquiring  property  of  the 
school  board  the  board  can  only  do  it 
with  the  concurrence  of  the  City  Council, 
but  the  question  of  leasing  school  prop- 
erty, such  as  is  included  in  block  142, 
is  referred  to  in  the  last  part  of  the 
clause,  and  in  that  matter  the  City  Coun- 
cil now  is  not  obliged  to  concur.  To  me, 
the  clause  was  entirely  clear,  with  the 
omission  of  the  comma,  and  if  that  be 
reinserted  it  would  make  it  clear  to  me; 
whether  it  is  legally  clear  I don  ’t  know. 

MB.  BOSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

ask  a question,  or,  rather,  two  questions: 
The  first  one  is  this:  “Nor  shall  the 
terms  of  any  existing  lease  be  altered.  ’ ’ 
Does  that  mean  leases  now  existing  or 
leases  made  at  any  subsequent  time? 

MB.  TAYLOB:  Now  in  existence. 

MB.  BOSENTHAL:  At  the  present 

time  in  existence? 

MB.  TAYLOB:  Yes,  sir. 

MB.  BOSENTHAL:  Then,  a second 

question  I have  to  ask  is  this:  Are  there 
any  leases  in  existence,  the  unexpired 
term  of  which  is  less  than  five  years? 
If  there  are  it  seems  to  me  we  ought 
to  except  those  leases. 

MB.  BEVELL:  Mr.  Chairman, — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eosentlial 

has  the  floor  yet. 

MR.  BOSENTHAL:  Then  I think  we 

ought  to  have  a further  amendment  to 
this,  which  the  others  probably  will  as- 
sent to:  that  the  terms  of  any  existing 
leases,  the  unexpired  term  of  which  is 
longer  than  five  years. 

MB.  BEVELL:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Eckhart  when  the  next  meeting  of 


Mr.  Chairman, 


December  21 


630 


1906 


the  Committee  on  Plan,  Procedure  and 
Rules,  will  be  held. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : It  will  be  at 

any  time  that  they  may  agree  upon  to 
meet. 

MR.  REYELL:  It  seems  to  me,  Mr. 

Chairman,  this  is  far  too  important 
a section,  in  its  mixed  and  ambiguous 
state,  for  us  to  act  upon  at  this  hour  of 
the  night.  We  should  have  plenty  of 
time.  If  you  desire  to  go  on  with  further 
business,  the  next  matter  is  entirely  dif- 
ferent and  does  not  relate  to  the  one 
now  before  us;  and,  in  order  that  we 
may  get  the  matter  straight  before  us 
and  get  a section  that  will  be  intelli- 
gible, I move  that  this  matter  be  de- 
ferred—referred  to  the  committee  just 
referred  to  and  reported  upon  by  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  of  the  motion  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no. 

(The  motion  prevailed.) 

MR.  ROBINS:  I want  to  move  that 

when  this  Convention  adjourns  tonight,  it 
adjourns  to  meet  on  Wednesday,  the 
2nd  day  of  January. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  rules  pro- 

vide for  a meeting  tomorrow  afternoon, 
at  which  time  the  question  of  Suffrage 
is  made  a special  order. 

MR.  ROBINS:  When  was  Suffrage 

made  a special  order? 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I don’t  think 

it  was  made  a special  order  for  to- 
morrow7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  was  to  be 

taken  up  immediately  after  the  disposi- 
tion of  Education. 

MR.  ROBINS:  There  is  a Revenue 

Committee  meeting  tomorrow  morning; 

I think  they  will  be  three  or  four  hours 
going  over  their  work.  This  is  the  last 
Saturday  before  Christmas,  and  I know 
a great  many  members  who  cannot  be 
here.  I have  attended  every  session  of 
this  Convention;  I would  like  to  attend 
all  future  meetings.  I find  it  • a good 
field  of  education,  and  I don ’t  wrant  to 
miss  any  of  it;  but  I believe  this  Con-  I 


vention  will  do  wisely  if  they  will  con- 
sent to  an  adjournment  until  after  the 
holidays.  I don’t  mean  particularly  the 
2nd  day  of  January,  but  until  after 
Christmas.  I ask  for  a second  for  my 
motion. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Seven-thirty  on 

the  2nd  day  of  January? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  City  Coun- 

cil have  a meeting  on  that  night,  and 
wre  cannot  have  the  chamber. 

MR.  ROBINS:  At  2 o’clock  in  the 

afternoon.  As  I understand  it,  Mr. 
Chairman,  there  are  about  two  weeks 
of  drafting  work  to  be  done.  I heard 
it  spoken  of  by  the  Committee  on  Rules, 
Procedure  and  General  Plan,  and  I 
imagine  our  expert  is  not  going  to  work 
all  during  Christmas  holidays.  It  seems 
to  me,  we  have  all  learned  a great  deal, 
and  w7e  will  be  able  to  think  over  these 
matters  and  to  dispatch  business  more 
effectively,  in  my  judgment,  if  we  take 
such  an  adjournment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  we  do 

about  the  notices  that  are  out? 

MR.  SHEPARD : Mr.  Chairman, 

some  time  in  the  early  part  of  last  week 
wre  set  down  a schedule  of  meetings  for 
this  Convention,  which  included  a ses- 
sion for  2 o’clock  tomorrow  afternoon. 
Now,  the  question  of  adjournment  over 
the  Christmas  holidays  may  be  taken  up 
tomorrow7  afternoon  and  considered  and 
disposed  of  then,  but  I submit  we  should 
meet  tomorrow7  afternoon  and  continue 
w7ork  so  far  as  wre  are  £ft)le  to  go. 

Further  than  that,  notices  have  been 
sent  out  for  tomorrow’s  session  of  this 
Convention.  There  is  no  sacrifice  im- 
posed upon  anybody  so  far  as  Christmas 
holidays  are  concerned,  in  meeting  to- 
morrow7 afternoon ; and  the  duty  im- 
posed upon  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion ought  to  weigh  upon  them,  it  seems 
to  me,  sufficiently  to  cause  them  to  wil- 
lingly meet  tomorrow7  afternoon,  that  we 
might  further  the  disposition  of  this 
work  before  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chairman 


December  21 


631 


1906 


would  urge  a meeting  tomorrow  after- 
noon, as  strongly  as  permitted. 

MR.  TAYLOR : On  the  general 

proposition  of  the  adjournment  until  the 
first  of  the  year,  we  should  certainly  re- 
member that  the  Legislature  opens  on 
the  9th  of  January,  aud  that  if  we  do 
not  finish  this  preliminary  consideration 
of  the  still  pending  matters,  we  will  be 
deprived  of  the  attendance  aud  partici- 
pation of  all  the  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

hope  the  motion  to  take  an  adjournment 
until  the  2nd  of  January  will  not  pre- 
vail. As  a great  many  members  of  this 
Convention  think  that  all  we  have  to  | 
do  is  draft  these  resolutions  and  pre- 
sent them  here,  that  that  is  the  end  of 
it.  I take  it  that  there  will  be  more 
argument,  more  debate,  and  as  much 
time  spent  over  the  acts  as  drafted, 
than  there  have  been  over  these  reso- 
lutions. A great  many  members  who 
have  voted  on  these  general  resolu- 
tions will  not  be  satisfied  to  vote  for 
the  drafted  laws  as  presented  here;  and 
I hope  that  every  day  that  can  be  given 
to  this  work  will  be  given  by  this  Con- 
vention between  now  and  the  middle  of 
January  or  the  first  of  February. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

understand  Mr.  Robins ’ motion  was 
seconded,  but  I move  that  when  we  ad- 
journ we  adjourn  to  meet  here  at  2 
o’clock  tomorrow. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  to 

adjourn  now? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  No,  when  we  ad- 

journ. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

going  to  ask  a roll  call  on  this,  but  I 
want  to  suggest  that  we  could  stay  here 
two  hours  tonight  and  do  all  the  work 
that  we  would  do  if  we  met  here  tomor- 
row afternoon,  after  a heavy  forenoon’s 
work. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  roll  be 

called. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  What  upon? 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Shep- 

ard’s motion  that  when  we  adjourn  we 
adjourn  to  meet  here  tomorrow  at  2 
o ’clock. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

ask 

THE  CHAIRMAN : When  your  name 
is  called,  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

Yeas — Brosseau,  Crilly,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill,  Jones,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Pendarvis, 
Powers,  Raymer,  Revell,  Shanahan, 
Shepard,  Taylor,  Yopicka,  Werno, 
White,  Zimmer — 28. 

Nays — Church,  Owens,  Post,  Robins, 
Rosenthal,  Smulski — 6. 

(During  roll  call.)  % 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

question,  Mr.  Rosenthal? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

know,  if  we  do  meet  tomorrow,  whether 
we  do  adjourn  over  the  holidays? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  determine  that  tomorrow. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

that,  when  we  adjourn,  we  adjourn  to 
meet  tomorrow  at  2 o’clock. 

MR.  POWERS:  What  is  the  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

that,  when  we  adjourn,  we  will  adjourn 
to  meet  tomorrow  at  2 o’clock. 

MR.  POWERS:  I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  meet  tomorrow  at  2 o’clock,  the 
yeas  are  28,  and  the  nays  are  6. 

MR.  WERNO:  Is  there  anything  be- 

fore the  Convention  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What? 

MR.  WERNO:  Is  there  any  motion 

pending  before  the  Convention  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  sev- 

eral communications. 

MR.  WERNO:  I would  like  to  move 

a reconsideration  of  the  vote  on  para- 
graph 3,  Section  2. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I believe  the  roll 

call  shows  that  we  are  without  a 
quorum. 


December  21 


632 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  I don’t  know 

whether  there  is  a quorum  or  not. 

MR.  BURKE:  I would  like  to  have 

a roll  call  for  the  purpose  of  finding  out 
whether  there  is  a quorum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary- 

will  call  the  roll.  Will  all  the  gentle- 
men answer  their  names,  please,  so  as 
to  decide  whether  there  is  a quorum. 

Present  — Foreman,  chairman,  and 
Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Church,  Crilly,  Ritter,  Dixon, 
G.  W.;  Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.; 
Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Guer- 
in, Hill,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Linehan,  McCormick,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Merriam,  O ’Donnell,  Owens, 
Post,  Powers,  Raymer,  Revell,  Robins, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Taylor,  Yopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wil- 
kins, Zimmer — 42. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Forty-two  pres- 

ent, and  the  motion  that,  when  we  ad- 
journ, we  adjourn  until  2 o’clock  to- 
morrow afternoon,  is  carried. 

MR.  WERNO:  I move  for  a recon- 

sideration of  the  vote  on  the  chapter 
with  reference  to  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, providing  that  the  members  shall 
serve  without  compensation. 

My  reason  for  making  that  motion  is 
this:  I voted  to  leave  that  as  it  is,  be- 

cause it  seemed  to  me  that  the  members 
of  the  Board  of  Education  should  not 
be  paid  a salary,  but  my  attention  has 
been  called  to  this — I have  been  in- 
formed that  the  members  of  the  Board 
of  Education  are  put  to  the  expense  of 
as  much  as  one  thousand  dollars  a year, 
some  of  them,  in  the  performance  of 
their  duty,  and,  in  order  that  that  mat- 
ter may  be  brought  before  the  Conven- 
tion, I move  a reconsideration  of  the 
vote  by  which  that  was  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 
suggest  that  you  send  it  up  and  have  it 
printed  in  the  minutes  of  the  next  meet- 
ing unless  you  desire  a vote  immediate- 
ly. Do  you  desire  a vote  now? 

MR.  REVELL:  I hope  the  aider- 


man  will  not  press  that  motion  at  this 
time.  It  seems  to  me  that  a motion 
to  consider  ought  to  go  over  to  the  next 
meeting,  the  hour  being  late  now.. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  the  gentle- 

men desire  to  take  up  the  next  section? 

MR.  WERNO:  I move  we  adjourn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  next  section,  page  594, 
No.  4. 

The  Secretary  read  Section  4. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

moving  the  adoption  of  that  section,  I 
may  explain  that  the  specification  here 
that  may  seem  unnecessary,  covered 
practically  points  which  have  already 
embarrassed  those  who  would  extend 
the  school  system  more  largely  to  the 
people,  and  that,  while  this  enumera- 
tion at  these  points  where  there  is 
necessity  for  it,  has  £een  made,  a gen- 
eral clause  has  beep  added  that  will  not 
limit  the  board  in  adding  other  things 
to  the  list,  by  the  fact  that  you  have 
enumerated  a list  of  things  that  they 
may  do.  The  point  was  urged  private- 
ly, that,  if  we  enumerate  a list,  the 
courts  would  hold  that  you  could  not 
add  anything  else  to  it,  but  there  is  a 
clause  at  the  end  of  the  paragraph 
which  would  seem  to  cover  that  point. 

MR.  WHITE:  I rise  for  informa- 

tion. In  the  last  clause  it  says  the 
Board  of  Education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  the  pu- 
pil. I thought  we  were  passing  on  the 
whole.  I beg  your  pradon,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Passing  on  the 

age  limit  of  the  pupil. 

MR.  WHITE:  Are  you  voting  on 

the  three  sections? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  the  three 

sections. 

MR.  WHITE:  Under  four. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Under  four. 

MR.  WHITE:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

question,  at  which  probably  some  of 
the  legal  talent  will  smile.  The  con- 
stitution provides  for  the  education  of 


December  21 


633 


1906 


children — using  the  word  1 1 children.  ' ' 
Of  course  I understand  what  the  in- 
tention of  this  is:  It  is  to  permit  the 
school  board  to  carry  on  lecture  courses, 
for  instance,  to  permit  adults  in  the 
night  schools,  which  I rather  suspect 
we  are  not  now  able  to  do.  I would 
ask  whether  the  word  “ children,’ ' as 
used  in  the  State  Constitution,  has  any 
legal  technical  meaning,  if  we  pass  this 
as  it  stands,  understanding  the  purpose 
for  which  we  intend  to  pass.  I wonder 
if  I have  gotten  that  straight? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Doctor  Taylor, 

will. you  answer  that  question? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  He  asks  the  ques- 

tion of  lawyers;  I am  not  a lawyer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  we 

have  not  had  that  answer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I didn't  get  the 

question;  state  it  again,  please. 

MR.  WHITE:  Shall  I state  it  again? 
All  right.  Mr.  Shepard  will  probably 
answer  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  As  my  recollection 

goes,  the  Supreme  Court  has  held  that 
the  term  “ children,"  as  used  in  the 
constitution,  included  all  children  in 
the  school  age.  That,  I think,  whether 
it  is  eighteen — under  eighteen — 

MR.  BEEBE:  Twenty-one. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  under  twenty- 

one  at  present.  It  includes  all  children 
in  that  class. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  this  is 

what  I want  to  know.  I don't  know 
what  the  intention  of  the  chairman  is 
in  this,  but  I know  what  my  own  is. 
I want  a clause,  if  it  is  possible  and 
legal,  which  will  permit  the  schools  of 
Chicago  to  carry  on  education  in  lec- 
ture courses  similar  to  those  in  vogue 
in  New  York.  Also,  something  that 
will  permit  us  to  educate  adults  in  the 
night  schools.  I simply  want  to  know 
whether  we  are  getting  ourselves  into 
any  confusion  if  we  pass  this;  and  if 
we  pass  it  as  it  now  reads,  whether  we 


shall  find,  after  we  shall  have  passed 
it,  that  it  did  not  mean  children  under 
twenty-one  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Some  man  fa- 

miliar with  the  constitution  will  an- 
swer that. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  The  question 

before  this  Convention  is  whether  they 
have  anything  in  Section  4 that  con- 
flicts with  the  e’onstitution,  and  as  that 
Section  4 is,  whether  that  is  constitu- 
tional, there  is  nothing  in  it  that  is  in 
conflict  with  the  constitution.  If,  in 
pursuance  of  a law  passed  under  this 
section,  the  Board  of  Education  at- 
tempt to  do  something  that  is  in  con- 
flict with  the  constitution,  that  is  an- 
other question,  but  that  should  not  bother 
us  at  the  present  time.  All  we  are  con- 
cerned in,  is  whether  the  present  section 
is  valid  and  there  is  no  doubt  of  it. 

MR,  McGOORTY:  In  line  9,  of  par- 

agraph 1,  of  section  4,  appear  the 
words and  avocational, " and  there 
being  a definite  specification  of  the  va- 
rious kinds  of  schools  which  may  be  in- 
cluded under  the  clause  of  schools  of 
all  grades  and  kinds,  and  as  the  word 
‘ 1 avocational ' ' may  give  rise  to  some 
doubt  or  ambiguity,  I move  that  the 
words  “and  avocational"  be  stricken 
out  in  line  9,  of  paragraph  1,  of  section 
4,  and  amended  by  inserting  the  word 
“and"  preceding  “construction,"  so 
that  it  will  read,  “‘Manual  training 
and  constructional,  teaching  domestic 
arts,"  etc. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  The  word  “avoca- 

tional" would  cover  the  training  of 
teachers  for  the  service  in  the  school. 
I fail  to  see  why  that  word  is  objected 
to. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Will  the  doctor 

yield  to  a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Doctor  Taylor, 

will  you  yield  to  a question? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I will  ask  the 

doctor  if  the  words  “Normal  Schools" 
is  not  set  forth  specifically  in  that  par- 


December  21 


634 


1906 


agraph,  as  including  normal  schools, 
etc.,  which  would  cover  the  training  for 
teachers? 

But  the  thought  was,  doctor,  that 
avocational  is  a broad  term  and  might 
include  training  for  theological  call- 
ing, for  instance.  The  words  “ Normal 
Schools”  cover  fully  the  teaching. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  It  \yas  not  intended 

to  cover  the  teaching  of  the  profession, 
but  the  possibilities  of  the  school -sys- 
tem? would  include  some  manual  arts, 
and  be  made  the  basis  of  a trade  edu- 
cation. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I think 
that  that  word  avocational,  which  per- 
haps ought  to  be  vocational,  was  in- 
serted there  with  very  careful  delibera- 
tion; and  my  understanding  of  its  in- 
sertion was  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
the  school  board,  for  instance,  to  main- 
tain commercial  schools,  that  should 
definitely  fit,  as  Germany  is  now  fit- 
ting, and  as  two  cities,  at  least  are  be- 
ginning to  fit  our  young  men  and  young 
women  for  vocations.  If  vocational  is 
the  more  technical  and  correct  word 
than  avocational,  I should  like  to  have 
the  word  vocational  substituted  for 
avocational.  But  I trust  the  amendment 
will  not  prevail  as  made  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Goorty,  because  it  means  something 
there  and  was  put  there  for  a purpose. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  the  in- 

tent of  this  section  is  pretty  well  un- 
derstood. Are  you  ready  for  the  ques- 
tion. 

MR,  RITTER:  Merely  for  the  pur- 

pose of  the  record,  I wish  to  amend  the 
last  line  of  flie  section,  which  is  that 
the  minimum  age  of  graded  school,  the 
age  shall  not  be  under  six  years.  The 
question  is  on  the  amendment  now,  is 
it,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  did 

not  understand  what  the  amendment 
was.  Simply  a discussion  of  the  word 
avocational. 


the  word  seven  for  six,  making  the  limit 
of  the  minimum  age  for  grade,  seven. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Was  yours  in 

the  shape  of  an  amendment? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I offered  it  for 

that  purpose. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  was  the 

amendment? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  The  amendment 

was  to  strike  out  the  word  1 1 avoea- 
tional”  in  line  9,  in  paragraph  1,  of 
section  4,  and  insert  the  word  “and” 
after  “training,”  so  that  it  would  be 
‘ ‘ manual  training  and  constructional 
teaching,  domestic  arts,”  etc. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  May  I inquire  of 

the  mover  of  that  amendment  whether 
he  understands  the  technical  use  of  that 
term  “avocational.”  That  merely 
means — has  a plain  object.  We  do  not 
want  to  limit  the  public  schools  in  the 
teaching  of  children  to  earn  their  liv- 
ing taken  there;  we  want  the  liberty  of 
the  public  schools  to  be  made  the  basis 
of  a trained  education  and  commercial 
education;  commercial  high  school. 
They  are  preparing  boys  and  girls  for 
avocations,  and  I do  not  see  why  the 
school  system  should  be  limited  in  that 
respect. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I would  suggest, 

then,  doctor,  it  would  make  it  less  ob- 
scure if  the  word  “commercial”  were 
inserted. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I do  not  want  to 

limit  it  to  commercial  pursuits. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I submit  it  is  for 

manual  instruction. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  These  are  technical 

terms  in  educational  usage. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Please  speak 

up;  we  cannot  hear  you.  The  reporter 
cannot  bear  you. 

MR.  REYELL:  I move  the  adoption 

of  that  section  as  it  stands;  understand- 
ing that  permission  will  be  granted  at 
another  meeting  to  bring  up  the  question 
of  what  word  shall  be  used  at  that  time. 

MR.  RITTER : I wish  to  make  an 


MR.  RITTER:  I wish  to  substitute 


December  21 


635 


1906 


amendment  to  substitute  the  word 
* 1 seven  ’ 1 for  ‘ 1 six.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Ritter 

moves  to  strike  out  the  word  “six”  and 
insert  the  word  “seven.” 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell. 

MR.  REYELL:  I give  way  to  Mr. 

O’Donnell. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  to  add 

the  following  words  after  the  words 
* 1 six,  ’ ’ at  the  end  of  the  last  paragraph : 
“provided  that  the  maximum  age  of 
compulsory  school  attendance  shall  not 
apply  to  pupils  over  the  age  of  four- 
teen years.”  I take  it  that  under  this 
section,  as  it  reads  now  the  school  board 
can  fix  the  exact  age,  not  alone  of  the 
younger  children,  but  also  of  the  older 
children.  I want  to  raise  that  question 
at  this  time  because  it  is  mentioned 
hereafter  and  under  the  fear  that  the 
construction  will  be  put  upon  this  section 
that  the  school  board-  can  fix  the  age  at 
sixteen,  or  over  fourteen.  I want  to 
inject  this  amendment  at  this  time  be- 
cause I am  opposed  to  the  age  being 
raised  over  fourteen  years  for  compul- 
sory school  attendance  in  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  all 

those  amendments? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I rise  to  a point  of 

order.  Whether  this  point  should  not 
be  considered  under  Section  11.  I fail 
to  see  why  it  is  relevant  here. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I rise  to  a point 

of  order 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  that 

would  be  better,  Mr.  O’Donnell. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I appreciate 

that  it  is  mentioned  there,  but  this  ; 
statement  gives  extensive  powers.  The  | 
last  paragraph  of  this  section  under  con-  i 
sideration  reads  that  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation shall  have  the  power  to  fix  the 
school  age  of  pupils;  the  age  in  kinder-  I 
gartens  shall  not  be  under  four  years, 
and  in  grade  schools  shall  not  be  under 
six  years.  Now,  to  that  I want  to  add  I 


my  proviso  to  limit  them  against  fixing 
thq  school  age  of  compulsory  education 
at  over  fourteen  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  all  of  these  amendments  be 
handed  to  the  Secretary  and  be  printed. 
I do  not  think  this  Convention  would 
take  up  these  various  amendments  to- 
night. 

MR.  McGOORTY : That  covered  my 

point  of  order. 

MR.  RAYMER : Are  we  about  to 

consider  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Ritter? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I hope,  Mr.  Chair- 

man and  gentlemen,  that  the  amendment 
offered  by  Mr.  Ritter  will  not  prevail.  I 
do  not  think  it  is  fain  to  the  child  to 
be  compelled  to  be  kept  out  of  the  ad- 
vantages of  education  until  it  is  after 
seven  years  of  age.  I think  that  limit 
is  entirely  too  high.  I think  the  clause 
should  remain  just  as  it  is  now  in  that 
respect. 

MR.  HILL:  I would  like  to  ask  Mr. 

Ritter  the  question  for  information. 
WTiether  the  school  board  as  now  ar- 
ranged does  not  require  eight  years  of 
the  pupil’s  attendance  in  order  to  gradu- 
ate? 

MR,  RITTER:  No,  sir. 

MR.  HILL:  Not  eight  years. 

MR.  RITTER  : It  only  requires  that 

candidates  should  attend  for  the  neces- 
sary length  of  time  to  cover  the  studies. 

MR.  HILL:  But  doesn’t  the  curri- 

culum require  eight  years  for  an  ordin- 
ary  pupil  to  pass  that  course? 

MR.  RITTER:  Practically  yes  and 

no.  The  question  cannot  be  answered 
yes  or  no.  From  such  investigations  as 
I have  been  able  to  make  I have  found 
out  that  the  children  entering  the  schools 
at  a later  age  than  seven  come  to  the 
high  school  sooner  than  those  who  crowd 
in  as  we  now  have  them  under  four 
years,  under  the  belief  that  they  are 
six,  so  that  they  may  be  fourteen  sooner 
under  the  compulsory  education  law. 


December  21 


636 


1906 


ME.  HILL:  The  point  I desired  to 

make  was  that  the  ordinary  pupil  re- 
quires eight  years  to  pass  the  course  as 
now  arranged,  and  if  he  does  not  com- 
mence till  seven  then  it  takes  one  year 
off  the  compulsory  school  age,  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  ought  to  be  in  the 
limit  that  the  child  should  pass  the 
school  under  the  compulsory  age. 

MB.  EITTEE:  I don’t  wish  to  press 

the  amendment  at  this  time.  We  might 
move  the  previous  question. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : There  is  no  need 

for  the  previous  question. 

ME.  BEVELL:  Do  I understand  that 

Mr.  Bitter  withdraws  his  amendment? 

ME,  EITTEE : No. 

ME.  BEVELL:  Do  you  withdraw? 

MB.  EITTEE : No. 

ME.  EEVELL : If  this  goes  to  a vote 

1 hope  it  will  be  defeated.  I would  not 
be  in  favor  of  any  change  in  a matter 
which  refers  to  something  upon  which 
we  should  have  some  information  from 
educators  before  we  would  change  it.  In 
the  matter  of  six  years  I understand  as 
it  is  now  in  the  schools  if  the  superin- 
tendent of  schools  or  the  assistant  super- 
intendents as  a body  would  bring  in 
any  clause  here,  asking. us  to  change  it, 
I would  be  very  glad  indeed  to  join  the 
Convention  in  changing  it ; but  I do 
not  think  we  should  touch  any  of  these 
matters  which  affect  the  purely  educa- 
tional side  of  the  Board  of  Education 
on  matters  which  we  have  not  already 
passed  upon,  unless  we  have  such  an 
opinion. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Gentlemen,  are 

you  ready  for  Mr..  Bitter’s  amendment? 
All  those  in  favor 

ME.  McGOOETY : What  is  the 

amendment? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  amendment 

is  to  change  the  age  from  six  years  to 
seven  years. 

All  those  in  favor  of  Mr.  Bitter ’s 
amendment  signify  the  same  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is  lost. 

ME.  J.  W.  ECKHAET : I want  to 


make  an  amendment.  There  seems  to 
be  a difference  of  opinion.  I would  like 
to  amend  after  the  word  1 1 avocation  ’ r 
1 1 excepting  ecclesiastical  avocation.  ’ ’ 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

to  a point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Eosenthrl. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  The  point  of 

order,  Mr.  Chairman,  so  far  as  the  last 
amendment  is  concerned,  it  is  uncon- 
stitutional anyway  for  the  school  board 
to  do  anything  of  that  sort.  Our  con- 
stitution takes  care  of  that.  We  need 
not  provide  for  that  in  our  law.  Section 
3 of  Article  8 of  the  constitution  pro- 
vides distinctly  that  the  board  may  not 
do  anything  of  this  sort.  So  we  need 
not  embarrass  our  legislators  by  that. 

ME.  J.  W.  ECKHAET : If  I thought 

it  was  necessary  I would  withdraw  the 
motion,  but  if  the  constitution  would 
prevent  it  for  educational  purposes  I 
withdraw  the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  next  is  Mr. 

O’Donnell’s  amendment,  that  the  Board 
of  Education  shall  not  have  the  power 
to  fix  the  compulsory  age  of  education 
at  more  than  fourteen  years. 

MB.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I hope 

that  will  not  be  voted  upon  tonight.  This 
whole  matter  has  been  carefully  pro- 
vided for  under  Section  6.  Mr.  Taylor 
can  explain  that  much  better  than  I can. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman— 

— ME.  WHITE:  1 mean  under.  Section 

11. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  I want  to  ask  a 

question  for  information.  Is  not  there  a 
state  law  regulating  that?  Doesn’t  the 
state  law  regulate  that? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Does  it?  I am 

not  familiar  with  the  law. 

MB.  EOSENTHAL:  I rise  to  a 

point  of  order. 

ME.  O’DONNELL:  That  is  what  we 

are  making  a mistake  on  now. 

MB.  EOSENTHAL:  We  have  a 

special  section,  which  is  No.  11,  en- 
titled : ‘ 1 Compulsory  Education.  ’ ’ Now, 
is  not  this  a pertinent  amendment  to  that 


December  21 


637 


1906 


Section  11.  I therefore  ask  the  Chair 
to  rule  it  so  as  a point  of  order  at 
this  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No.  11  applies 

to  that  exactly,  Mr.  O’Donnell. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I appreciate 

that,  but  what  I wanted  was,  I wanted 
to  raise  the  question,  because  if  the 
school  board  fixed  the  age — the  school 
age,  necessarily  the  compulsory  law  will 
step  in  to  carry  out  the  school  age,  what- 
ever it  is;  and  for  fear  that  I would 
be  barred  from  offering  this  amendment 
under  this  section  I raised  the  question 
now.  If  it  will  be  consented  to  that  I 
can  raise  this  question  under  the  com- 
pulsory section,  I will  not  press  this 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIbiviAN : No  objections. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 


now  upon  Mr.  Revell’s  motion.  All 
those  approving  say  aye ; opposed,  no. 
The  section  is  approved. 

MR,  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move 

adjournment. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Before  that  mo- 

tion is  put  will  you  let  me  suggest  that 
under  the  rule,  Section  5,  revenue,  should 
go  over  until  the  subject  of  revenue  is 
brought  up,  the  same  as  the  library,  parks 
and  so  forth. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  the  revenue  section  will  go 
over  until  the  report  of  the  Revenue 
Committee. 

The  Convention  mil  now  stand  ad- 
journed until  tomorrow  afternoon  at 
two  o ’clock,  and  all  communications 
will  be  printed  in  the  record. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Saturday,  December  22,  1906, 
at  2 o ’clock  p.  m. 


Secretary. 


December  21 


638 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 

I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 

1.  A complete  charter  shall  be  drawn 
and  submitted  to  the  Legislature  em- 
bodying the  resolutions  adopted  by  this 
Convention. 

Alternative  to  1.  Separate  bills  shall 
be  drawn  covering  the  following  sub- 
jects: 

a.  Consolidation  (including  parks), 

b.  Public  utilities, 

c.  Education, 

d.  Revenue, 

e.  Amendments  (if  any)  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act. 

f.  All  other  charter  provisions, 
which  shall  be  submitted  to  a separate 
vote  for  adoption. 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a'  department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 


ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  Vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  bpt  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ite  provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 


December  21 


639 


1906 


vision  for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 

V.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  tne  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 


compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality ; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state;  and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


December  21 


640 


1906 


VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 
any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and  | 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen-  j 
eral  taxation.  The  said  City  Council  I 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re-  1 


spective  amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector’s  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tion herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 
the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
sion. In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
funds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 
which  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him, 
upon  order  of  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 
year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  re- 


December  21 


641 


1906 


ceipts  and  expenditures  ‘for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 
tures for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 

4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 
year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 


Action  on  the  following  propositions 
has  been  deferred  pending  the  report 
of  the  special  commitee  on  revenue  in- 
formation. 

Alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 
taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  City  Council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 


to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 


3.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either,  any 
trade,  occupation  or  business  carried  on 
wholly  or  in  part  within  the  city  limits, 
and  all  persons,  firms  or  corporations 
owning  or  using  franchises  or  privi- 
leges. 

4.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles.  The  income  therefrom  shall 
be  used  in  the  repair  and  improvement 
of  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  ex- 
clusively. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 
by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 
50  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 
any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  contiguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 
and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 


December  21 


642 


1906 


tures  and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  aeqjiire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraph  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 
December  14,  1906,  have  been  re-re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan.  The  com- 
mittee report  will  be  found  under  “Res- 
olutions.” 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim 
its  for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIY.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XV.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  private  temporary  users  of  space 
above  or  below  the  level  of  streets,  al- 
leys or  other  public  places  shall  pay 
compensation  to  the  city  according  to 
some  definite  scale  to  be  fixed  by  gen- 
eral ordinance.  This  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  grants  for  public  utilities. 


XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 


or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity wTorks  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to*  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 
The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 


December  21 


643 


1906 


floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

Provided  that  when  the  city  shall  own 
and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall 
be  used  solely,  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 
dered or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 
city’s  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 


XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 


The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  management  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  education  of  fifteen  members 
to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  City 
Council. 

All  nominations  of  members  of  Board 
of  Education  by  the  mayor  shall  lie 
over  at  lea'st  one  week  before  action 
for  confirmation  or  rejection  thereon 
by  the  City  Council. 

They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a person  shall  be  at  least  thirty 
years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 


December  21 


644 


1906 


of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 

Section  HE,  with  amendments,  has 
been  re-referred  to  the  Committee  on 
RULES,  PROCEDURE  and  GENERAL 
PLAN. 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 
purposes,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

BY  MR,  B.  A.  ECKHART: 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “ pur- 
poses,’ ’ in  the  fifth  line,  and  add  “but 
no  real  estate  shall  be  leased  for  a term 
longer  than  five  years  without  the  con- 
currence of  the  City  Council,  nor  shall 
the  terms  of  any  lease  be  altered  with- 
out such  concurrence.  ’ ’ 

BY  MR.  EIDMANN: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“years,”  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  line, 
the  following  “unless  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  City  Council  by  a three- 
fourths’  vote.” 

BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“lease,”  at  the  end  of  the  seventh 
line,  the  following  “the  unexpired  term 
of  which  is  longer  than  five  years.” 


IV.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip-  I 
pled,  schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 


ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 

It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 


Action  on  Section  V has  been  de- 
ferred pending  the  report  of  the  special 
committee  on  revenue  information. 

V.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
months  of  the  year. 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 
money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 
provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 


The  following  sections  are  still  pend- 
ing: 

VI.  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enacted  or  changed,  money  appro- 
priated or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text- 


December  21 


645 


1906 


books  adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 

YU.  OFFICERS. 

The  board  of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
schools  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term 
of  office  of  the  superintendent  of  schools 
and  of  the  business  manager  shall  not 
be  less  than  four  years.  And  the  sal- 
ary of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint- 
ment be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall 
not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
schools. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools,  and  a busi- 
ness manager,  and  of  such  other  princi- 
pal officers  directly  appointed  by  the 
board,  as  the  board  may  by  general  or- 
dinance designate,  shall  not  be  subject 
to  the  civil  service  law,  but  they  shall 
be  removable  only  for  cause,  by  a vote 
of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  all  the 
members  of  the  board,  upon  written 
charges  to  be  heard  by  the  board  on  due 
notice  to  the  officers  charged  therewith, 
but  pending  the  hearing  of  the  charges, 
such  officers  may  by  two-thirds  vote 
be  suspended  by  the  board. 


VJII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF 
SCHOOLS. 

(1.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  board  of  educa- 
tion, but  no  vote. 

(2.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers,  principals  and 
other  educational  and  attendance 
officers  shall  be  made,  and  text-books 
and  educational  apparatus  shall  be  in- 
troduced by  the  board  of  education  up- 
on the  recommendation  of  the  superin- 
tendent, but  upon  his  failure  to  make 
such  a recommendation  within  a reason- 
able time  after  demand,  the  board  may 
make  appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers,  and  adopt  text-books  and  edu- 
cational apparatus  by  a two-thirds  vote 
of  all  its  members, 

(3.)  He  shall  be  consulted  as  to  loca- 
tion and  plans  of  school  buildings  and 
as  to  plans  and  specifications  for  educa- 
tional supplies. 

(4.)  Text-books  and  apparatus  once 
adopted  shall  not  be  changed  within 
four  years  after  their  adoption,  except 
upon  vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion. 

(5.)  The  superintendent  of  schools 
shall  nominate  for  appointment  by  the 
board  of  education,  assistant  and  dis- 
trict superintendents  and  principals  of 
schools,  and  shall  have  power,  with  the 
consent  of  the  board,  to  remove  them 
upon  complaint  and  for  cause. 

IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 
property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

He  shall  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
board  of  education  appoint  his  subordi- 
nate officers  and  employes,  among  whom 
there  shall  be  a trained  architect  and  a 
trained  engineer. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 


December  21 


646 


1906 


X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers  shall  be  made  for 
merit  only,  and  after  satisfactory  ser- 
vice for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  the  needs  of  the  schools  require. 

(2.)  The  standing  of  teachers  for 
appointment  and  promotion  shall  be  en- 
trusted to  a bord  to  be  constituted  by 
the  board  of  education,  of  which  the  su- 
perintendent of  schools  shall  be  the 
head. 

XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XII.  PENSIONS. 

The  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 
City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 
from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 
retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 


point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 
tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  be 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


BY  MR,  RITTER: 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  no  po- 
lice station,  fire  engine  house  or  patrol 
barn  shall  hereafter  be  built  within  400 
feet  of  any  school  building. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 


December  21 


647 


1906 


2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 
dinance granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below 
as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other 
public  places  for  any  public  utility, 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 


olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 


The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  at  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchise  be  altered  [extended],  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 


5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 
confer  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  “An 
act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages’  ’ approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


December  21 


648 


1006 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  ME.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  a'nd  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSRS  WERNO  AND  ROSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicl-*. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

A permanent  educational  commission 
of  advisory  capacity  shall  be  appointed 
bv  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the 
council,  to  consist  of  seventeen  mem- 
bers, who  shall  serve  without  compensa- 
tion, including  the  superintendent  of 


December  21 


649 


1906 


the  public  schools  and  the  librarian  of 
the  public  library,  who  shall  be  mem- 
bers ex  officio.  Each  other  member  shall 
hold  office  until  another  person  is  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  him. 

It  shall  be  the  function  of  the  educa- 
tional commission  to  tender  advice  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  to  correlate  the 
educational  forces  of  the  city  and  to 
prevent  unnecessary  duplication  of  ac- 
tivities by  exercising  their  influence  to- 
word  co-ordinating  the  various  educa- 
tional and  scientific  institutions  of  the 
city. 


BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XYI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 


be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


Report  of  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan — B.  A.  Eck- 
hart,  Chairman. 

CHICAGO  CHARTER  CONVENTION, 
Gentlemen:  Your  committee  on 


December  21 


650 


1906 


Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan,  to 
whom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions which  were  introduced  for 
consideration  at  the  meeting  of  Decem- 
ber 14th,  1906, 

XIII.  PROPERTY. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city 
limits  for  any  municipal  purpose. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Shanahan: 

* * * that  the  city  may  acquire 

property  by  purchase  outside  as  well 
as  within  the  city  limits  for  any  mu- 
nicipal purpose,  and  not  have  the  right 
to  condemn  outside  property. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Brown: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side of  the  city,  or  purchase  and  con- 
demn property  for  municipal  purposes 
within  the  city. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
B.  A.  Eckhart: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side as  well  as  within  the  city  limits, 
either  by  purchase  or  condemnation,  for 
park  and  boulevard  purposes. 

would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject-mat- 
ter, and  recommends  the  adoption  of 
the  following: 

The  city  may  acquire  by  purchase 
outside  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  and  may 
acquire  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits  by  purchase  or  condemnation  for 
park,  boulevard  or  forest  preserve  pur- 
poses. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART, 

Chairman. 


BY  MR.  PENDARYIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 


power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  that  no  employe  of  the 
city  shall  become  or  continue  to  remain 
a member  of  any  society  or  organiza- 
tion, obedience  or  allegiance  to  whose 
rules,  principles  or  practices  shall  re- 
quire or  impose  any  express  or  implied 
obligation  upon  such  employe  to  refrain 
from  the  full  discharge  of  his  duties  or 
to  do  any  act  against  the  government 
of  the  city,  or  in  violation  of  any  ordi- 
nance or  law,  or  of  any  rule  or  regula- 
tion of  any  department  of  the  city,  or 
of  any  order  of  any  official  of  the  city 
or  of  any  of  its  departments.  For  any 
violation  of  this  provision  an  employe 
shall  be  at  once  discharged  from  the 
city  service  by  the  head  of  the  de- 
partment in  which  he  is  employed. 


BY  MR.  WILKINS: 

Upon  the  adoption  of  this  charter,  the 
Board  of  Education  shall  prepare  or 
cause  to  be  prepared,  a code  of  morals, 
non-sectarian  in  character  and  tenor, 
and  put  the  same  into  book  form,  to 
be  used  as  one  of  the  text  books  of  the 
public  schools  and  taught  in  all  the 
branches  of  the  same. 


BY  MR.  WILKINS: 

During  the  life  of  this  charter  and 
while  it  operates  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  Municipality  of  Chicago,  the 
children  in  the  public  schools  shall  not 
be  segregated  or  separated  in  the  rooms 
and  classes  on  account  of  their  nation- 
ality, race  or  color. 


December  21 


651 


1906 


BY  ME.  EIDMANN : 

Resolved,  That  no  appointment  by  the 
mayor  shall  be  made  unless  concurred 
in  by  the  City  Council  at  a subsequent 
meeting. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  IT,  on  page  593,  pro- 


viding that  ‘ ‘ members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation ’ ’ was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

SECTION  XVII. — Education  (Saturday,  December  22,  at  2 o’clock  p.  m.). 
PARAGRAPH  3. — Suffrage,  at  page  52.  (To  be  taken  up  immediately  after 
the  disposition  of  the  subject  of  Education.) 


CORRECTIONS. 


BY  MR.  SHANAHAN: 

Page  531,  first  column,  eleventh  line, 
substitute  “1904”  for  “1894”. 

Also,  strike  out  “that”  in  twentieth 
line. 

Also,  substitute  “they”  for  “we” 
in  seventh  line  of  second  remarks  on 
this  page. 


Also,  strike  out  “I  think  you  can 
make  them  with  these  municipalities” 
in  the  first,  second  and  third  lines  from 
bottom. 

Also,  at  page  584  second  column, 
strike  out  “that  that  question”  in  third 
line  of  remarks. 


December  21 


652 


1906 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  • of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  thet 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may/ 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursi diction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  21 


653 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

SATURDAY,  [DECEMBER  22,  1906 


(fttlinigo  (Ihartrr  (Eonurntian 

Convened,  December  12,  1900 
Headquarter* 

171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4677 


Milton  i.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  h.  Revell,  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  asst.  Secy 


December  22 


657 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Saturday,  December  22,  1906 

2:00  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order  and  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Ca- 
rey, Church,  Cole,  Crilly,  Ritter,  Dixon, 
G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Guer- 
in, Hill,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lath- 
rop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Oehne, 
Owens,  Patterson,  Pendarvis,  Post, 
Raymer,  Revell,  Rosenthal,  Sethness, 
Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sun- 
ny, Swift,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 49. 

Absent — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beilfuss, 
Burke,  Clettenberg,  Dever,  Dixon,  T.  J., 
Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Graham,  Haas, 
Harrison,  Hunter,  Lundberg,  McCor- 
mick, Paullin,  Powers,  Rainey,  Rinaker, 
Robins,  Smulski,  Thompson,  Walker, 
Wilson,  Young — 25. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Corrections  to 

the  minutes  will  be  handed  to  the  Sec- 
retary and  they  will  stand  approved  as 
the  minutes  of  the  last  meeting.  The 
Secretary  will  now  read  Section  6,  page 
644. 

The  Secretary  then  read  Section  6 on 
page  644. 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  adoption  of  this  section  will 
signify  by  saying  aye;  those  opposed, 
no.  It  is  carried. 

The  Secretary  will  now  read  No.  7. 

The  Secretary  then  read  No.  7,  con- 
tained on  page  645,  as  follows: 

MR.  JONES:  I move  that  we  adopt 

the  first  sentence  of  No.  7,  reading 
‘ ‘ The  Board  of  Education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  ” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 
the  motion,  that  the  first  sentence  of 
Section  7 shall  be  adopted.  As  many  as 
favor  that  signify  by  saying  aye;  those 
opposed,  no.  It  is  carried,  and  that 
sentence  is  adopted. 


December  22 


658 


1906 


The  second  part  reads:  “The  board 

shall  appoint  as  executive  officers  a su- 
perintendent of  schools  and  a business 
manager,  and  may  also  appoint  or  pro- 
vide for  the  appointment  of  such  other 
officers  and  employes  as  it  may  deem 
necessary,  and  shall,  subject  to  the  pro- 
visions of  this  charter,  prescribe  their 
duties,  compensations  and  terms  of 
office,  but  the  term  of  office  of  the  su- 
perintendent of  schools  and  of  the  busi- 
ness manager  shall  not  be  less  than 
four  years.  ” 

What  do  you  want  to  do  with  that 
section? 

MR.  SWIFT:  I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  As  many  as  favor  it  will 
signify  by  saying  aye.  ' " 

MR.  RITTER:  I have  an  amendment 
to  offer.  The  amendment  is  more  or" 
less  technical,  and  provides  the  substi- 
tution' of  the  word  ‘ 1 education  ’ ’ for 

■ ““Schools, VI.  making  a similar  substitu- 
tion wherever  the  words  “superintend- 
ent of  sclfools”  occur  throughout  the 
report,  so  that  the  title  shall  read  “su- 
perintendent of  education.”  This  is  in 
accordance  with  modern  practice  wher- 
ever schools  are  divided  into  two  heads, 
a business  head  and  an  educational 

. head,  and  used  in  the  St.  Louis  law 
and  others,  and  I move  the  adoption  of 
the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

state  the  question.  Mr.  Ritter  moves 
that  the  term  “superintendent  of 
schools:”  shall  read  “superintendent  of 
education”  wherever  it  appears. 

MR.  JONES:  I do  not  wish  to  speak 
on  that.  I will  speak  after  that  motion 

■ is  put. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that, 

sir? 

MR.  .TONES:  I will  speak  after  that 
motion  is  put. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  amendment  say  aye.  Op- 
posed, no.  The  amendment  is  carried. 


The  matter  is  before  the  house  in  the 
amended  form. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

provides  that  there  shall  be  a superin- 
tendent of  education  and  a business 
manager,  and  I presume  that  these  two 
officers  will  be  the  heads  of  their  re- 
spective departments.  The  original 
committee  report,  as  I recollect,  pro- 
vided also  that  the  board  might  ap- 
point an  attorney,  and  a secretary,  and 
an  auditor,  and  I understand  that  the 
way  this  provision  is  drawn,  these  three 
officer^  are  included  under  the  expres- 
sion “other  officers,”  and  they  will  not 
be  excluded.  I would  like  to  ask  the 
chairman  of  the  committee  if  that  is 
the  purpose  of  it. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes,  sir;  that  is  the 

fact.  Our  purpose  was  to  make  all 
the  business  administration — to  put  all 
the  business  administration  under  one 
responsible  officer. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I wish — 

as  a basis  of  what  I have  to  say,  I 
move  to  strike  out  all  after  the  words, 
“compensations  and  terms  of  office,” 
about  two-thirds  of  the  way  down  the 
first  paragraph.  I understand  that  this 
particular  motion  includes  only  those 
two  first  paragraphs.  Am  I correct 
about  that,  or  does  it  include  the  three? 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  It  includes 

the  whole. 

MR.  POST:  Includes  the  whole? 

MR.  J.  W. -ECKHART:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  Then  I also  move  to 

strike  out  the  last  paragraph. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  After  the  words 

MR.  POST:  The  whole  of  the  last 

paragraph,  I think. 

MR.  COLE:  For  what  reason? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  it  is  not  be- 

fore the  house. 

MR.  POST:  That  is  what  I asked. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  are  consider- 
ing the  first  paragraph  of  Section  7 
at  this  time.  It  is  divided. 


December  22 


6S9 


1906 


ME.  POST:  Then  the  second  and 

the  third  are  not  under  consideration? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  No. 

ME.  POST:  The  second  and  third 

are  not? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  No,  sir. 

ME.  POST:  Very  good.  Then  I 

move  to  strike  out  the  whole  of  the  sec- 
ond paragraph — the  second  section 

THE  CHAIEMAN : What  is  your 

motion? 

ME.  POST:  I desire  to  strike  out 

all  of  the  words  in  the  first  paragraph 
which  we  are  considering  solely,  as  I 
understand  it;  all  of  the  words  which 
follow  the  words  1 ‘compensations  and 
terms  of  office.  ’ ’ In  other  words,  I 
would  strike  out,  “but  the  term  of 
office  of  the  superintendent  of  educa- 
tion and  of  the  business  manager  shall 
not  be  less  than  four  years.  And  the 
salary  of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered 
during  his  term  of  office.  ” My  ob- 
jection applies  as  well  to  the  last  para- 
graph, and  I might  as  well  consider 
them  both  as  one. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  We  will  consider 
them  both  as  before  the  house. 

ME.  POST:  They  are  both  before 

the  house,  but  not  for  vote. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes. 

ME.  POST:  Now,  I am  not  going 

to  oppose  in  this  body  the  adoption 
of  this  clause.  I simply  want  to  state 
my  position  in  regard  to  that  and  to 
explain  why  I wish  to  vote  against 
them.  We  have  heard  a great  deal  here 
about  the  importance  of  having  a re- 
sponsible board  of  education.  Now,  if 
you  are  going  to  have  a — if  you  are 
going  to  make  your  board  of  education 
responsible  you  cannot  do  that  if  you 
enable  a majority  to  place  two  officers 
in  charge  of  the  school  system  beyond 
the  power  of  any  but  two-thirds  of  the 
board  to  remove  them  for  four  years, 
in  the  absence  of  positive  cause, — in 
the  absence  of  cause  sufficient  to  con- 
vict them  of  dereliction  of  duties. 

If  it  is  the  desire  of  this  conference 


— this  Charter  Convention,  I mean — 
and  the  legislature  and  the  people  of 
this  city  to  turn  over  the  school  sys- 
tem on  its  educational  side  to  a super- 
intendent of  education,  and  on  its  busi- 
ness side  to  a business  manager,  then 
let  us  do  it  openly  and  above  board, 
and  let  us  reconsider  the  clause  in  the 
report  which  we  refused  to  adopt,  that 
clause  in  the  report  which  did  undertake 
to  place  the  school  system  under  the 
head  of  these  two  managements.  Let 
us  not  do  it  in  this  indirect  manner. 
Let  us  go  to  the  people  of  Chicago  with 
the  plain  statement  that  it  is  our  pur- 
pose and  the  purpose  of  the  Legislature 
of  the  State  of  Illinois  to  turn  over  the 
school  system  to  two  men  for  four 
years,  practically  without  responsibility 
to  anybody. 

If  that  is  what  you  want  to  do,  then 
let  us  do  it  directly  and  openly  and 
above  board.  Let  us  not  do  it  in  this 
indirect  way,  namely,  by  providing  for 
a board  of  education  and  requiring  that 
board  by  a majority  to  elect  two  men 
to  whom  the  affairs  of  the  school  sys- 
tem shall  be  turned  over,  requiring 
them  to  elect  these  two  men  for  four 
years  and  preventing  anything  short  of 
a two-thirds  vote  from  disciplining 
those  two  men  in  any  way,  from  re- 
moving them  or  reducing  their  salaries 
during  the  whole  period  of  time  for 
which  they  are  employed. 

A good  deal  has  been  said  about  a 
business  administration  of  the  board  be- 
ing desired.  I think  that  much  might 
be  said  on  the  other  side  with  refer- 
ence to  that,  but  I will  not  undertake 
to  discuss  that  now.  I doubt,  Mr. 
President,  if  it  would  be  regarded  as  a 
business  method  of  administering  the 
affairs  of  any  corporation  to  provide 
that  the  board  of  directors  select  the 
manager  or  two  managers  of  the  whole 
business  corporation,  should  elect  them 
by  a majority  vote  of  the  directors  for 
four  years  and  place  them  in  office  in 
such  manner  as  respects  tenure  that 


December  22 


660 


1906 


they  cannot  be  disturbed  without  a two- 
thirds  vote,  and  then  only  upon  charges 
of  dereliction  of  duty  of  which  they 
«hall  be  convicted.  I submit  that  that 
is  not  even  a business  method — at  least 
I doubt  it;  I do  not  stand  here  as  a 
business  man,  and  perhaps  some  of  the 
business  men  here  may  be  able  to 
show  us  it  is  a business  method. 

However,  my  point  and  the  essence  of 
my  point  is  not  that  we  ought  not  to 
turn  the  affairs  of  the  school  system 
over  to  these  two  men,  but  whether  we 
should  do  it  openly  and  directly,  or  do 
it  indirectly.  I am  in  favor,  if  we  do 
it  at  all,  of  doing  it  directly.  I am  not 
in  favor  of  establishing  a board  which 
shall  elect  two  officers  and  then  virtual- 
ly deprive  that  board  of  all  responsi- 
bility for  the  actions  of  those  officers 
for  anything  short  .of  dereliction  of  duty 
proved  against  them. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I move  at  this  stage 
to  strike  out  those  words  in  the  first 
paragraph,  and  I shall  ask  leave  to 
strike  out  the  final  paragraph  when  it 
is  in  order. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  there 

is  some  force  in  the  criticisms  made  by 
Mr.  Post.  It  might  be  very  embarrass- 
ing to  a board  of  education  under  cer- 
tain circumstances,  for  instance,  in  a 
case  of  financial  stringency,  not  to  be 
able  to  reduce  the  salaries  within  rea- 
sonable limitations  of  high  paid  officials. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  must  remember 
that  to  leave  this  wholly  at  the  mercy 
of  the  board  of  education  is  always  to 
make  it  possible,  always  to  leave  the 
possibility  in  existence  of  a board  of 
■education  evading  the  evident  wise  in- 
tention of  this  paragraph  by  simply 
starving  a man  out  of  office,  by  reducing 
his  salary  to  a point  where  he  can  no 
longer  possibly  accept  it.  Now,  such  a 
situation  is  quite  possible. 

I should  prefer,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
instead  of  striking  that  clause  out  al- 
together we  should  have  some  modifying 
clause  inserted  there  which  should  make 


it  possible  to  reduce  the  salary  of  a 
superintendent,  for  instance,  or  a busi- 
ness manager  in  something  of  a pro  rata 
cut,  or  what  we  call  a horizontal  cut; 
that  is,  if  the  situation  arises  finan- 
cially when  the  board  of  education 
must  cut  salaries,  as  it  might  happen  in 
order  to  save  itself  from  bankruptcy 
and  to  keep  inside  of  the  law  of  this 
state  which  prohibits  us  from  spending 
more  money  than  comes  in  from  the 
three  different  sources, — and  the  city 
is  not  liable  for  a dollar  in  any  way, 
shape  or  manner  that  we  contract  be- 
yond that, — times  arise  when  a horizon- 
tal cut  is  almost  an  absolute  necessity, 
and  we  must  be  prepared  for  them; 
they  have  happened  in  the  past  and 
they  are  very  liable  to  happen  within 
a year  under  our  present  arrangement. 
Now,  that  a superintendent  or  business 
manager  should  simply  stand  the  pro 
rata  cut  with  all  other  employes,  in- 
cluding the  teachers,  if  necessary  to 
extend  it  to  teachers,  is  a perfectly  fair 
proposition. 

I have  not  framed  this  amendment, 
but  my  suggestion  would  be  that  we 
modify  that  by  inserting  some  such 
clause  that  the  business  manager  or  su- 
perintendent should  be  included  in  this 
reduction  of  compensation,  but  that  it 
should  be  in  the  form  of  a horizontal 
cut.  I should  be  glad  to  put  that  in 
form,  or  have  some  of  my  lawyer  friends 
do  it.  I think  it  would  certainly  meet 
Mr.  Post’s  suggestion. 

MR.  POST:  No,  it  would  not. 

DR.  WHITE:  Well,  I would  still  be 

in  favor  of  it. 

One  word  more:  I agree  with  Mr. 

Post  as  to  the  two-thirds  vote  in  the 
matter  of  removal.  I believe  as  long 
as  you  entrust  all  other  affairs,  prac- 
tically, of  the  board  of  education  to  a 
majority,  vote,  you  can  well  afford  to  en- 
trust the  tenure  of  office  of  superintend- 
ent of  instruction  and  of  business  man- 
ager to  a similar  majority. 

I am  opposed  to  that  two-thirds  quali- 


December  22 


661 


1906 


fixation;  I am  in  favor  of  a majority 
vote,  and  I shall  offer  before  this  mat- 
ter is  over  an  amendment  covering  the 
point  of  pro  rata  cutting  of  these  two 
officers,  as  I have  suggested. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I think,  as  a 

matter  of  procedure,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  we  might  get  at  this  a little  more 
directly  and  rapidly  by  dividing  the 
first  paragraph.  The  latter  part  of  the 
first  paragraph  contains  two  propo- 
sitions, one  as  to  the  term  of  office  of 
the  superintendent  and  business  man- 
ager, and  one  respecting  the  changing 
of  salaries,  and  I would  suggest  as  an 
amendment  to  Mr.  Post’s  amendment 
that  we  adopt  the  second  sentence  up 
to  and  including  the  words  “and  terms 
of  office.”  That  is  to  say,  “compensa- 
tions and  terms  of  office,”  that  we 
adopt  up  to  that  point,  because  at  that 
point  begins  the  discussion  and  enter 
the  difficulties  which  we  are  now  dis- 
cussing. 

MR.  POST:  I think  that  that  should 

not  be  an  amendment;  I think  it  should 
be  a course  of  procedure. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I understand, 

Mr.  Post,  there  is  no  objection  to  the 
adoption  of  the  first  clause  up  to  the 
words  “terms  of  office.”  As  many  as 
favor  the  adoption  of  that  signify  by 
saying  aye. 

MR.  RITTER:  I was  writing  out  an 

amendment  to  that  part  of  the  section, 
the  first  part,  and  with  one  word  more 
here  I can  hand  it  to  the  clerk. 

MR.  WHITE:  In  the  meantime,  may 
we  have  Mr.  MacMillan’s  amendment 
read  again,  or  stated  again? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Why,  the  ques- 

tion apparently  by  unanimous  consent, 
before  the  house,  is  upon  the  adoption 
of  this  section,  reading,  “The  board 
shall  appoint  as  executive  officers  a su- 
perintendent of  schools  and  a business 
manager,  and  may  also  appoint  or  pro-  i 
vide  for  the  appointment  of  such  other 
officers  and  employes  as  it  may  deem  j 
necessary,  and  shall,  subject  to  the  pro-  j 


visions  of  this  charter,  prescribe  their 
duties,  compensations  and  terms  of  of- 
fice. ’ ’ 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  That  eliminates 

entirely  the  two  questions  as  to  the 
terms  of  office  of  the  superintendent 
and  business  manager,  and  the  salaries. 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

MR.  RITTER:  I desire  to  offer  this 

as  a substitute  for  the  pending  motion 
and  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Rit- 
ter: Strike  out  the  words  following 

‘ appoint  ’ in  the  fourth  line  of  Section 
7 to  ‘such’  in  line  8,  and  the  word 
‘other’  following  the  word  ‘such,’  so 
that  the  sentence  shall  read:  ‘The 

board  shall  appoint  such  officers  and  em- 
ployes as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter,  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office.’  ” 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman 

MR.  RITTER:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  to 
speak  on  your  amendment,  Mr.  Rit- 
ter? 

MR.  RITTER:  Very  briefly.  It  seems 
to  me  that  with  all  the  care  that  is  to 
be  exercised  in  the  appointment  of  the 
board  of  education,  they  should  be  free 
to  act  under  a charter  and  not  under  a 
code.  I believe  that  it  is  really  not  the 
province  of  this  body  at  this  time  to 
say  what  officers  or  employes  the  board 
of  education  should  have.  If  you  will 
go  back  to  the  last  meeting  of  the  edu- 
cation committee,  which  presumably 
spent  some  time  in  investigating  this 
matter,  and  also  back  to  the  report 
sent  in  by  the  committee  from  the  Mer- 
chants’ Club,  you  will  readily  see  that 
the  report  or  substitute  report  now  be- 
fore you  does  not  agree  with  either  of 
those.  At  the  time  the  committee  met 
they  were  quite  sure  that  the  board 
should  have  five  or  six  officers,  ancKtho 
Merchants’  Club  likewise,  as  I remom- 


December  22 


662 


1906 


ber  it,  agreed  that  there  should  be  five 
or  six  head  officials  or  department  heads. 

I will  admit  that  I was  somewhat  re- 
sponsible for  the  change  in  the  two  de- 
partments. That  is,  combining  all  the 
officers  under  a business  manager,  being 
present  at  that  meeting.  But  since  that 
time  I have  consulted  with  some  peo- 
ple. We  are  making  a business  investi- 
gation of  the  board,  and  in  the  pre- 
liminary negotiations  I find  that  even 
many  people  who  are  well  versed  in 
business  system,  experts  along  those 
lines,  are  hardly  agreed  as  to  an  institu- 
tion like  the  board  of  education  having 
all  its  business  affairs  under  one  man. 
My  experience  in  reference  to  that  con- 
vinces me  that  as  we  are  in  the  way  of 
handling  affairs  of  a board  varying  ac- 
cording to  different  business  conditions; 
that  it  is  not  wise  to  be  hamstrung,  as  it 
were,  by  a statute  which  prohibits 
changes  which  go  to  its  better  ef- 
ficiency. I believe  if  the  charter  pro- 
vided for  a good  board  of  education  that 
you  should  leave  it  to  that  board  to 
provide  all  the  officers,  and  all  the  of- 
ficials who  should  handle  its  business. 
For  that  reason  I will  vote  for  the 
amendment. 

MB.  JONES:  As  I understand  Mr. 

Bitter’s  amendment,  it  provides  that 
there  shall  be  no  charter  officers  in  the 
educational  system  except  members  of 
the  Board  of  Education.  It  leaves  them 
free  at  any  time  to  provide  such  officers 
and  to  assign  to  them  such  duties  as 
they  may  wish.  I am  opposed  to  that. 
I believe  there  should  be  two  charter 
officers.  I believe  that  the  secretary, 
the  auditor  and  the  attorney  should  not 
be  charter  officers,  but  I do  believe  that 
there  should  be  two  distinctly  executive 
officers  in  connection  with  the  school 
system;  that  one  of  those  men  should  be 
at  the  head  of  the  educational  system, 
and  that  the  other  should  be  at  the  head 
of  the  business  administration  of  the 
school  system. 

Now,  the  clause  as  originally  present- 


ed by  Dr.  Taylor  makes  the  superin- 
tendent of  education  a charter  officer; 
it  makes  the  business  manager  a char- 
ter officer;  and  those  officers  become  offi- 
cers of  some  considerable  dignity  be- 
cause they  are  established  by  some  or- 
ganic law — the  same  organic  law  that 
establishes  the  Board  of  Education. 
Now,  I believe  that  just  as  we  have  in 
our  city  a method  by  which  the  City 
Council  as  a legislative  body  and  an  ad- 
ministrative, so  in  our  educational  sys- 
tem we  should  have  a legislative  body 
on  the  Board  of  Education.  In  the  city 
we  have  a mayor  with  his  various  heads 
of  departments.  So,  we  should  recog- 
nize the  administrative  feature  of  the 
school  system.  Of  course,  our  Board 
of  Education  has  more  of  executive 
function  than  the  City  Council,  per- 
haps; but  I believe  we  should  recognize 
this  executive  head  in  the  charter. 

I understand  this  provision  is  modeled 
after  the  St.  Louis  charter,  which  pro- 
vides for  a superintendent  of  educa- 
tion and  a superintendent  of  schools 
who  is  practically  the  business  man- 
ager. I believe  those  are  the  only  char- 
ter officers  established,  and  I believe  it 
will  be  found  as  we  proceed  we  will 
prescribe  the  duties  in  a general  way 
of  the  superintendent  of  education  and 
the  duties  of  the  business  manager,, 
which,  I submit,  are  very  important.  I 
believe  that  these  two  departments 
should  be  absolutely  distinct. 

Moreover,  it  will  be  found  in  a later 
provision  that  we  will  divide  the  funds 
of  the  school  system  into  a business 
fund  and  an  educational  fund.  I believe 
that  heads  of  departments  should  be 
recognized  as  distinct  heads,  just  as  we 
recognize  the  distinction  in  the  division 
of  the  funds;  and  I believe  the  best  re- 
sults will  be  secured  by  making  those 
two  officers  charter  officers,  and  not 
merely  appointees  of  the  board,  as  Mr. 
Bitter’s  amendment  would  make  them. 

MB.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  the  St. 

Louis  charter  which  Senator  Jones  re- 


December  22 


663 


1906 


ferred  to  provides  for  four  charter 
heads  or  officials — a superintendent  of 
construction,  a commissioner  of  build- 
ings, a secretary  and  treasurer,  and  an 
auditor.  Now,  I am  opposed  to  Mr.  Rit- 
ter’s amendment,  because  I agree  with 
Senator  Jones  that  the  dignity  and  im- 
portance of  the  position  demand  that 
he  be  a charter  officer. 

It  has  been  a curious  anomaly  in  the 
educational  affairs  of  Chicago  that  while 
the  city  laws  provide,  I think,  without 
a single  exception,  for  a superintendent 
of  accounting  as  a statutory  officer,  that 
there  has  never  been  any  recognition  in 
a statute  of  so  important  a function 
as  that  of  superintendent  of  schools.  I 
believe  that  the  majority  of  educational 
people  will  agree  that  an  office  of  that 
importance  in  a city  of  the  size  of  Chi- 
cago should  be  made  statutory,  or,  in 
this  case,  a charter  office. 

I do  not  happen  to  recall  now  any  sin- 
gle instance  of  a school  system — certain- 
ly none  that  has  been  modeled  on  later 
forms  in  the  country — where  the  super- 
intendent of  schools  is  not  recognized 
by  statute  or  by  charter.  Whatever 
else  you  should  do,  it  seems  to  me,  after 
some  years  of  experience  and  some  care- 
ful study  of  the  whole  situation,  we 
ought  not  to  crowd  out  the  superintend- 
ent from  the  position  of  being  a char- 
ter officer.  I think  that  a position  of 
that  dignity  and  character  should  be 
recognized  in  the  charter  of  the  city, 
and  I am  opposed,  chiefly  on  that  ac- 
count, to  Mr.  Ritter’s  amendment. 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  that  this  entire  section  must  be 
properly  considered  together,  notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  we  are  only  con- 
sidering practically  one  sentence,  or  a 
portion  of  a paragraph.  I think  that 
the  last  paragraph  of  the  section  must 
be  considered  in  addition,  though  we 
may  take  up  this  matter  paragraph  by 
paragraph.  I believe  that  the  report 
of  the  committee,  worked  out  after 
many  meetings,  worked  out  after  thor- 


ough consideration  and  investigation 
with  educators,  should  be  adopted,  with- 
out change,  unless  it  should  be  that 
change  suggested  by  Dr.  White,  which, 
in  effect,  would  mean  that  if  there  is 
any  general  reduction  in  salary  in  the 
school  system  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
that  those  who  are  fortunate  enough  to 
occupy  higher  offices,  and  who  are  get- 
ting a larger  salary,  should  share  in 
that  general  reduction.  It  seems  to  me 
to  be  a wise  provision  to  include  that 
here,  because  that  is  one  of  the  things 
that  make  a great  deal  of  trouble 
throughout  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
schools  when  a reduction  is  likely  to 
come. 

MR.  RAYMER:  May  I ask  Mr.  Re- 

vell  a question?  Will  that  same  argu- 
ment apply  to  the  mayor  and  the  cor- 
poration counsel  as  well? 

MR.  RE  YELL:  Not  necessarily;  this 
entire  school  system  ought  to  be  taken 
altogether.  I believe  that  the  main 
business  that  we  have  to  establish  is 
stability  and  tenure  of  office. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I meant  in  regard  to 
reduction  of  salary,  Mr.  Revell. 

MR.  REVELL:  No,  I am  not  ready 

to  admit  that  it  should  apply  in  the  case 
of  the  mayor.  But  I say  again,  and 
repeat,  that  the  entire  educational  sys- 
tem should  be  taken  as  one  system,  from 
the  superintendent  down  to  the  lowest 
priced  teacher  in  your  schools;  and 
whenever  you  do  anything  to  affect  the 
income  of  the  individuals  employed  by 
the  Board  of  Education,  it  should  affect 
all. 

I remember  this  matter  came  up  when 
I was  a member  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, and  it  was  one  of  the  matters  that 
caused  more  trouble  than  anything  else. 
We  endeavored  to  do  something  regard- 
ing the  salaries  of  some  of  the  teach- 
ers, and  nothing  could  or  would  be  done 
with  those  salaries  which  were  the  large 
salaries  of  the  system. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  What  year  was 

that? 


December  22 


664 


1906 


MR.  RE  YELL:  How? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  What  year  was 

that? 

MR.  REVELL:  That  was  somewhere 

between  1892  and  1896.  It  came  in  at 
the  time  of  the  depression.  The  Board 
of  Education  ran  very  low  in  its 
finances. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  a vast 
difference,  it  seems  to  me,  between  the 
Board  of  Education  and  a private  busi- 
ness or  corporation,  as  suggested  by  my 
friend,  Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST:  I beg  pardon.  Allow  me 
to  interrupt.  I did  not  suggest  they  are 
alike.  On  the  contrary,  there  are  gen- 
tlemen who  did  suggest  that  they  are 
alike. 

MR.  REYELL:  I understood  the  gen- 
tleman mentioned  the  fact,  or  thought  it 
was  not  going  to  be  good  business,  that 
the  Board  of  Education  should  be  put 
upon  the  same  basis  in  regard  to  the 
superintendent  as  a business  house.  Now, 
when  a business  house  changes  its  su- 
perintendent, the  policy  of  the  business 
house  continues  exactly  the  same.  The 
superintendent  may  bring  in  some  new 
ideas  which  the  old  superintendent  was 
not  familiar  with  because  he  had  not 
sufficiently  advanced  ideas  of  the  busi- 
ness. But  the  general  policy  of  the 
business  establishment  is  continued. 
Now,  whenever  the  Board  of  Education 
shall  come  to  the  time  where  it  will 
wish  to  dispense  with  the  services  of 
the  superintendent  of  education  it  would 
be  because  of  something  radically  wrong 
with  that  superintendent  of  education. 
And  the  reason  for  the  committee’s  de- 
sire to  have  stability  as  far  as  tenure 
of  office  is  concerned,  was  that  the 
Board  of  Education  would  assume  a 
great  responsibility  therein  in  the  se- 
lection of  the  superintendent  of  educa- 
tion. Before  that  superintendent  was 
elected  they  would  go  into  a man’s  rec- 
ord, his  education  and  everything  con- 
nected with  him  very  thoroughly  before 
he  would  receive  the  appointment.  I 


am  satisfied,  my  friends,  that  the  peo- 
ple of  the  City  of  Chicago  want  to 
feel  that  the  educational  system  of  our 
city  is  established  over  a period  of 
years,  that  it  will  not  be  subject  to  rad- 
ical changes  on  the  part  of  every  board 
that  comes  in. 

I also  desire,  while  I am  on  my  feet, 
to  oppose  the  idea  that  Dr.  White  pre- 
sented to  permit  the  removal  of  either 
of  these  charter  officers  by  a majority 
vote  of  the  Board  of  Education.  I be- 
lieve that  should  be  left  exactly  as  it 
is  in  the  section.  The  entire  section 
provides  that  it  should  be  something 
very  important  that  would  justify  the 
removal  of  either  of  these  important 
officials,  and  you  can  readily  see  that 
under  a majority  vote  of  the  board  only 
eight  men  would  be  required  to  remove 
either  one  of  those  officials.  I doubt  if 
that  would  be  a wise  thing  to  do.  But, 
gentlemen,  with  that  exception — if  Dr. 
White  would  present  an  amendment  in 
some  way  in  writing,  I would  be  very 
glad  to  vote  in  favor  of  that,  but  other- 
wise I would  like  to  have  this  entire 
section,  as  it  stands. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Revell  a question. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  Certainly. 

MR.  RAYMER : Supposing,  Mr. 

Revell,  that  the  Board  of  Education  in 
its  wisdom  should  decide  upon  a certain 
gentleman  for  the  position  of  superin- 
tendent or  business  manager;  in  order 
to  get  his  services  it  will  be  necessary 
to  pay  him  a stipulated  salary.  Do  you 
think  it  would  be  fair  to  this  man  if  he 
accepted  the  position — assume  that  the 
salary  would  be  five  or  ten  thousand 
dollars  a year  as  the  case  might  be — 
that  he  should  take  into  consideration 
that  he  might  during  the  term  of  his 
engagement  have  his  salary  reduced.  Do 
you  think  that  would  be  good  business 
judgment? 

MR.  REVELL:  Is  that  the  ques- 

tion? 

MR.  RAYMER:  Yes,  sir. 


December  22 


665 


1906 


MR.  REVELL:  I certainly  do  think 

it  would  be  good  business  judgment;  be- 
fore any  new  superintendent  would  be 
employed  he  should  be  confronted  with 
this  section,  if  we  pass  it  in  that  way, 
and  his  attention  should  be  called  to  the 
fact  that  his  salary  would  be  lowered 
only  if  there  would  be  a general  reduc- 
tion, caused  by  an  unusual  emergency; 
then  he  and  the  other  large  salaried  offi- 
cials would  merely  share  with  all  other 
officials  and  teachers  in  the  public 
school  system.  He  would  not  accept  the 
office  unless  he  were  satisfied  in  this 
case. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Do  you  think,  Mr. 

Revell,  if  that  proposition  were  sub- 
mitted to  a particular  individual  whom 
the  board  might  desire  to  engage  that  it 
would  have  a tendency  to  create  a de- 
sire on  that  gentleman's  part  to  accept 
the  position,  under  those  circumstances? 

MR.  REVELL:  I do  not  believe  it 

would  make  the  slightest  difference  with 
the  gentleman.  If  it  did,  he  would 
compute  the  difference,  and  if  he  were 
asking  $5,000  a year  it  is  barely  pos- 
sible he  might  say,  ‘‘Well,  I have  to 
take  some  chance  there  of  a possible  re- 
duction of  5 per  cent,  or  10  per  cent, 
in  case  that  were  adopted  by  the  Board 
of  Education;  I believe,  therefore,  my 
salary  should  be  made  $5,500  a year," 
or  he  might  say  $6,000  a year,  it  is 
possible.  These  things  occur  in  busi- 
ness enterprises  and  are  met  when- 
ever the  situation  arises  as  presented 
by  Alderman  Raymer. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me,  if  we  should  adopt  a prop- 
osition of  that  sort  it  would  be  in  a 
measure  tying  the  hands  of  the  board. 
Tf  we  should  engage  a man — if  I should 
engage  a man  to  serve  me  at  a stipu- 
lated salary  for  a period  of  years,  I 
should  expect  to  pay  all  that  I had 
agreed  to  pay.  I do  not  know  of  any 
arrangement  that  T could  enter  into 
with  a man  on  a commercial  basis  that 
wonld  work  automatically  up  or  down.  I 


question  very  much  if  I could  conduct 
my  business  successfully  by  that  sort  of 
an  arrangement.  I think  if  we  should 
adopt  this  proposition  we  would  be  in 
a measure  tying  the  hands  of  the  board, 
and  personally  I am  very  much  opposed 
to  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Ritter 's  amendment  to  the  sec- 
ond part  of  Section  10,  “The  board 
shall  appoint  such  officers  and  employes 
as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and  shall, 
subject  to  the  provisions  of  this  char- 
ter prescribe  their  duties,  compensations 
and  terms  of  office,"  instead  of  specify- 
ing a superintendent  of  education  and  a 
business  manager  as  statutory  officers. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish 

to  say  on  Mr.  Ritter's  amendment  or 
suggestion  to  the  gentlemen  who  state 
that  these  officers  ought  to  be  charter 
officers,  that  it  seems  to  me  that  their 
argument  is  somewhat  more  plausible 
than  sound.  The  question  really  is 
whether  these  officers  ought  to  be  em- 
ployes of  the  board  or  charter  officers. 
That  is  the  question  that  is  raised,  it 
seems  to.  me.  Now,  if  they  are  to  be 
employes  of  the  board  the  board  ought 
to  be  able  to  control  them  in  my  judg- 
ment; ought  to  be  able  to  appoint  and 
remove  at  will,  to  raise  or  lower  salaries 
at  will,  and  the  board  in  that  case 
should  have  the  responsibility  for  its 
employes.  If  they  are  to  be  charter 
officers,  if  there  is  any  analogy  between 
the  council  and  the  mayor,  for  example, 
such  an  analogy  as  has  been  drawn 
here,  then  the  duty  of  employing  these 
men  ought  not  to  be  left  to  the  board, 
no”  the  duty  of  removing  them. 

Tf  they  are  charter  officers  they  are 
separate  from  the  board  and  the  pro- 
visions for  appointment  and  removal 
ought  to  be  made  separately  from  the 
board.  Tn  other  words,  to  sum  it  all 
up,  they  should  bo  treated  in  this  char- 
ter either  as  employes  of  the  boards, 
or  as  charter  officers,  and  upon  that 
principle  should  depend  whether  we 


December  22 


666 


1906 


adopt  this  provision  or  not.  If  we  wish 
to  make  them  charter  officers*  we  should 
change  the  place  and  power  of  appoint- 
ment and  removal. 

On  the  question  of  stability  of  ten- 
ure, doubtless  there  is  a good  deal  of 
force  in  the  argument  that  positions 
of  this  character  should  be  stable.  The 
question  is  whether  the  stability  should 
be  maintained  arbitrarily;  or  whether 
it  should  be  maintained  in  accordance 
with  a policy  in  which  we  must  depend 
upon  the  good  sense  and  good  faith  of 
the  school  trustees  to  carry  it  out.  You 
are  making  it  an  arbitrary  proposition, 
trying  to  make  tenure  stable  regardless 
of  other  things.  Now,  stability  of  ten- 
ure is  a good  thing,  but  there  are  other 
things  good  and  bad,  and  stability  of 
tenure,  if  you  make  it  by  an  arbitrary 
provision,  in  all  probability  you  will 
make  trouble  with  your  school  system — 
greater  trouble  than  if  you  leave  it  to 
the  judgment  and  discretion  of  the  board 
as  to  the  term  of  office  of  these  men. 
Stability  of  tenure  in  principals  ought 
to  be  maintained.  It  is  a bad  thing  for 
the  school  system  to  have  unstability 
of  tenure  as  to  principals  or  as  to  super- 
intendents of  districts,  or  as  to  teach- 
ers. 

Are  you  going  to  put  provisions  in 
this  charter  to  secure  stability  of  ten- 
ure arbitrarily — arbitrary  provisions — 
provisions  in  the  charter  to  the  effect 
that  teachers  must  be  retained  in  the 
service  whether  or  no,  until  absolute 
charges  of  dereliction  can  be  suggested 
and  proven?  There  isn’t  a single  word 
as  to  stability  of  tenure  which  is  sound 
that  applies  to  the  business  manager  or 
to  the  superintendent  that  does  not  ap- 
ply in  an  equal  degree  to  the  principals 
and  the  district  superintendents  and  the 
teachers  themselves. 

Now,  if  I may  say  one  wTord  on  Mr. 
White’s  motion  to  save  the  necessity  of 
my  addressing  the  Chair  again,  with 
reference  to  the  cuts,  I take  it  that 
what  Mr.  White  meant  was  that  if  the 


financial  condition  necessitates  a cut 
the  board  should  be  at  liberty  to  make 
a horizontal  cut.  That  it  should  not 
be  tied  up  so  that  it  could  not  follow 
this  course  if  it  is  advisable.  I do  not 
understand  Mr.  White  as  advocating  the 
policy  of  changing  salaries  during  the 
term  of  office  but  as  advocating  liber- 
ty on  the  part  of  the  board  to  make  a 
horizontal  cut  if  that  should  become 
necessary  in  consequence  of  the  bad 
financial  condition  of  the  system.  It 
seems  to  me  that  in  that  respect  his 
position  is  entirely  sound  except  as  to 
one  detail,  namely,  that  it  is  not  fair, 
as  he  says,  that  that  cut  should  be  hori- 
zontal. 

If  you  have  a $10,000  superinten- 
dent and  an’ $800  teacher,  both  of  them 
efficient  in  their  respective  functions, 
it  is  a great  deal  more  of  a hard- 
ship to  take  10  per  cent,  off  of  the  sal- 
ary of  the  $800  teacher  than  it  is  to 
take  10  per  cent,  off  of  the  slary  of 
the  $10,000  superintendent;  to  reduce 
the  superintendent  from  $10,000  to 
$9,000  under-  circumstances  of  finan- 
cial stress  is  much  easier  on  him  than 
to  reduce  an  $800  teacher  to  $720 
is*  upon  her.  And  it  seems  to  me  that 
to  call  it  fair  to  make  a horizontal  re- 
duction under  the  stress  of  those  cir- 
cumstances is  to  misapprehend  the 
meaning  of  fairness.  It  is  the  same 
kind  of  fairness  that  would,  for  in- 
stance, tax  the  man  who  gets  a small 
income  of,  say,  $800,  the  same  per- 
centage that  you  tax  the  millionaire  for 
the  same  purposes.  It  is  on  the  ques- 
tion of  fairness;  and,  it  is  not  fair  in 
its  practical  operation.  It  is  only  fair 
in  columns  of  statistics,  and  columns  of 
statistics  do  not  always  pan  out  fair  in 
practical  life. 

MR.  WHITE:  May  I read  one 

clause,  Mr.  Chairman,  which  may  an- 
swer one  statement  of  Mr.  Post? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  White. 

MR.  WHITE:  On  page  545,  under 

Section  10,  I think  we  have  provided, 


December  22 


667 


1906 


at  least  I so  understand  it  and  am  very 
much  in  favor  of  it — we  have  provided 
for  permanency  in  the  office  of  teachers 
and  principals: 

( 1 Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers  shall  be  made  for 
merit  only,  and  after  satisfactory  ser- 
vice for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges” — not  for  two  years,  or  three 
years,  or  four  years,  but  subject  only 
to  the  provision  which  is  the  same  that 
we  have  in  the  case  of  superintendents. 
Then,  of  course,  is  added  what  ought 
to  be  added,  that  the  board  need  not 
retain  in  service  more  principals  or 
teachers  than  the  needs  of  the  schools 
require. 

That  is  because  we  cannot  do  what 
Mr.  Raymer,  as  a business  man,  might 
be  able  to  do — go  out  and  borrow  the 
money. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  not  going  to  be  technical  about  it 
at  all,  but  I have  sat  here  for  some 
time  remembering  that  I made  a motion 
some  time  since  and  these  gentlemen 
have  repeatedly,  and  they  have  done  it 
well,  violated  the  spirit  of  that  motion. 
The  motion  that  I made  was  that  we 
proceed  to  take  up  the  first  portion  of 
this,  concerning  which  up  to  that  time 
no  objection  had  been  made. 

Now,  I ask  that  Mr.  Ritter’s  amend- 
ment be  read.  If  these  gentlemen  wish 
to  discuss  the  question  of  tenure  of 
office,  or  of  salary,  I am  perfectly  will- 
ing to  listen  to  them,  but  we  have  not 
reached  that  yet,  and  I think  most  of 
them  have  been  discussing  a matter, 
which  practically,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  not 
before  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Ritter’s  amendment.  The 
Chair  read  Mr.  Ritter’s  amendment  a 
moment  ago  for  the  very  purpose  sug- 
gested by  Mr.  MacMillan. 


The  Secretary  read  Mr.  MacMillan’s 
amendment  as  hereinbefore  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps  the 

Chair  can  state  the  amendment  better 
than  it  can  be  read.  Mr.  Ritter’s 
amendment  provides  that  the  board  shall 
appoint  such  officers  as  it  may  deem 
necessary  instead  of  providing  a super- 
intendent of  schools  and  a business 
manager  as  statutory  officers.  The  Sec- 
retary will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Ritter,  Guerin,  Patterson,  Post 
—4. 

Nays  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Carey,  Cole,  Crilly,-  Dixon,  G. 
W.;  Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.; 
Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Hill, 
Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Mac- 
Millan, McGoorty,  Merriam,  O’Donnell, 
Oehne,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Raymer, 
Revell,  Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Sunny,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Zim- 
mer— 40. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  PATTERSON:  I would  like  to 

be  recorded  as  voting  aye,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Rit- 

ter’s motion  to  amend,  the  yeas  are  4 
and  the  nays  are  40,  and  the  motion  is 
lost.  The  question  now  reverts  upon 
Mr.  MacMillan’s  motion  to  adopt  the 
section  as  follows:  “The  board  shall 

appoint  as  executive  officers  a superin- 
tendent of  schools  and  a business  mana- 
ger, and  may  also  appoint  or  provide  for 
the  appointment  of  such  other  officers 
and  employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary, 
and  shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of 
this  charter,  prescribe  their  duties,  com- 
pensations and  terms  of  office.” 

(Cries  of  “question.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor that  motion  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  those  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

The  next  is  the  next  sentence  of  that 
section,  “but  the  term  of  office  of  the 
superintendent  of  education  and  of  the 


December  22 


668 


1906 


business  manager  shall  not  be  less  than 
four  years.  ” 

ME.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I move  its 

adoption,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor that  will  signify  by  saying  aye. 

MR.  POST:  I do  not  wish  to  speak 

in  regard  to  my  vote  upon  that,  but 
the  point  upon  which  I rise  is  that  in 
my  opinion  on.  an  important  matter  of 
this  kind  we  should  have  a roll  call. 
Of  course,  where  the  matter  has  been 
practically  decided  by  a roll  call,  as  in 
the  last  question,  I do  not  care  for  a 
subsequent  .roll  call,  a second  roll  call 
on  the  main  point,  but  it  seems  to  me 
we  ought  to  have  a roll  call  on  the 
main  proposition  on  the  principal  prop- 
osition. 

(Cries  of  “ question’ ’ and  “roll 
call. ’ ’ ’) 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I would  like  to  state 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  the  next  clause, 
“but  the  term  of  office  of  superinten- 
dent of  education  and  of  the  business 
manager  shall  not  be  less  than  four 
years. 1 ’ 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I understood  that 

Mr.  Post  offered  an  amendment,  that 
those  words  be  amended,  and  I would 
like  to  ask  whether  he  insists  upon  his 
amendment. 

MR.  POST:  How  is  that? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Post  offered  an 

amendment.  What  is  the  question?  Is 
the  question  on  Mr.  Post’s  amendment 
to  strike  out  or  what? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  difference 

does  it  make  whether  we  take  it  affirm- 
atively or  negatively? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I don’t  care.  I wish 

to  state  in  a very  few  words  three  or 
four  reasons  for  keeping  it  in;  first 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  We  are  all  go- 
ing to  vote  for  it,  anyhow 

(Cries  of  “‘question,  question.”) 

MR.  POST:  What  are  we  voting  on, 


what  is  this  for?  Is  it  on  the  motion  to 
strike  out? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  upon  the 

question  of  the  adoption  of  the  words, 
“but  the  term  of  office  of  the  superin- 
tendent of  education  and  business  mana- 
ger shall  not  be  less  than  four  years.” 

MR.  POST : I would  like  to  ask 

simply  as  a matter  of  parliamentary 
procedure  how  a motion  to  strike  out 
can  be  changed  or  turned  into  a motion 
to  adopt? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  way 

that  it  can  be  done,  unless  it  is  with 
the  desire  to  get  an  affirmative  vote. 
As  I understand  Mr.  Post  has  been 
one  of  those  who  desired  an  affirmative 
vote  on  this  proposition. 

MR.  POST:  I don’t  care  whether  we 

have  or  not;  I know  whether  to  vote 
yes  or  no,  no  matter  what  shape  this 
thing  is  put  in,  and  if  any  member 
don ’t,  why  let  them  have  it  in  that 
form. 

Yeas  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Carey,  Cole,  Crilly,  Ritter, 
Dixon,  G.  W.;  Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart, 
J.  W.;  Eidmann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen, 
Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Line- 
han,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  Raymer, 
Revell,  Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Sunny,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Yopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Zim- 
mer— 36. 

Nays — Guerin,  Merriam,  O ’Donnell, 
Oehne,  Owens,  Patterson,  Pendarvis, 
Post — 8. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  HILL:  I am  not  quite  satisfied 

on  this  proposition  at  the  present  time. 
I was  in  hopes  Mr.  Taylor  might  give 
us  a little  light,  or  some  one  better 
posted  than  I am.  I understand  this  is 
quite  the  contrary  from  the  practice  fol- 
lowed by  universities  throughout  the 
United  States.  I do  not  understand 
that  they  hire  professors  for  a set  term 
of  four  years.  My  understanding  is 
that  they  hire  them  sometimes  for  a 
couple  of  years,  a sort  of  a trial  or 


December  22 


669 


1906 


probationary  term,  and  after  that,  they 
are  employed  along  and  they  consider 
that  a sort  of  promotion,  and  if  he  is 
all  right  he  will  be  retained.  If  it 
works  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  uni- 
versities, if  that  system  is  satisfactory 
to  them,  and  other  educational  institu- 
tions all  over  the  country,  I can’t  see 
why  the  Board  of  Education  should  be 
called  upon  to  make  the  employment  a 
set  term  of  four  years  each  time.  That 
is  the  way  it  looks  to  me.  With  that 
understanding  I would  like  to  have  my 
name  passed;  I don’t  want  to  vote  on 
a subject  I don’t  know  anything  about 
any  more  than  I do  about  this. 

ME.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to 

state  inasmuch  as  this  is  contrary,  so 
far  as  the  superintendent  of  schools 
goes,  to  the  best  practice  known  in  the 
country,  and  as  far  as  the  office  of  busi- 
ness manager  goes,  contrary  to  the  best 
business  practices  known  in  the  coun- 
try, I desire  to  vote  no. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I want  to  look 

to  the  Board  of  Education  for  the  faith- 
ful conduct  and  management  of  the 
schools  of  the  city.  I see  in  this  an 
attempt  to  thwart  the  board  in  the  com- 
plete management  and  control  of  the 
schools  of  the  city.  I attended  the  pub- 
lic schools  when  a child,  and  I feel  a 
great  interest  in  them  and  I want  to 
see  them  perpetuated.  I want  the  re- 
sponsibility placed  where  it  should  be, 
upon  the  Board  of  Education,  a member 
of  which  ought  to  be  a great,  large  man, 
with  a large  mind,  with  a mind  suffi- 
ciently large  to  grasp  the  will  of  the 
citizens  of  all  classes,  and  with  a great, 
large  heart;  and  the  schools  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  should  be  conducted  wholly 
on  heart,  so  that  the  children  when 
graduating  from  the  schools  would  not 
be  mere  automatons,  but  that  they 
would  have  some  heart,  and  that  heart 
should  be  instilled  into  the  education  of 
these  children;  and  believing  that  the 
superintendent  of  schools  might  be  a 
man  without  any  heart  and  one  that  is 


not  in  unison  with  the  great  body  of 
teachers  and  of  principals  and  of  the 
institution  itself,  that  it  is  dangerous 
to  put  a man  in  that  position  for  four 
years  that  might  be  of  that  class,  that 
may  not  be  so  favored  by  the  Almighty 
or  by  his  education  or  training  or  his  de- 
sires or  bents,  I am  free  to  say  I am  not 
in  favor  of  putting  a man  in  that  posi- 
tion for  four  years;  I am  afraid  to  put 
a man  in  that  position  for  four  years, 
and  I am  compelled  to  vote  no. 

MR.  GUERIN : After  listening  to 

the  argument 

THE  CHAIRMAN : For  what  purpose 
does  Dr.  Guerin  rise? 

MR.  GUERIN:  I rise  to  change  my 

vote,  for  these  reasons:  After  listening 
to  the  arguments  of  Professor  Merriam 
and  Mr.  O ’Donnell,  I am  convinced  that 
we  ought  not  to  have  a superintendent 
elected  for  four  years;  therefore  I 
change  my  vote  to  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 
to  adopt  the  section  fixing  the  term  of 
office  of  superintendent  of  education  and 
business  manager  not  less  than  four 
years,  the  yeas  are  36  and  the  nays  are 
8,  and  the  motion  is  carried.  The  Secre- 
tary will  now  read  the  last  sentence. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  last  sen- 
tence, as  follows: 

“And  the  salary  of  no  officer  shall 
be  lowered  during  his  term  of  office.” 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I move  its 

adoption,  Mr.  Chairman. 

(Cries  of  “question.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor the  adoption  of  that  motion  will 
signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  I 
will  put  that  again:  as  many  as  favor 
the  motion  will  signify  by  saying  aye; 
those  opposed,  no. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  be  recorded 

as  voting  no  on  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  a 

roll  call? 

MR.  POST:  No,  I don’t  think  it  is 

necessary;  I think  it  was  involved  in 


December  22 


670 


1906 


the  previous  roll  call;  but  I wish  to  be 
recorded  as  voting  no. 

ME.  WHITE:  I wish  to  be  recorded 

as  voting  no. 

ME.  EEYELL:  I would  like  to  be 

recorded  as  voting  no. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Let  the  roll  be 

called. 

Yeas — Bennett,  Brosseau,  Cole,  Crilly, 
Eitter,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A., 
Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill,  Jones,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Goorty,  Oehne,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Eay- 
mer,  Eosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Shepard,  Sunny,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Yopicka,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 35. 

Nays — Beebe,  Brown,  Carey,  Hoyne, 
Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Patterson,  Post,  Ee- 
vell,  White— 10. 

(During  roll  call.) 

ME.  PATTEESON:  I would  like  tc 

inquire  if  by  this  amendment,  it  would 
be  possible  for  the  school  board  to  re- 
duce the  salaries  of  the  teachers  dur- 
ing— or  if  it.  means  that  the  school 
board  may  reduce  the  salaries  of  the  su- 
perintendents'? Is  that  the  meaning  ol 
this  amendment? 

THE  CHAIEMAN : There  is  a sep 

arate  section  relating  to  teachers.  This 
seems  to  apply  only  to  the  two  officers, 
the  two  charter  officers. 

ME.  PATTEESON:  It  says,  “all  of 

fleers  appointed,”  does  it  not?  It  says. 
1 1 all  officers.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  “The  salary  o 

no  officer.  ’ ’ 

ME.  MacMILLAN : May  I ask  a ques- 
tion? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Patterson  is 

on  his  feet  during  a roll  call;  he  aros 
when  his  name  was  called. 

ME.  PATTEESON:  I would  like  to 

ask  a question,  and  that  is  whether  this 
amendment  will  permit  the  salaries  of 
teachers  to  be  reduced  during  their  term 
of  office,  but  will  not  permit  the  salaries 
of  the  superintendents  to  be  reduced? 


THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not answer  that  question.  Perhaps  Dr. 
Taylor  can. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : May  I ask  a 

question?  May  I make  a remark? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : If  a teacher,  a 

grade  teacher,  is  employed  for  a term 
under  the  meaning  of  this  section,  as  the 
superintendent  is,  that  answers  Mr.  Pat- 
terson ’s  question,  I think. 

ME.  PATTEESON:  Then  teachers" 
salaries  can  be  reduced  and  the  super- 
intendent’s cannot;  is  that  right? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  We  are  trying 

to  arrive  at  an  answer  to  your  ques- 
tion. Mr.  MacMillan  suggests  that  the 
grade  teacher  not  being  employed  for 
a term  would  not  come  within  the  mean- 
ing of  this  clause. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : A grade  teacher 

is  not  employed  for  a term;  a grade 
teacher’s  service  is  indefinite;  a super- 
intendent or  business  manager  is  em- 
ployed for  a time  and  term  certain. 

ME.  POST:  Mr.  White — pardon  me 

for  just  a moment — Mr.  White  told  us 
a moment  ago,  in  an  argument  that  he 
made  in  opposition  to  my  position  re- 
garding superintendents,  that  the  grade 
teachers  should  have  their  terms  of  office 
fixed,  if  they  served  three  years  their 
position  becomes  permanent,  and  they 
cannot  be  removed  only  on  charges.  It 
seems  to  me  Mr.  Patterson ’s  question  is 
useless. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not permit  this  discussion  during  a roll 
call. 

ME.  PATTEESON:  I don’t  want  to 

vote  on  that  question  unless  I know 
about  it;  no  one  of  us  seems  to  know 
about  it. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  the  matter  of  teachers  be 
taken  up  under  Section  10,  when  that 
section  is  taken  up;  that  relates  to  the 
salaries  of  the  teachers — it  relates  solely 
to  the  subject  of  teachers,  and  then 
such  amendments  may  be  put  as  relate 


December  22 


671 


1906 


to  the  teachers,  if  the  Convention  sees 
fit  to  do  so.  The  Chair — in  the  opinion 
of  the  Chair  this  relates  only  to  the 
officers  who  are  mentioned  in  this  sec- 
tion, and  to  no  others. 

MR.  PATTERSON:  Then  I will  vote 

no. 

MR.  REVELL:  I just  wish  to  ex- 

plain, for  the  reason  that  I believe 
any  general  reduction  made  in  the  school 
system  should  be  from  top  to  bottom, 
I vote  no. 

MR.  COLE:  I did  not  answer  to  my 

name  when  called  because  I did  not  un- 
derstand the  question;  but  on  the  theory 
that  this  applies  to  those  officers  men- 
tioned above  entirely,  and  not  to  attor- 
neys and  others  who  may  be  appointed 
by  the  Board  of  Education,  I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole  votes 

aye  on  that  understanding. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  the  motion 

to  adopt  the  last  section  the  yeas  are 
.35  and  the  nays  are  10;  the  motion  is 
carried.  The  Secretary  will  read  the 
next  paragraph. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  next  par- 
agraph, on  page  645,  as  follows:  “The 

requirement  that  an  officer  of  the  city 
shall  at  the  time  of  his  appointment 
be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall  not  apply 
to  the  superintendent  of  schools.  ” 

MR.  POST:  I think  we  should  have 

an  interpretation  of  that.  If  it  means, 
as  probably  it  does,  that  the  school 
board  shall  be  at  liberty  to  select  a 
superintendent  from  anywhere  in  the 
United  States,  or  world  for  that  matter, 
and  is  merely  to  protect  him  in  that 
respect,  that  is  a proper  provision.  It 
seems  to  me  it  is  right  to  safeguard  him 
so  that  we  will  not  have  non-resident 
superintendents  of  schools  for  four  years. 

THK  ( 'HA  1 1 CM  A X : It  semis  to  me 

that  the  Board  of  Education  will  not  be 
limited  to  the  City  of  Chicago  to  the 
election  of  a superintendent  of  educa- 
tion. 

MR.  POST:  I am  in  favor  of  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  in  favor  of 


that  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no. 
Carried.  The  Secretary  will  read  the 
next  paragraph. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman— 

The  Secretary  read  the  next  para- 
graph, as  it  appears  in  the  proceedings 
at  page  645. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

to  amend  by  substituting  the  word  “ma- 
jority” for  the  words  “ two -thirds } \ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  White  moves 

to  substitute  the  word  “majority” 
wherever  the  words  “two-thirds”  occur. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  President,  I move 

to  amend  by  striking  out  all  after  the 
words  “to  be  removable”,  about  half- 
way down  the  paragraph,  and  inserting 
instead  of  those  words,  “by  a majority 
vote  of  all  the  members  of  the  board, 
on  due  notice  to  the  official”.  I do 
not  care  to  say  anything  about  that,  as 
I discussed  it  under  the  previous  mo- 
tion. I move  to  strike  out  and  insert. 
If  it  will  serve  the  desire  of  my  friends 
on  the  other  side  to  have  that  vote 
in  a form  so  that  they  can  vote  affirm- 
atively, I should  be  willing  to  move  to 
lay  it  on  the  table  for  their  accommo- 
dation. It  makes  no  difference  to  me 
whether  the  vote  is  taken  affirmatively 
or  negatively. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  motion  is 

in  the  nature  of  an  amendment.  Your 
motion  is  to  amend  by  striking  out  and 
inserting.  Your  motion  is,  after  the 
word  1 1 removable  ’ that  word  will  be 
stricken  out  and  the  words  shall  be  in- 
serted, “by  a vote  of  a majority  of  the 
board ’ \ 

MR.  POST:  With  the  addition — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  written 

charges. 

MR.  POST : No,  not  written  charges. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  have 

it  written  out? 

MR.  POST : I will  write  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  write  it  out. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  has 


December  22 


672 


1906 


the  floor.  Wait  till  I get  Mr.  Post’s 
amendment. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  While  waiting 

for  Mr.  Post ’s  amendment  I would  like 
to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  we 
have  gone  on  record  here  before  as  in 
favor  of  the  civil  service  in  every  de- 
partment of  the  city.  Why  should  we 
now  exempt  the  Board  of  Education 
especially1?  I think — 

ME.  WHITE : Mr.  Chairman,  I rise 

to  a point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Mr.  Shanahan 

has  the  floor. 

ME.  WHITE:  I rise  to  the  point 

of  order. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  What  is  your 

point  of  order,  Mr.  White? 

ME.  WHITE:  I have  an  amendment 

which  is  before  the  Convention  that  is 
specific,  namely,  to  substitute  “major- 

ity” for  “two-thirds”.  I think  that 
should  be  given  consideration. 

ME.  POST : I ask  to  have  my  mo- 

tion suspended  till  we  vote  upon  the 
other  one. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Then  we  will 

take  up  Mr.  White ’s  motion  to  substitute 
“majority”  for  “two-thirds.” 

ME.  TAYLOE:  I think  it  is  but  fair 

to  the  committee  to  state  the  reasons 
why  two-thirds  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 

cation is  required  before  the  dismissal 
of  the  superintendent  of  education.  The 
necessity  of  fixing  the  term  of  his  of- 
fice is  the  danger  of  dismissal  from 
public  for  other  causes  than  inefficiency, 
and  they  do  not  obtain  in  private  cor- 
porations. Now,  leaving  the  Board  of 
Education  free  for  its  legislative  and 
broadly  administrative  functions  leaves 
the  superintendent  of  education  as  the 
agent  of  the  board,  free  from  unrea- 
sonable interference  and  from  the  con- 
stant effort  to  protect  his  tenure  of 
office  from  an  attack  in  the  board.  And 
I submit  whether  every  superintendent 
of  education  that  we  have  ever  had 
has  not  been  compelled  to  pay  more 
or  less  of  the  attention  which  he  owes 


to  the  superintendency  of  the  schools 
to  a defense  of  his  own  tenure  of  office, 
which  may  be  imperiled  at  any  single 
meeting  of  the  board  by  a simple  ma- 
jority of  one.  I do  not  believe  that  you 
can  get  a man  of  the  higher  caliber  to 
stand  in  such  a precarious  condition  with- 
out any  tenure  of  office  sufficient  to  test 
fairly  his  policy  of  administration. 

It  is  a very  different  proposition  from 
the  employment  of  a hired  official  by 
a private  corporation.  For  this  is  a 
quasi-political  appointment,  no  matter 
what  you  say  about  it,  and  a man  is 
more  or  less  dependent  upon  reasons  for 
the  election  or  dismissal  other  than  those 
of  his  efficiency.  This  simply  safe- 
guards the  public  interests,  and  I plead 
for  the  retention  of  the  vote  by  two- 
thirds. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  in  favor  of  the  vote  of  two-thirds, 
but  for  different  reasons  than  those 
stated  by  Professor  Taylor.  I believe 
that  a man  who  is  or  shall  be  elected 
superintendent  of  our  public  schools 
would,  in  his  own  interests,  if  he  were 
a wise  man,  desire  to  be  elected  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  the  board  and  be 
dismissed  by  the  same  majority.  I do 
not  believe  that  it  is  a wise  rule,  as 
has  been  indicated,  to  elect  a man  by 
a bare  majority  and  then  require  a 
two-thirds  vote  for  his  dismissal.  I 
think  it  is  illogical  and  entirely  im- 
proper. 

I do  not  know  that  this  detail  is 
a wise  one  to  introduce  into  our  char- 
ter. I think  wye  are  descending  some- 
what into  the  code  when  some  of  these 
matters  are  injected  into  the  charter, 
as  I believe  they  are.  But  in  regard 
to  this  question  of  majority  which 
is  being  considered,  I believe  that  we 
should  be  at  least  reasonably  consistent 
in  this,  that  we  should  prescribe  that 
it  should  take  at  least  ten  out  of  fif- 
teen members  to  make  an  election,  and 
at  least  ten  out  of  fifteen  members  to 
dismiss. 


December  22 


673 


1906 


I do  not  know  that  it  would  be  in 
order,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  introduce  into 
this  section  at  this  time  such  a prop- 
osition, but  it  occurs  to  me  if  it  were 
in  order,  I would  make  that  motion, 
and  on  that  proposition  I think  we 
could  with  reason  and  with  fairness  go 
before  anybody  and  ask  him  to  come 
in  here  and  ask  him  to  become  super- 
intendent of  our  public  schools. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  you  want  the  best 
educational  talent  that  can  be  had,  and 
we  want  nothing  less,  we  must  present 
to  that  educational  talent  such  induce- 
ments as  will  draw  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago the  very  best  which  the  country 
can  offer.  Our  children  should  have 
nothing  less,  and  we,  as  representing 
them,  should  permit  nothing  less.  So 
far  as  I am  a product  of  anything,  I 
am  a product  of  the  public  schools  of 
the  City  of  Chicago.  Most  of  you  are. 
'We  are  not  divided  upon  the  question 
of  the  best  thing  to  be  done;  it  is  simply 
our  different  viewpoints.  But,  I submit 
in  all  fairness  that  if  the  committee  of 
which  Prof.  Taylor  is  the  honored  chair- 
man, would  bring  in  a suggestion  of  that 
kind,  I believe  it  would  meet  the  views 
and  be  accorded  the  approval  of  gen- 
tlemen who  have  given  this  matter  much 
more  attention  than  I have  and  who 
know  far  more  about  it  than  I can 
possibly  know. 

But  it  has  occurred  to  me  that  we 
are  putting  ourselves  in  the  attitude  of 
being  exceedingly  illogical,  as  I said  be- 
fore, by  making  a bare  majority  neces- 
sary to  elect  and  a two-thirds  necessary 
to  dismiss.  There  are  many  things,  gen- 
tlemen of  the  Convention,  which  may 
occur  as  the  administration  of  the  ardu- 
ous and  numberless  duties  of  superin- 
tendent of  public  instruction  which 
might  be  highly  improper  in  small  ways, 
in  undefinable  ways,  but  which  it  might 
be  found  very  difficult  to  embrace  in 
a statement  or  chart,  or  set  forth  clearly 
in  any  accusation ; but  it  might  be  dis- 
covered that  a superintendent  of  public 


instruction  might  become  exceedingly  ob- 
noxious, might  become,  if  you  please, 
exceedingly  inefficient,  and  yet  at  the 
same  time  no  board  of  education  in 
existence  might  be  able  to  formulate 
a statement  of  charges  against  him  that 
w’ould  be  satisfactory  to  a public  mind. 

Every  man  of  business  and  every  pro- 
fessional men  knows  that  there  are  in- 
tolerable conditions  existing  sometimes, 
and  the  only  way  to  remove  these  in- 
tolerable conditions  is  to  remove  the  one 
who  brings  them  about,  and  yet,  if  you 
were  called  upon  to  state  in  words  and 
figures  as  follows,  you  could  not  do  it. 
So  I trust  in  some  form  or  another  this 
will  be  brought  about.  If  we  are  to 
have  a majority  to  elect,  we  must  logi- 
cally have  a majority  to  dismiss.  If  we 
have  a two-thirds  to  elect,  then  it  will 
be  entirely  proper  to  have  a two-thirds 
to  dismiss. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire 

the  floor,  Mr.  Merriam  ? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Yes.  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I am  in  favor  of  any  reasonable 
restrictions  upon  the  action  of  the  Board 
of  Education.  It  seems  to  me  that  a 
requirement  that  a superintendent  of 
schools  may  be  removed  only  by  a two- 
thirds  vote  is  simply  providing  material 
for  trouble.  A condition  of  affairs  un- 
der which  a superintendent  of  schools 
responsible  for  educational  administra- 
tion may  continue  in  that  position  with 
a majority  of  the  board  opposed  to  him, 
and  a majority  of  the  board  desiring 
his  removal,  is  simply  impossible.  You 
will  provide  material  here  for  an  un- 
told amount  of  trouble  and  dissension 
and  wrangling  between  the  superintend- 
ent and  the  board. 

If  you  had  a situation  under  our  new 
fifteen  membership  board,  in  which  nine 
members  of  the  board  desired  to  re- 
move the  superintendent,  and  the  other 
six  are  opposed  to  it,  under  those  cir- 
cumstances you  have  clash  from  the 
beginning  of  the  year  to  the  end.  The 
superintendent  of  the  schools  will  be 


December  22 


674 


1906 


held  in  that  position  by  a minority  of 
the  board  by  the  opposition  of  the  fairly 
expressed  will  and  desire  of  the  major- 
ity. 

Now,  if  the  Board  of  Education  is  to 
be  held  responsible  for  the  general  edu- 
cational policy  of  the  city  it  would  place 
them  in  a very  difficult  position.  While 
they  are  held  by  the  people  of  the  city, 
and  rightly  held  to  be  responsible  for 
the  educational  policy,  at  the  same  time 
a majority  cannot  control  it  and  you 
are  in  the  position  of  placing  the  respon- 
sibility in  the  hands  of  people  who 
do  not  have  the  power  to  control  the 
situation.  And  where  you  get  a situa- 
tion in  which  a man  is  held  respon- 
sible for  a thing  he  cannot  do,  you 
certainly  have  a most  deplorable  ar- 
rangement. 

That  is  precisely  what  will  happen 
here  when  you  hold  a majority  of  the 
board  responsible  for  the  educational 
administration  and  prohibit  the  majority 
from  appointing  or  removing  the  man 
who  actually  does  control  it.  In  the 
second  place,  as  far  as  Mr.  MacMillan 
has  said  about  securing  educators  of  a 
high  grade  as  superintendents,  I take 
it  you  would  hardly  get  an  educator  who 
will  want  to  remain, — the  kind  of  a man 
we  want — who  will  want  to  remain  on 
a Board  of  Education  of  which  nine 
members  are  opposed  to  him  and  where 
nine  members  desire  his  removal  and 
six  only  are  in  his  favor.  I cannot  con- 
ceive of  a situation  in  which  any  men 
of  sound  sense  would  desire  to  remain 
on  a board  with  one  less  than  two-thirds 
of  the  board  hostile  to  him  and  desiring 
to  put  him  out. 

I.  would  be  more  inclined  to  think  that 
it  would  be  reasonable  to  say  one-third. 
If  a superintendent  of  education,  or  a 
president  of  a university,  finds  that 
one-third  of  the  membership  of  the 
trustees,  or  of  the  school  board  are 
actually  opposed  to  him,  it  is  generally 
quite  clear  that  either  the  president  will 
have  to  go  in  the  near  future,  or  the 


board.  That  is  an  untenable  and  im- 
possible situation.  It  cannot  continue. 
Either  the  board  will  have  to  leave  or 
the  superintendent  or  the  president  will 
have  to  go.  The  superintendent  must 
be  as  things  go  in  the  large,  a man  who 
is  able  not  only  to  manage  the  schools, 
but  to  secure  the  support  and  respect 
and  co-operation  of  a majority  of  the 
board.  If  he  cannot  do  that  then  any 
of  these  artificial  props  that  hold  him 
in  there  against  the  will  of  the  majority 
are  dangerous  and  ought  not  to  be  in- 
serted in  a charter  of  this  sort. 

ME.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

it  seems  to  me  that  in  discussing  this 
subject  we  are  somewhat  losing  our  bear- 
ings. We  ought  to  remember  that  this 
is  not  alone  a mere  business  appoint- 
ment for  a business  institution;  we  are 
seeking  for  the  office  of  superintendent 
of  our  schools  a high  grade  man,  the 
same  sort  of  a man  that  you  will  put' 
in  as  president  of  a university.  Now, 
it  is  well  known  that  we  cannot  in  the 
City  of  Chicago,  nor  possibly  in  many  of 
our  cities,  secure,  or  if  we  do  secure 
it  is  with  the  greatest  difficulty  that  we 
get  that  sort  of  a man.  And  why  is 
it?  It  is  because  it  is  known  that  this 
office  is  a sort  of  semi-political  office. 
Now,  let  us  do  everything  in  our  power 
to  make  this  office  attractive  to  the 
best  class  of  men,  and  one  thing  that  is 
essential  for  the  purpose  of  making  it 
attractive  is  that  we  shall  secure  a man 
the  tenure  of  his  office. 

Knowing  how  persons  are  appointed 
to  the  Board  of  Education,  knowing 
that  they  are  often  appointed  for  po- 
litical reasons  and  without  any  educa- 
tional tests,  or  because  of  their  fa- 
miliarity with  the  subject  of  education, 
we  do  not  want  to  subject  the  man 
whom  we  put  in  as  superintendent  of 
schools  to  the  whim  or  caprice  of  a 
mere  majority  of  the  board. 

And  I want  to  say  that  to  my  notion, 
if  the  man  who  is  selected  as  superin- 
tendent of  schools  is  the  right  sort  of 


December  22 


675 


1906 


a man,  is  a man  who  is  an  educator  and 
a pedagogue,  and  nothing  but  that,  he 
is  fearless  in  what  does  and  does  it 
simply  in  the  interests  of  the  pupils 
and  children,  and  I say  that  man  is 
sooner  or  later  bound  to  antagonize  some 
members  of  the  board  who  are  not  peda- 
gogues, but  who  are  simply  selected  at 
random  from  the  city  and  put  in  for 
the  time  being  to  administer  the  affairs 
of  the  school  system  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. 

Now,  let  us  do  everything  in  our  power 
while  we  have  the  opportunity  now  to 
make  it  possible  to  put  that  sort  of  men 
in  power  there  that  we  need  for  the 
education  of  our  children;  and  it  seems 
to  me  that  when  we  are  dealing  with 
this  subject  of  education,  which  really 
means  the  education  of  the  future  gen- 
erations of  this  city,  we  ought  to  safe- 
guard the  interests  of  those  future  gen- 
erations in  every  way  we  possibly  can, 
and  not  make  it  easy  to  expel  any  man 
for  cause,  because  cause  can  very 
easily  be  found. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Dr.  White’s  amendment  that  the 
word  ‘ ‘ majority”  be  inserted  wherever 
“two-thirds”  appear.  We  will  have  the 
roll  call.  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

Yeas — Carey,  Ritter,  Erickson,  Guerin, 
McGoorty,  Merriam,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Patterson,  Post,  Shepard,  White,  Zim- 
mer— 13. 

Nays  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann, 
Gansbergen,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Kinley, Oehne,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Re- 
vel!, Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan, 
Shedd,  Sunny,  Swift,  Taylor,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  Wilkins — 33. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I would  like  to  explain  my  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Kittleman. 

MR.  KTTTIjEMAN : Mr.  Chairman, 


I think  to  be  logical  I ought  to  vote  for 
the  majority,  but  inasmuch  as  I believe 
that  the  Convention  made  a great  mis- 
take when  it  did  not  make  the  school 
board  elective  but  left  it  to  political 
appointment,  and  in  order  to  provide 
against  the  possible  political  element 
that  I think  will  enter  in,  and  to  say 
that  I do  not  think  we  will  ever  have  the 
school  matters  on  a right  basis  until 
we  elect  the  school  board,  and  to  prevent 
a man  from  being  turned  out  of  office 
because  of  political  influences,  I will  vote 
no. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

wish  to  explain  my  vote:  I vote  no  for 

the  same  reasons  that  Mr.  Kittleman 
stated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  Dr.  White ’s 
motion  to  amend,  the  ayes  are  13  and 
the  nays  are  33,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 
The  question  is  now  upon  Mr.  Post ’s 
amendment  to  strike  out  everything  after 
the  word  “removal,”  and  insert  the 
words  “by  a majority  vote  of  all  the 
members  of  the  board  on  due  notice  to 
the  officers.  ’ ’ 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman,  in  view 

of  the  fact  that  the  previous  vote  suffi- 
ciently indicates  the  attitude  of  the  body 
toward  that  amendment  I do  not  demand 
a roll  call.  I simply  wish  to  be  re- 
corded as  voting  aye. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  are 

in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  amend- 
ment will  signify  by  saying  aye.  Op- 
posed no.  The  motion  is  lost. 

The  question  is  now  upon  the  adop- 
tion of  the  entire  section. 

MR,  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  1 

will  send  up  an  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Shanahan ’s 

amendment  will  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Shanahan’s 
amendment,  as  hereinafter  printed. 

MR,  SHANAHAN:  The  paragraph 

then  would  apply  to  the  superintendent 
of  education  and  the  business  manager. 
It  means  that  the  superintendent  of  edu- 


December  22 


676 


1906 


cation  and  the  business  manager  would 
not  be  under  civil  service  law. 

ME.  J.  W.  ECKHAET:  How  about 

the  attorney,  would  he  be  under  the 
civil  service  law? 

MR.  SHANAHAN : No,  sir.  Under 

the  wording  of  this,  taken  in  connection 
with  the  first  section,  you  would  exclude 
all  of  the  employes  of  the  board. 

ME.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

ask  Mr.  Shanahan  a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Does  Mr.  Shan- 

ahan yield  the  floor? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  JONES:  I should  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Shanahan  if  he  would  be  willing 
to  make  this  amendment  read  so  that  the 
board  might  appoint  an  attorney  and  a 
secretary  and  an  auditor? 

MR,  SHANAHAN : Yes. 

MR.  JONES:  Who  might  not  be  un- 

der civil  service,  but  all  the  others 
would  be. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHAET : I would  sug- 

gest that  it  should  be  the  executive  offi- 
cers. 

MR.  JONES:  Just  those  three? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  amend- 

ment be  presented  to  the  Secretary. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I will  accept 

Senator  Jones’  suggestion  and  embody 
it  in  the  article. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  get  this 

amendment  first. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment,  as 
hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  JONES : Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

suggest  in  place  of  those  words  that  they 
be  stricken  out  and  that  this  be  added: 
“and  the  secretary,  and  an  auditor  and 
an  attorney.  ’ ’ 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  may 

we  hear  that  once  more? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan, 

have  you  accepted  Senator  Jones’  amend- 
ment? 

MR.  SH^AHAN:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  then  let 

it  be  read  in  its  present  shape. 


The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Shanahan’s 
amendment  as  amended  by  Mr.  Jones. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I under- 

stand that  this  amendment  of  Mr.  Shan- 
ahan’s puts  everybody  in  the  civil  ser- 
vice except  those  officers? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  correct. 

MR.  COLE:  For  that  reason  I favor 

the  amendment  and  hope  it  will  prevail. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I would  like  to 

ask  a question  or  two,  Mr.  Chairman,  re- 
specting this  amendment.  What  shall  be 
the  term  of  office  of  these  men?  Is  that 
provided  in  the  amendment? 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I will 

answer  that  by  saying  that  the  second 
sentence  of  Section  7,  which  we  have 
adopted,  gives  the  board  the  power  to 
appoint  officers  and  employes  and  fix  such 
compensation  and  terms  of  office  as  they 
may  desire. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I haven ’t  any 

objection  to  that.  I think  that  is  a 
good  proposition. 

MR.  REYELL:  May  I ask 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  MacMillan. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : But  what  I in- 

sist on,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  that  we  hold 
firmly  by  the  principle  of  civil  service, 
and  make  it  very  clear  that  this  office, 
suggested  by  Mr.  Shanahan ’s  resolution 
— is  that  right? — all  but  the  offices  pro- 
vided by  Senator  Jones’  resolution,  be 
included  in  the  civil  service.  I mean 
only  with  the  exception  of  these  five 
heads. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  under- 

stand the  motion?  Are  you  ready  for 
the  question  ? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  After  that  I 

have  a short  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : After  this  is  dis- 

posed of? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Yes. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I submit  the  archi- 

tect and  the  engineer  should  not  be  un- 
der civil  service.  You  must  include  the 
architect  and  engineer;  they  must  be 
included  in  the  list,  otherwise  they  will 
be  under  the  civil  service. 


December  22 


677 


1906 


ME,  SHANAHAN:  May  I ask  the 

president  of  the  Board  of  Education 
what  officers  are  now  under  the  civil  ser- 
vice law? 

MR.  RITTER:  As  far  as  I know: 

the  secretary,  the  business  manager,  the 
architect  and  the  auditor.  I am  not 
sure  about  the  chief  truant  officer.  I 
was  going  to  ask  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  ad- 

vised he  is. 

MR.  RITTER:  The  chief  engineer  and 
the  architect  is  duly  certified  by  the  civil 
service  commission. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : But  is  it  not  a 

fact  that  the  secretary  is  under  the 
civil  service  law? 

MR.  RITTER:  I am  not  sure. 

(Cries  of  “He  is.”) 

MR,  RITTER:  There  is  a rule  giv- 
ing exemption 

MR.  EIDMANN : I would  like  to 

ask  if  the  word  “attorney”  should  not 
read  1 1 attorneys.  ’ ’ I understand  there 
is  not  only  one  attorney,  but  there  are 
more  than  one  attorneys.  And  the  at- 
torneys, are  exempt,  as  I understand  it, 
under  the  civil  service  law. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : I take  the  posi- 

tion Mr.  MacMillan  took  that  these  ought 
not  to  go  into  the  charter.  It  is  a 
matter  that  should  be  in  the  code.  All 
I am  anxious  about  is  to  protect  the  em- 
ployes that  are  now  under  the  civil  ser- 
vice, and  not  have  anything  go  into  this 
charter  which  might  leave  a loop  hole 
whereby  the  Board  of  Education  may  go 
in  and  elect  janitors,  ertgineers,  book- 
keepers and  all  other  employes. 

MR.  COLE:  The  civil  service  law  will 

take  care  of  that.  We  have  only  to  deal 
with  five  officials.  The  other  matters 
will  take  care  of  themselves. 

MR.  WHITE:  May  I ask— I suppose 

this  is  to  cover  the  matter  of  district 
superintendents  provided  for  in  this  next 
section.  Is  that  covered  by  this  pro- 
position? 

MR.  RITTER:  Educational  employes 


are  not  in  the  jurisdiction  of  the  civil 
service  law. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : It  seems  to 

me  all  that  ought  to  be  considered  here 
is  who  we  wish  to  exempt  from  the 
civil  service  law.  If  we  provide  just 
who  we  shall  exempt  as  has  been  stated, 
it  will  be  taken  care  of  by  the  civil 
service  law,  after  consolidation  is 
adopted,  and  after  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion is  a department  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. I do  not  think  it  is  necessary  for 
us  to  specify  who  the  charter  shall  in- 
clude. I think  it  is  immaterial  to  do 
that.  A simple  act  provides  for  the  re- 
tention, if  you  desire  to  appoint  any  one 
outside  the  superintendent  of  schools  and 
the  business  manager. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Ritter  to  repeat  his  answer  to  the 
question  he  made  a few  moments  ago. 
That  is,  as  to  what  employes  of  the  Board 
of  Education  the  civil  service  laws  now 
cover. 

MR.  RITTER:  I am  not  sure,  aider- 

man.  I think  these  ought  to  be  put  in 
the  blank  in  case  they  are  not  in  now. 
That  they  should  be  exempt  from  the 
civil  service  under  the  new  arrange- 
ment. My  understanding  was  that  the 
secretary  was  outside  of  the  civil  ser- 
vice regulations,  but  I am  assured  he 
now  is  within. 

MR.  RAYMER:  My  purpose  in  ask- 

ing Mr.  Ritter  to  again  make  reply  was 
the  suggestion  made  by  Dr.  White  as  to 
whether  this  amendment  of  Mr.  Shana- 
han ’s  covered  the  superintendent  of 
schools. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  ad- 

vised it  does  not. 

MR.  RAYMER  : District  superinten- 

dents. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  ad- 

vised that  the  teachers  of  the  public 
schools  are  not  within  the  purview  of 
the  civil  service  law. 

Mr.  Shanahan  moves  to  amend  by 
exempting  from  the  operation  of  the 
civil  service  law  the  manager,  the  super- 


December  22 


678 


1906 


intendent  of  instruction,  the  auditor,  the 
secretary  and  the  attorney. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I have  not  submitted  this  list  to  Mr. 
Shanahan,  but  I hope  he  will  adopt  it. 
I ask  that  this  section  be  read 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  it  be  read 

up  here,  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I simply  wish 

to  substitute  this  list  for  the  one  Mr. 
Shanahan  has  handed  to  Senator  Jones: 
superintendent  of  schools,  the  business 
manager,  the  attorney,  the  auditor,  the 
chief  architect  and  the  chief  engineer.  . 

MR.  TAYLOR : Superintendent  of 

education. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  send 

that  up,  please?  You  heard  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal ’s  substitute 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

sorry  to  say  we  did  not  hear  it  back 
here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  WHITE:  We  did  not  hear  it 

back  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  will  have  it 

read  in  just  a moment.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  amendment.  He  will  read 
the  section  as  amended  by  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal. 

THE  SECRETARY:  ‘‘The  appoint- 

ment and  the  removal  of  the  superinten- 
dent of  schools,  and  the  business  man- 
ager, the  attorney,  auditor,  chief  en- 
gineer and  chief  architect  shall  not  be 
subject  to  the  civil  service  law;  but  they 
shall  be  removable  only  for  cause  by 
vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of  all 
the  members  of  the  board  upon  written 
charges  to  be  heard  by  the  board  on  due 
notice  to  the  official  charged  therewith; 
and  after  the  hearing  of  the  charges, 
such  official  may  by  two-thirds  vote  be 
suspended  by  the  board.  ’ ’ 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I think  we  ought  to  have  another  amend- 
ment there. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  have  what? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  We  should 

have  another  amendment  which  should 


be : “ During  their  term  of  office  be 

removable,  ’ ’ otherwise 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  a mere 

correction  of  phraseology,  rather  than 
a correction.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
section  as  amended?  As  many  as  favor 
it  say  aye 

MR.  RITTER:  May  I ask  a question? 

Why  is  the  architect  exempted  from  the 
civil  service  ? 

MR.  COLE:  That  is  what  I want  to 

know? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  The  reason  why  he 

is  exempt  is  that 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  talk 

this  way,  Dr.  Taylor? 

MR.  TAYLOR : The  reason  why  he 

is  exempt  is  that  there  may  be  a wider 
range  of  choice  of  architects,  other  than 
those  who  are  eligible  on  the  list  of  the 
civil  service. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question  now? 

MR.  POST : That  applies  to  the 

secretary,  I should  say.  The  secretary’s 
office  is  a pretty  important  one.  The 
Education  Board  requires  a very  efficient 
man  as  secretary,  and  if  there  should  be 
a wider  range  wanted  in  regard  to  an 
architect,  there  should  be  a wider  range 
of  choice  in  regard  to  the  secretary. 

MR.  COLE:  I submit  the  civil  ser- 

vice law  should  take  care  of  itself.  1 
am  opposed  to  everything  except  the 
five  men  mentioned.  I hope  all  these 
amendments  will  be  voted  down ; that 
Mr.  Shanahan’s  motion  will  be 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

put  the  motion  when  you  are  all  through 
talking. 

MR.  COLE:  I hope  these  will  be 

voted  down. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

state  the  question.  Are  you  ready  for 
the  question? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Read  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it  once  more. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as 
amended. 


December  22 


679 


1906 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I am  not  going  to  except  even  the 
architect.  I stand  on  principle.  I am 
not  for  removing  any  man  who  is  now 
under  the  civil  service  law.  Gentlemen 
have  said  why  should  the  architect  be 
removed  from  the  civil  service  law?  I 
do  not  think  he  should  be  excepted. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I agree  with  Mr. 

Shanahan  on  this.  As  I . understand  it, 
the  architect  is  now  under  the  civil  ser- 
vice. If  he  is,  what  argument  is  there 
why  we  should  remove  him?  We  have 
chosen  a great  many  officers  who  are 
not  under  the  civil  service  and  have 
placed  them  under  the  civil  service;  why 
should  we  remove  this  one? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I ask  that  we 

have  a separate  vote  on  the  question  of 
the  architect,  and  I want  to  say  this,  as 
far  as  the  architect  is  concerned,  that 
I believe  that  we  would  secure  from  time 
to  time  possibly  men  of  originality  and 
men  of  new  ideas  if  we  enable  them 
to  come  from  outside  the  city.  We  should 
keep  this  particular  office  free  for  such 
appointments. 

MR.  REVELL:  I thoroughly  agree 

with  Mr.  Rosenthal  that  we  should  not 
act  on  this  matter  with  a view  to  the 
present  man  who  fills  this  office,  but  with 
a view  to  the  man  who  might  be  sought 
to  fill  it  for  all  time  to  come  until 
the  charter  may  be  changed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

does  this  preclude  a further  amendment? 
THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  MacMILLAN : Does  this  pre- 

clude a further  amendment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  no  further  amendments  be 
stated  before  the  motion  is  put. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  May  we  have  a 

separate  vote  in  regard  to  the  architect? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor— 

MR.  WHITE:  What  is  the  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is  to 


exempt  the  chief  architect  from  the 
operation  of  the  civil  service  law. 

MR.  WHITE:  While  not  wishing  to 

take  the  time  of  the  Convention  but  for 
a moment,  Mr.  Chairman,  I think  I am 
as  familiar  with  the  civil  service  law 
as  any  one,  and  I think  it  is  a fact 
that  very  often  in  the  very  important 
position  of  that  kind  you  can  get  a man 
who  is  very  incompetent  as  compared 
with  some  other  men,  if  you  have  the 
opportunity  of  going  out  and  choosing 
him  just  as  a business  firm  has.  Often- 
times men  may  pass  a civil  service  ex- 
amination, but  it  does  not  mean  that  he 
is  the  best  man  for  the  particular  posi- 
tion. I think  such  an  important  office 
should  be  exempt  whatever  he  is  under 
the  law  at  the  present  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor— 

MR.  POST:  Roll  call,  please. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  roll  will  be 

called  on  the  motion  to  exempt  the  chief 
architect  from  the  operation  of  the  civil 
service  law. 

MR.  COLE:  Let  us  understand.  He 

is  now  under  the  civil  service  law,  and 
we  are  going  to  take  him  from  under  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  not 

prepared  to  answer  any  more  conun- 
drums than  he  is  compelled  to.  The 
amendment  is  to  take  the  architect  out  of 
the  civil  service.  Call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Carey, 
Crilly,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Jones,  McGoorty, 
O ’Donnell,  Oehne,  Patterson,  Raymer, 
Revell,  Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shedd, 
Swift,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  White,  Wilkins 
—21. 

Nays — Bennett,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McKinley, 
Merriam,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Shana- 
han, Shepard,  Sunny,  Werno,  Zimmer 
— 23. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  RITTER:  Pass. 

MR.  POST:  T wish  to  explain  my 


December  22 


680 


1906 


vote.  The  civil  service  law  has  given 
to  the  school  board  of  Chicago  a most 
excellent  architect;  I do  not  believe 
in  making  his  tenure  of  office  depen- 
dent upon  the  result  of  next  spring’s 
election.  I therefore  vote  no. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I would  like  to  ex- 

plain my  vote.  While  I would  do  noth- 
ing to  dispossess  a personal  friend,  a 
man  whose  high  capacity  I know,  yet  I 
cannot  vote  for  a charter  which  will  com- 
pel me  to  keep  even  a man  whom  I regard 
highly,  even  though  he  is  in  office  at  the 
present  time.  I therefore  vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  exclude  the  architects  from  the  pur- 
view of  the  civil  service  law,  the  yeas 
are  21  and  the  nays  23,  and  the  archi- 
tect will  remain  under  civil  service. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I desire  to 

hand  in  a report  from  the  Committee  on 
Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan,  with 
reference  to  the  matter  referred  to  the 
committee,  Section  3.  I will  now  hand 
it  up  to  the  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  report  will 

be  received  and  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings. Are  there  any  further  amend- 
ments? 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I have  an  amend- 

ment in  that  line,  and  in  the  line  of 
the  few  feeble  remarks  I made  a while 
ago,  about  ‘ 1 consistency,  thou  art  a 
jewel,”  or  words  to  that  effect.  I move 
to  amend  line  7 in  the  third  paragraph, 
line  7 after  the  word  “law,”  “said 
superintendent  and  said  business  man- 
ager to  be  elected  by  a two-thirds  vote  of 
the  entire  board.  ’ ’ 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I rise  to  a point 
of  order.  I think  that  ought  to  be  taken 
up  as  a separate  section. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : This  goes  in  here, 

all  right.  If  it  is  a separate  section  it 
will  be  lost  in  the  shuffle — or  words 
to  that  effect;  I don’t  know  what  that 
means,  but  a brother  just  helped  me 
out  with  it.  I think  that  is  where  it 
belongs,  that  is  the  place  for  it  to  go 
in.  Vote  it  down  if  you  want  to,  but 


I would  like  to  be  consistent.  You  might 
take  a viva  voce  vote  on  it,  if  you  want 
to. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secretary 
read  Mr.  MacMillan’s  amendment. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Before  Mr.  Mac: 
Millan ’s  amendment  is  acted  upon  I 
have  an  amendment  I sent  to  the  clerk’s 
desk,  as  amended  by  Mr.  Rosenthal,  which 
ought  to  be  acted  upon  first. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  involves 

the  entire  section. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Not  necessarily; 

it  applies  to  the  first  part. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  Mr. 

Shanahan’s  motion? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  me  have 

that.  Mr.  Shanahan ’s  motion  is  to  strike 
out  in  line  3 the  word  “manager,”  and 
down  to  the  word  and  including  “desig- 
nate, ’ ’ and  insert  these  names — insert  in 
lieu  thereof  “superintendent  of  schools, 
business  manager,  attorney  and  audi- 
tor.” Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 
As  many  as  favor  the  amendment  will 
signify  by  saying  aye;  those  opposed, 
no.  The  amendment  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  is  the  next 

amendment? 

MR.  MacMILLAN : For  the  purpose 

of  making  clear  my  amendment,  I pres- 
ently withdraw'  it  for  the  purpose  of 
reintroducing  it  and  making  it  a separ- 
ate paragraph  later  on. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  section  as  amended? 

( Cries  of  1 1 Question.  ’ ’ ) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor that  will  signify  by  saying  aye. 

MR,  McGOORTY : I do  not  know  as 

I have  the  full  purport  of  Senator  Mac- 
Millan’s  amendment;  but  it  seems  to 
me  in  order  to  be  consistent,  having  pro- 
vided, in  the  third  paragraph  that  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  board  must  be  had 
to  remove  the  officers  designated  there, 
the  superintendent  of  education  and  the 
business  manager,  that  the  first  section 
ought  to  be  amended  so  that  those  par- 


December  22 


681 


1906 


ticular  officers  should  require  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  board  to  be  appointed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  cannot  be 

considered,  Mr.  McGoorty,  at  the  present 
time;  we  have  under  consideration  this 
particular  section.  If  it  is  inconsistent 
with  some  other  section,  it  can  be  taken 
off  after  this  is  disposed  of.  Manifestly 
we  cannot  dispose  of  two  sections  at  the 
same  time. 

MR.  MeGOORTY:  What  has  the 

Chair  reference  to,  to  the  section  or  to 
the  paragraph? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  entire  sec- 

tion ; the  third  paragraph  of  section  7. 

MR.  REYELL:  The  motion  is  the 

adoption  of  the  entire  section. 

MR.  MeGOORTY : I submit  if  the 

whole  section  is  now  before  the  Con- 
vention for  consideration 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  do  you 

mean  by  “the  whole  section?” 

MR.  MeGOORTY : I mean  the  three 

paragraphs. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  third  para- 

graph of  Section  7 is  under  considera- 
tion. 

MR.  MeGOORTY:  Oh,  yes. 

MR.  RITTER:  I had  hoped  that  I 

should  be  recognized  before  Mr.  Shana- 
han ’s  motion  was  put,  in  order  to  ask 
him  to  except  among  those  exempted, 
the  chief  truant  officer,  if  he  is  not  now 
under  the  civil  service  law. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : He  is  now  under 

the  civil  service  law. 

MR.  RITTER:  All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Let  us  hear  the 

amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  section 

be  read  as  amended. 

THE  SECRETARY:  The  section  as 

amended  is  the  third  paragraph  under 
No.  7 at  page  645: 

“The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  schools,  and  a busi- 
ness manager,  attorney  and  auditor  shall 
not  be  subject  to  the  civil  service  law, 


but  they  shall  be  removable  only  for 
cause,  by  a vote  of  not  less  than  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  board, 
upon  written  charges  to  be  heard  by  the 
board  on  due  notice  to  the  officers 
charged  therewith,  but  pending  the  hear- 
ing of  the  charges  such  officers  may  by 
two-thirds  vote  be  suspended  by  the 
board. 1 ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

( Cries  of  ‘ 1 Question.  ’ ’ ) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  fa- 

vor that  section  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

MR.  COLE:  I move  to  strike  out  all 

of  Sections  8 and  9 as  irrelevant. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : Before  that  is 

put,  I would  like  to  call  up  a paragraph 
to  be  added  to  Section  7. 

MR.  COLE : I am  willing  to  yield, 

if  I may  have  the  floor  after  that  matter 
is  disposed  of. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  A paragraph 

which  would  be  called  paragraph  4 to 
Section  7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

wflll  read  the  same. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Mac- 
Millan: Paragraph  4,  Section  7.  The 

concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  board  shall  be  required 
to  appoint  the  superintendent  of  schools 
and  business  manager.  ’ ’ 

(Cries  of  “ Question.  ’ ’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  covers  the 

point  made  by  Mr.  McGoorty,  I believe. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : Yes,  sir,  I think 

so. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  As  many  as  favor  the 
resolution  will  signify  by  saying  aye; 
those  opposed,  no.  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll  on  that. 

Yeas — Bennett,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Cole, 
Crilly,  Ritter,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.,  Eidmann,  Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linchan,  MacMillan, 
McGoorty,  McKinley,  O’Donnell,  Oehne* 


December  22 


682 


1906 


Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Revell,  Rosenthal, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Sunny, 
Werno,  White — 30. 

Nays— Carey,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Erick- 
son, Jones,  Merriam,  Owens,  Patterson, 
Post,  Taylor,  Yopicka,  Zimmer — 11. 

MR.  HILL:  I would  like  to  explain 

my  vote.  It  seems  clear  to  me  that  these 
officers  can  only  be  removed  by  a two- 
thirds  vote,  and  if  that  is  the  case,  it 
seems  to  me  they  should  be  appointed 
by  a two-thirds  vote.  But  it  also  seems 
clear  to  me  if  they  are  appointed  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  and  can  only  be  removed 
by  a two-thirds  vote,  that  it  is  abso- 
lutely unnecessary  to  fix  a long  term  of 
office.  I don’t  think  we  are  quite  con- 
sistent on  this  proposition.  If  it  takes 
two-thirds  to  appoint  those  officers  their 
tenure  of  office  is  practically  secured;  I 
don ’t  see  where  there  is  any  necessity 
of  putting  in  a long  term  of  office.  In 
view  of  that  I vote  aye,  although  I think 
we  are  inconsistent  in  the  whole  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Mac- 

Millan’s motion,  the  yeas  are  30  and  the 
nays  11,  and  the  motion  is  carried. 

MR.  COLE : Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

to  strike  out  all  of  Sections  8 and  9 as 
irrelevant.  It  is  just  lumbering  up  this 
charter  with  something  that  can  be  taken 
care  of  in  the  code. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I beg  leave  to  differ 

with  Mr.  Cole,  and  hope  that  the  sec- 
tions will  be  retained.  They  safeguard 
the  prerogatives  of  both  these  executive 
officers  in  giving  them  initiative.  If  they 
do  not  have  initiative  their  office  amounts 
to  very  little.  The  selection  of  text  books 
and  the  appointment  of  their  subor- 
dinates, if  not  already  provided  for,  in 
any  one  of  the  charter  provisions.  I 
wish,  however,  in  justice  to  the  mover 
of  a section  corresponding  to  this  in  the 
original  report,  to  make  an  explanation 
while  I hm  on  my  feet. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 

is  upon  Mr.  Cole’s  motion  that  both 
these  sections  be  stricken  out. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Very  well. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  the  Chair 

will  suggest  that  we  stick  to  our  mutton. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I am  giving  reasons 

why  they  should  be  kept  in.  In  the  origi- 
nal report  the  location  of  school  build- 
ings, the  adoption  of  plans  and  specifi- 
cations for  said  buildings,  for  school  and 
educational  supplies  shall  be  made  only 
after  consultation  •with  the  superinten- 
dent of  schools.  Therefore  this  proviso 
wras  put  in  under  Section  2,  that  upon 
failure  to  make  such  a recommendation 
within  a reasonable  time  after  demand 
the  board  may  make  appointments,  pro- 
motions and  transfers,  and  adopt  text- 
books and  educational  apparatus  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  all  its  members.  That 
was  not  in  the  original  article,  but  it  is 
in  the  sections  which  Mr.  Cole  moves  to 
strike  out.  I submit  this  is  a valuable 
safeguard  of  the  superintendent ’s  initia- 
tive, and  it  will  make  the  office  attractive 
to  men  of  better  calibre.  I hope  the  sec- 
tion will  be  retained. 

MR.  JONES : I think  Mr.  Cole ’s  mo- 

tion should  be  voted  down.  I think  we 
should  consider  in  detail  each  of  these 
paragraphs.  There  are  only  two  of 
them,  I believe,  which  are  open  to  criti- 
cism, and  possibly  those  after  a discus- 
sion will  be  found  not  necessary  to  be 
incorporated  in  the  charter. 

Now,  with  respect  to  the  superinten- 
dent appointing  his  assistants,  I think 
very  strong  arguments  are  to  be  made 
in  favor  of  the  superintendent  nominat- 
ing those  assistants,  and  on  some  of 
these  other  questions,  I believe  that  the 
superintendent  should  have  certain  rights 
secured  to  him  by  the  charter,  and  if  Mr. 
Cole’s  motion  is  carried  this  whole  mat- 
ter would  be  disposed  of  without  our 
having  had  an  opportunity  to  hear  the 
pros  and  cons  upon  this  and  other  im- 
portant matters. 

MR.  WHITE:  I rather  suspect  that 

Mr.  Cole’s  motion  is  suggested  in  the 
interests  of  brevity,  perhaps;  but  I con- 
tend that  for  the  sake  of  getting  a brief 
proposition  before  the  Legislature  we 


December  22 


683 


1906 


ought  not  to  cut  out  of  the  charter  a 
few  things,  which,  in  my  judgment,  are 
the  most  essential  features  of  this  pro- 
posed charter.  I noticed  that  the  St. 
Louis  charter,  to  refer  to  it  again,  is 
very  careful  to  make  similar  provisions — 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Will  Dr.  White  per- 

mit a question  on  that  point?  Is  it  not 
true  that  St.  Louis  has  a home  rule  char- 
ter and  they  can  make  laws  without  re- 
ferring to  the  Legislature?  In  other 
words,  there  is  a code  there,  is  there 
not? 

MR.  WHITE:  Well,  I don’t  know. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  They  may  alter  it 

themselves. 

MR.  WHITE:  I was  not  attempting, 

Mr.  Chairman,  nor  shall  I attempt  to 
define  their  charter  or  code;  they  are 
technical  terms  to  me;  but  in  the  char- 
ter or  code,  the  St.  Louis  charter  or 
code,  they  are  very  careful  to  provide 
for  all  this.  Now,  if  there  is  any  es- 
sential duty  devolving  upon  the  superin- 
tendent of  instruction,  or  upon  an  edu- 
cational expert,  it  is  that  in  the  impor- 
tant matters  of  educational  initiative  he 
shall  have  certain  well  defined  rights 
that  cannot  be  changed  at  the  whim  of 
or  under  the  impulse  of  eight  members 
of  the  board  at  any  given  meeting. 

I am  speaking  from  a somewhat  care- 
ful study  of  this  whole  situation,  and  I 
am  thoroughly  and  fully  convinced  that 
if  you  cut  out  these  provisions  giving 
the  superintendent  certain  powers  of 
initiative  in  the  matter  of  text  books, 
you  have  taken  away  what  is  a very 
essential  thing,  for  which  some  of  us 
struggled  and  fought  in  this  city  for 
the  last  seven  or  eight  years,  feeling  the 
necessity  of  that.  I believe  we  should 
take  this. up  section  by  section.  There 
may  be  one  or  two  here  that  are  not 
very  important;  but  what  are  one  or 
two?  What  we  want  to  got  absolutely 
is  the  very  best  possible  school  system 
for  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  I sincerely 
trust  that  Mr.  Cole’s  motion  will  not 


prevail,  and  that  we  will  consider  this 
section  by  section. 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

MR.  MERRIAM:  We  started  out  to 

make,  not  a code  for  the  City  of  Chicago, 
but  to  get  a grant  of  broad  general 
powers,  and  we  have  had  quite  a lot  of 
discussion  up  to  date.  I take  the  posi- 
tion that  we  are  now  proceeding,  instead 
of  getting  broader  and  fuller  grants  of 
power,  we  are  now  proceeding  section  by 
section  to  do  ourselves  harm,  by  lim- 
iting the  powder,  by  restricting  our  au- 
thority, by  binding  ourselves  down  to 
this  sort  of  a detailed,  restricted  enumer- 
ation of  powers. 

We  have  spent  more  time  already  upon 
these  few'  sections  than  w^e  did  upon  the 
fundamental  and  very  important  mat- 
ter of  revenue.  We  have  adopted  a mo- 
tion as  to  whether  the  age  of  school  chil- 
dren, the  minimum  age,  should  be  six 
years  or  seven  years;  we  have  adopted 
the  question  as  to  wrhether  the  architect 
or  the  auditor  or  the  attorney  should  be 
under  civil  service,  or  should  not  be;  we 
are  about  to  discuss  now  whether  we 
shall  take  up  these  two  sections  and 
discuss  then  minutely  and  in  detail.  Now, 
on  the  question  of  wrhether  or  not  the 
superintendent  should  be  consulted  in 
regard  to  the  location  of  school  buildings, 
is  not  a very  important  matter;  what 
do  we  care,  and  why  should  we  decide 
upon  whether  he  should'  be  consulted  or 
not?  Why  make  a law  supported  by 
penal  sections  of  statute  and  enforced 
by  the  police  and  judiciary  regarding 
as  to  whether  or  not  the  superintendent 
of  schools  be  consulted?  Is  that  impor- 
tant? I take  the  position  that  that  merely 
cumbers  up  the  charter  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  and  involves  us  more  deeply 
in  the  morass  and  detail.  We 
have  already  provided  in  regard 
to  the  fundamental  things,  that 
the  Board  of  Education  should  be 
reduced  to  a number— cut  down  to  fifteen 
members;  we  have  provided  that  the 
rules  of  the  board  shall  not  be  changed, 


December  22 


684 


1906 


and  so  forth,  except  at  regular  meetings 
and  by  a majority  vote  of  its  members; 
we  have  provided  that  there  shall  be  a 
superintendent  of  schools;  we  have  pro- 
vided that  there  shall  be  a business  man- 
ager; we  have  decided  and  provided  that 
these  officers  should  be  appointed  by  a 
two-thirds  vote,  and  removed  only  by  a 
two-thirds  vote.  It  seems  to  me  if  we 
go  further  and  take  up  in  minute  detail 
the  duties  of  these  officers  as  contem- 
plated by  these  things,  that  we  are 
going  beyond  the  original  scope  of  our 
work.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  we  are 
desirous  of  being  free  from  what  has 
been  the  difficulty  and  danger  in  this 
regard,  that  we  are  going  on  the  back 
track.  Therefore,  I support  Mr.  Cole’s 
motion  to  strike  out  Sections  8 and  9. 

(Cries  of  ‘‘Question.”) 

ME.  COLE:  Just  a word;  I just 

merely  wish  to  say  in  answer  to  Dr. 
White ’s  remarks  that  he  thought  I might 
be  doing  this  for  the  sake  of  brevity, 
that  that  is  not  it,  that  I am  doing  it 
in  the  interest  of  home  rule. 

I want  to  say  that  possibly  I don ’t 
know  much  about  educational  plans  or 
matters  concerned  with  education.  I am 
not  a graduate  of  the  public  schools 
of  Chicago ; I was  educated  in  the  ‘ ‘ little 
red  school  house  ’ ’ and  I didn ’t  quite 
get  through  there  either;  but  I do  be- 
lieve that  we  should  not  lumber  up  this 
charter  with  a lot  of  truck  that  could 
be  taken  care  of  in  the  code.  I am  in 
favor  of  home  rule,  and  when  these 
matters  are  brought  up  in  our  City 
Council  at  home  they  can  be  taken  care 
of  here,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  take 
them  down  to  Springfield,  and  make  this 
charter  any  heavier  than  it  is  now  by 
lumbering  it  up.  You  may  get  the  char- 
ter too  heavy.  I think  these  two  sec- 
tions ought  to  be  eliminated,  that  those 
matters  can  be  taken  care  of  by  the 
code.  Therefore,  I wish  to  say  that  I 
did  not  make  this  motion  in  the  inter- 
est of  brevity,  but  I make  it  in  the  in- 


terest of  home  rule,  because  I believe 
they  are  irrelevant. 

ME.  WHITE:  I would  like  to  ask 

the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Conven- 
tion for  one  word  more,  if  I may  have 
the  opportunity.  I would  like  to  say 
another  word  on  this  question. 

(Cries  of  ‘‘Unanimous  consent.”) 

THE  CHAIBMAN : I think  you  have 

the  unanimous  consent 

ME.  WHITE:  The  proposition,  Mr. 

Chairman,  of  electing  an  expert  super- 
intendent of  instruction  is  simply  to 
have  at  the  head  of  the  educational  af- 
fairs of  this  city  a man  who  knows. 
Suppose  you  cut  out  these  sections  which 
provide  for  the  election  and  the  tenure 
of  office  of  such  men,  you  have  left  the 
adjustment  of  these  matters,  these  edu- 
cational functions,  in  the  hands  of  eight 
members  of  the  board,  who  may  make 
rules. 

ME.  COLE:  ; May  I ask  a question? 

ME.  WHITE:  I should  prefer  not 

to  answer  until  a little  later,  if  you  have 
no  objection.  Now,  it  is  not  in  the  in- 
terests of  home  rule  in  any  way  at  all 
to  cut  these  things  out ; it  is  in  the 
interests  of  eight  members  of  the  board, 
who  make  the  rules  under  which  the 
superintendent  shall  work. 

Let  me  give  you  an  illustration:  If, 

for  instance,  you  need  in  the  school  sys- 
tem of  Chicago  an  educational  expert, 
one  who  would  be  competent  in  the  se- 
lection of  text  books,  say,  what  other 
man  connected  with  the  entire  teaching 
force,  an  assistant  to  the  superintendents 
and  teachers,  as  he  should  be,  if  he  is 
a wise  man,  should  be  so  fitted  to  suggest 
the  kind  of  text  books  to  be  used,  we 
will  say,  as  the  educational  expert?  You 
don ’t  expect  that  your  eight  members 
will  be  as  well  versed  in  tb£  selection 
of  these  important  matters  as  the  educa- 
tional expert,  do  you,  who  is  elected  for 
that  purpose?  Suppose  any  time  the 
board,  eight  members  of  it,  should  take 
it  upon  their  shoulders  to  frame  a set 
of  rules  such  as  would  take  away  from 


December  22 


685 


1906 


the  superintendent  absolutely — as  they 
might  and  could  do  at  any  time — the  se- 
lection of  text  books,  or  suggestions  to 
the  board  itself  as  to  what  text  books 
should  be  used?  Then  you  see  one  of 
the  most  important  matters  becomes  open 
to  the  charge  of  corruption,  of  pull  and 
of  bribery,  and  all  serious  things  come 
into  the  hands  of  the  majority,  the  eight 
men.  Do  you  want  to  re-establish  in 
this  system  of  schools  things  that  have 
existed  in  the  past,  and  which  have  be- 
come a steneh  in  the  nostrils  of  decent 
men?  Do  you  want  to  concentrate  educa- 
tional responsibility  and  the  selection  of 
text  books  into  the  hands  of  an  educa- 
tional expert  whom  you  can  hold  respon- 
sible for  success  or  failure? 

Gentlemen,  believe  me  this  is  one  of 
the  most  important  elements  of  this  whole 
educational  end  of  the  charter,  and  you 
make  the  mistake  of  your  lives  if  you 
leave  this  to  eight  members  of  any  future 
board.  That  board  may  be  absolutely 
an  honest  one,  but  it  might  take  it  into 
its  head  to  say  at  some  time,  “We  will 
manage  this  matter  of  text  books,  gen- 
tlemen, ” and  what  then?  They  may 
take  it  upon  themselves  to  say,  “We  will 
frame  new  rules  by  which  we  ourselves 
may  appoint  a sub-committee  to  select 
text  books,  irrespective  of  the  education- 
al expert  and  of  the  teaching  forces.  ’ ’ 
They  could  do  that  at  any  time,  and 
then  you  have  thrown  this  selection  of 
text  books  into  the  hands  of  incompe- 
tent men,  an  incompetent  gathering  of 
men.  By  taking  this  question  out  of 
the  hands  of  the  educational  expert  you 
have  done  that  which  almost  insures  in- 
efficient service.  By  doing  that  you  not 
only  have  done  it  with  regard  to  public 
school  functions,  the  present  public 
school  functions,  but  you  have  opened 
the  whole  way  in  the  future  to  charges 
of  bribery,  all  sorts  of  bribery  and  all 
sorts  of  corruption,  and  all  sorts  of 
wrong.  That  is  not  a thing  that  we 
want  to  do  at  all.  We  want  to  be  able 
to  lay  our  hands  upon  one  man  when 


things  go  wrong,  when  there  are  sus- 
picions of  bribery  and  of  corruption  and 
be  able  to  say,  “Thou  art  the  man,” 
and  not  be  in  a position  to  have  to 
fasten  the  responsibility  and  distribute 
the  responsibility  for  the  right  or 
wrong  among  eight  men. 

I tell  you  it  is  wrong  to  strike  out 
these  sections,  and  if  you  do  not  make 
this  provision  in  your  charter  and  center 
these  powers  in  the  hands  of  your  super- 
intendent, in  this  important  matter,  in 
these  important  educational  matters,  you 
practically  eliminate  from  this  charter 
the  one  thing  of  all  other  things  that 
we  need.  You  have  been  very  careful, 
Mr.  Chairman,  to  insert  in  this  charter 
or  code  certain  things  that  are  unessen- 
tial ; but  here  is  a proposition  to  elimi- 
nate here  what  every  educational  man 
in  the  country  who  knows  the  operation 
of  school  boards  and  the  situation  that 
has  obtained  in  the  past, — to  eliminate 
from  this  code  or  charter  that  provision 
is  a great  mistake,  gentlemen,  and  some 
time  or  another  if  you  do  that  you  will 
become  aware  of  it  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  will  be  sorry  for  it.  I hope 
that  it  will  not  be  done. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

action  of  the  committee  upon  this  matter 
was  very  deliberate.  Yes,  the  commit- 
tee’s report.  The  idea  of  the  commit- 
tee, put  it  very  briefly,  was  to  compel 
the  Board  of  Education  to  recognize  cer- 
tain responsibilities  and  certain  duties 
which  we  desired  the  superintendent  of 
the  schools  to  have,  and  not  to  leave  it 
to  the  board  to  act  upon  them  as  they 
saw  fit.  I sincerely  hope  that  you  will 
vote  down  this  proposed  amendment,  and 
proceed  to  act  upon  this  section  by  sec- 
tion or  paragraph  by  paragraph. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

heartily  concur  in  the  position  taken  by 
Dr.  Taylor  and  Dr.  White  on  this  pro- 
position. While  I am  as  much  in  favor 
of  a home  rule  charter  as  any  one,  I 
can  see  danger  in  leaving  these  pro- 
visions out.  These  provisions,  if  you 


December  22 


686 


1906 


will  study  them,  are  restrictive  on  the 
Board  of  Education. 

The  Board  of  'Education  which,  if  it 
is  left  to  a home  rule  charter,  will  have 
the  enacting  of  these  provisions.  I do 
not  believe  that  you  will  ever  get  a Board 
of  Education  which  wrill  pass  laws  or  or- 
dinances which  restrict  their  own  con- 
trol, and  for  that  reason  I am  in  favor 
of  inserting  these  provisions  in  the  char- 
ter. 

MR.  HILL : Mr.  Chairman,  for  infor- 

mation, I would  like  to  ask  Dr.  White 
one  question : Are  we  to  understand, 

Doctor,  that  the  Board  of  Education  will 
not  have  the  power  to  select  text  books 
without  the  consent  of  the  superinten- 
dent? 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  that  is 

already  provided  for  in  this  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Cole’s  motion. 

MR.  WHITE:  May  I answer  this 

question,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Why? 

MB.  WHITE:  Because  the  gentle- 

man asked  me. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Chair 

make  a statement.  Mr.  Cole ’s  motion 
is  to  strike  these  two  sections  out,  and 
until  that  motion  is  disposed  of  there 
need  be  no  discussion  as  to  the  contents 
of  the  various  sections  to  be  stricken 
out. 

MR.  HILL:  That  may  affect  the 

vote  of  every  gentleman  here, — the  ques- 
tion I am  asking;  I know  it  will  affect 
mine. 

MR.  WHITE:  May  I answer  that 

question,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  WHITE:  It  is  provided  here 

specifically  in  this  second  paragraph,  as 
it  ought  to  be  provided,  that  in  case 
the  superintendent  refuses  or  delays  such 
suggestions  or  selections  then  the  board 
may  proceed  to  do  that  themselves. 

MR.  HILL:  That  does  not  answer 

my  question,  Pr.  White,  that  does  not 
answer  my  question,  that  in  case  if  he 


does  not  recommend  a series  of  text 
books,  the  board  may  do  so. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I rise  to  a point 

of  order.  This  is  a discussion  now  of 
the  details  of  these  sections,  and  the 
question  is  whether  we  should  consider 
the  details  at  all. 

MR.  HILL:  Let  me  explain  one  mo- 

ment, and  then  you  will  see  what  I am 
trying  to  get  at,  and  it  is  for  informa- 
tion purely,  and  not  for  discussion  ai  all. 
As  I read  this,  if  the  superintendent 
does  not  recommend  any  series  of  text 
books,  the  board  may,  but  if  the  super- 
intendent does  recommend  any  series  of 
text  books,  the  board  has  no  power  to 
go  back  of  that  at  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  these  sections  speak  for 
themselves  and  they  cover  those  sub- 
jects and  they  may  be  amended  when 
they  are  taken  up  section  by  section; 
but  the  question  now  is  whether  they 
shall  be  considered,  and  until  that  mo- 
tion is  put,  all  this  discussion  upon  the 
contents  of  these  sections  is  out  or  or- 
der. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  move  that  the  question  be  di- 
vided so  that  following  the  custom  of 
this  Convention,  each  paragraph  may  be 
considered  by  itself. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not see  how  Mr.  Cole’s  motion  to  reject 
everything  can  be  divided. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Well,  that  is  that 

we  take  it  up  paragraph  by  paragraph. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  the  Conven- 

tion will  vote  Mr.  Cole’s  motion  down, 
a second  motion  can  be  made  to  take  up 
whatever  it  pleases,  but  the  motion  now 
will  be  upon  Mr.  Cole’s  motion  to  strike 
out  Section  8 and  9 and  the  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Cole,  Ritter,  Erickson,  Guerin, 
Hill,  Linehan,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Patterson,  Post, 
Shanahan — 13. 

Nays  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Carey,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.; 


December  22 


687 


1906 


Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Eidmann,  Gansbergen, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  MacMillan, 
McGoorty,  Oehne,  Raymer,  Revell,  Ro- 
senthal, Sethness,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sun- 
ny, Taylor,  Yopicka,  Werno,  White, 
Zimmer — 28. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

speak  on  this  question  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 
to  reject? 

MR.  HILL:  May  I explain  my  vote? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  HILL:  Now,  if  I understand 

the  English  language,  and  I always  had 
an  idea  since  I arrived  at  the  age  of 
discretion  that  I understood  something 
about  it,  this  section  does  not  say  or  at 
least  leads  to  the  conclusion  that  if 
the  superintendent  of  education  does 
not  recommend,  or  if  he  should  recom- 
mend one  series  of  books,  the  Board  of 
Education  has  no  power  to  go  over  his 
head  and  select  another. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I rise  to  a point  of  order. 

MR.  HILL:  I want  to  explain  my 

vote,  and  I believe  I have  some  rights 
here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think,  perhaps, 

we  had  better  let  Mr.  Hill  explain  his 
vote. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I think 

I can  answer  Mr.  Hill’s  question. 

MR.  HILL:  I desire,  Mr.  Chairman, 

an  opportunity  to  explain  my  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  cannot  be 

any  discussion  of  this  matter.  Let  the 
Secretary  proceed  with  the  roll  call. 

MR.  HILL:  I want  to  be  recorded  as 

voting  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hill  votes 

aye. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Hill,  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  amend  Mr. 

Cole’s  motion  to  strike  out  Sections  8 
and  9,  the  yeas  are  13  and  the  nays  are 
28,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I move  that  when  we  adjourn  we  ad- 


journ till  next  Wednesday  afternoon,  at 
2 o’clock. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  motion  I 

wanted  to  make  is  that  we  adjourn  to 
meet  on  Wednesday,  Thursday  and  Fri- 
day afternoons,  at  2 o’clock,  and  that 
when  we  adjourn  now,  we  meet  again 
on  Wednesday  afternoon,  at  2 o’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 
vor signify  by  saying  aye 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I move  that  we 

meet  on  Thursday  for  the  first  time. 

MR.  WERNO  : There  are  some  mem- 

bers of  the  City  Council  who  are  not 
able  to  be  here,  who  are  also  members 
of  this  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  meeting 

can  be  called  for  the  morning. 

MR.  WERNO:  When? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Wednesday  after- 
noon. The  Chair  will  put  the  motion. 
All  those  in  favor  of  the  motion,  signify 
by  saying  aye;  all  those  opposed,  no. 
The  motion  is  carried.  Let  the  Secre- 
tary read  the  next  section. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I move  that  we  take 
that  up  section  by  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  it  will  be  so  ordered. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  1,  of  Section 
VIII. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  I move  the 

adoption  of  No.  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  No.  1 say  aye;  opposed,  no.  It 
is  carried.  The  Secretary  will  read  the 
next  section. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  2. 

MR.  REVELL:  I move  its  adoption. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  Mr. 

Hill  asked  a question,  which  I think  is 
a very  pertinent  one  in  respect  to  this 
section.  Now,  the  committee  made  a 
report  on  this  point,  and  the  report  is 
printed  on  page  13  of  the  record,  and 
that  report,  as  I understand  it,  is  en- 
tirely different  from  this  section,  as  it 
has  been  presented  by  Dr.  Taylor.  The 
point  that  Mr.  Hill  made  hits  the  nail 
on  the  head.  It  will  be  noted  on  page 


December  22 


688 


1906 


13  after  stating  that  nominations  shall 
be  made  for  the  superintendent,  it  can- 
tains  this  proviso,  the  first  column  of 
page  13:  “ Provided  that  the  Board  of 
Education  may  make  appointments  and 
introduce  text  books  and  educational 
apparatus  by  a two-thirds  vote  of  all 
its  members.  ’ ’ That  is,  by  a two-thirds 
vote  it  should  go  over  the  head  of  the 
superintendent.  And  the  way  Dr.  Tay- 
lor has,  without  authority,  made  it  is 
that  he  has  inserted  the  words:  “Upon 
his  failure  to  make  such  recommenda- 
tion within  a reasonable  time” — that 
after  a time  they  can  do  this  by  a two- 
thirds  vote.  And  now  I believe  that 
changes  the  spirit  of  the  committee’s 
recommendation  entirely  and  makes  it 
an  absolutely  useless  recommendation. 
If  I were  a member  of  the  school  board 
and  the  superintendent  should  refuse  to 
recommend,  I would  vote  in  favor  of 
his  discharge — of  discharging  that  su- 
perintendent at  once;  and  I believe  that 
if  we  are  to  vote  on  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  committee,  we  should  con- 
sider the  proviso  as  it  is  printed  on 
page  13,  which  is  a very  different  mat- 
ter from  that  which  is  printed  in  this 
paragraph  2. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  a moment. 

The  Convention  voted  to  consider  this 
as  a substitute  for  the  printed  com- 
mittee’s report.  There  seems  to  be  no 
reason  why  the  committee ’s  report 
should  not  be  moved  as  a substitute  to 
that  if  Senator  Jones  wishes  to  bring  it 
before  the  house. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

you  as  a substitute  that  in  paragraph 
2,  page  645,  after  the  words,  “on  the 
recommendation  of  the  superintendent” 
— that  they  be  erased,  and  that  the  fol- 
lowing be  substituted  in  lieu  thereof: 
“provided  that  the  Board  of  Education 
may  make  appointments  and  introduce 
text  books  and  educational  apparatus 
upon  a two-thirds  vote  of  all  its  mem- 


bers. ’ ’ I have  quoted  that  portion  from 
page  13  of  the  record. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  devoted 
considerable  time  to  the  discussion  of 
this  matter.  I do  not  think  we  should 
discuss  it  partly  today  and  partly  next 
Wednesday,  and  I move  you,  therefore, 
that  we  adjourn. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I rise  to  speak  just 

a word  on  that  motion.  If  we  can  spend 
half  an  hour  here  discussing  these  sev- 
eral provisions,  we  should  get  just  that 
much  further  along.  We  have  got  this 
thing  in  our  minds 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  we 

have  not  adjourned  yet. 

MR.  POST:  Well,  I move  to  strike 

out  his-  remarks. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I want  to  say,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  I think  the  Convention 
acted  hastily  in  providing  for  Wednes- 
day afternoon.  There  is  an  important 
meeting  of  the  local  transportation 
committee  for  that  afternoon  and  Borne 
members  of  the  Convention  will  be 
there  on  Wednesday  afternoon.  Con- 
sequently we  could  not  have  the  meet- 
ing then.  I would  like  to  attend  this 
Convention,  if  possible,  but  I cannot  be 
in  two  places  at  once.  It  will  affect  the 
Chairman  of  the  Convention  as  well.  I 
think  we  should  meet  on  Thursday,  not 
Wednesday. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  at  a time, 

gentlemen. 

MR.  ZIM1VIER:  I have  no  objection 

to  Wednesday  night  or  Thursday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  require 

at  least  three  more  meetings  of  this 
Convention  to  complete  the  work  now 
on  the  Chairman’s  desk,  and  the  Chair 
is  not  desiring  to  force  any  meeting, 
but  if  you  are  going  to  adjourn  at  5 
o ’clock,  and  going*  to  start  half  an  hour 
late,  and  going  to  abbreviate  the  num- 
ber of  our  meetings,  it  is  unlikely  that 
we  will  ever  reach  an  end  of  our  task. 

MR,  ZIMMER:  It  is  no  fault  of 


December  22 


689 


1906 


mine  that  you  do  not  call  it  on  time.  I 
am  here  promptly  on  time  every  meet- 
ing of  this  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  But  unfortunate- 
ly you  and  I do  not  constitute  a quorum. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I think  the  majority 

of  the  members  of  this  Convention 
should  say  whether  we  should  meet  on 
Wednesday  or  Thursday. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

Convention  has  to  decide  upon  that  mat- 
ter. There  are  members  here  who  can- 
not be  here  Thursday. 

MR.  WERNO:  Let  us  make  it 

Wednesday  night. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  The  council  meeting 

is  Wednesday  night. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  is  a week 

from  Wednesday. 

MR.  WERNO:  The  City  Council 

doesn’t  meet  then? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  let 

us 

MR.  WERNO:  The  City  Council 

does  not  meet  until  January  the  second. 
That  is  a week  from  next  Wednesday. 

MR.  RE  YELL:  Let  us  have  a vote 

on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  meeting  Wednesday  night  and 
Thursday  afternoon  and  Friday  after- 
noon, say  aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is  car- 
ried. The  next  meeting  will  be  on 
Wednesday  night,  and  then  Thursday 
afternoon  and  Friday  afternoon. 

MR,  MacMILLAN:  Good. 

MR,  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I understand  there  is  a motion  made  to 
postpone  further  consideration  of  this 
question  here  until  the  next  meeting, 
and  I am  heartily  in  favor  of  such  post- 
ponement. The  adoption  of  this  sec- 
tion— 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I rise  to  a point 

of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal, 

let  Mr.  O’Donnell  finish. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  The  adoption  of 
this  section  here  as  printed  in  these  pro- 
ceedings means  the  abolition  entirely  of 


the  Board  of  Education,  if  it  is  car- 
ried as  set  out  here.  In  consequence  it 
is  the  most  important  section  that  we 
have  to  deal  with  in  this  whole  mat- 
ter, calling  for  the  most  earnest  con- 
sideration on  the  part  of  the  members 
of  this  Convention.  I suggest  that  it 
be  postponed  until  our  next  meeting. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  to  adjourn.  Before  that  motion 
is  put,  I would  like  to  have  the  resolu- 
tion introduced  by  Mr.  Patterson  read. 

MR.  PATTERSON:  Mr.  Chairman, 

will  you  have  the  clerk  read  my  resolu- 
tion? 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  PATTERSON:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

just  want  to  speak  one  minute  on  this 
proposition,  because,  probably,  I will 
not  be  here  when  it  is  called  up.  I 
consent  for  that  purpose. 

(Cries  of  1 ‘agreed.’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

MR.  PATTERSON:  This  proposition 

was  somewhat  considered  by  the  harbor 
committee,  but  the  committee  was  un- 
able to  report  in  time  and  in  due  form 
a law  which  would  take  care  of  this 
proposition.  Now,  this  which  we  pro- 
pose simply  means  that  the  jurisdiction 
of  land  now  occupied  by  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation,  and  by  the 
Chicago  Beach  Hotel,  and  by  the  other 
concerns  that  continue  to  appropriate 

land  without  any  let  or  hindrance 

that  the  jurisdiction  of  these  lands  shall 
be  vested  in  the  city. 

The  jurisdiction  of  these  lands  lies 
now  in  the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the 
State  of  Illinois  is  not  raising  a finger 
to  prevent  this  continued  stealing  and 
encroaching.  And  as  long  as  the  State 
of  Illinois  has  jurisdiction  over  these 
lands,  this  process,  as  far  as  we  can 
tell,  will  continue;  and  it  is  now  con- 
tinuing, and  nothing  will  be  done  to 
check  the  operation  of  these  great  con- 
cerns unless  some  such  proposition  is 
adopted. 


December  22 


690 


1906 


The  state,  as  far  as  I know,  has  not 
even  any  officers  to  enforce  provisions 
against  land  stealing;  if  it  has,  those 
officers  are  not  working.  They  have 
never  been  heard  from.  But  when  the 
city  has  undertaken  to  stop  and  prevent 
encroachment  by  these  concerns,  it  has 
been  met  by  the  fact  that  the  state 
should  enforce  the  laws. 

If  we  do  not  take  care  of  our  own 
harbor,  nobody  will.  If  we  don’t  take 
care  of  our  own  harbor,  the  steel  corpor- 
ation is  going  to  get  it. 

Now,  I make  these  remarks  without 
going  through  the  ordinary  parliamen- 
tary procedure,  because  I may  not  have 
another  chance;  but  it  is  mighty  im- 
portant that  this  matter  should  be  con- 
sidered for  the  people  of  this  city; 
whether  they  are  going  to  let  the  steel, 
corporation  take  it,  or  whether  we  will 
control  our  own  harbor.  If  we  do  not 
have  some  such  provision  as  this  in  the 
charter,  the  stealing  will  go  on.  Now, 
gentlemen,  if  we  want  something  effec- 
tive, something  that  is  going  to  give 
us  control  of  our  own  harbors,  we  will 
have  to  adopt  a provision  of  this  sort; 
and  when  it  comes  up  I hope  that  the 
members  of  this  Convention  will  see 
that  it  gets  a full  discussion. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I have  a resolution 

which  I would  like  to  have  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  resolu- 

tion be  read. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I ask  that  it  be 

deferred. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  me  say  that 

Mr.  Patterson ’s  resolution  will  be 
printed  in  the  proceedings  and  taken 
up  at  the  proper  time.  The  Secretary 
will  read  the  resolution  by  Mr.  Bennett. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as 
hereinafter  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be 

printed  and  deferred. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  I have  an- 

other resolution,  Mr.  Chairman. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart. 

The  Chair  has  an  announcement  to 
make  before  the  Convention  adjourns. 
The  Secretary  will  read  Mr.  Eckhart ’s 
resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as 
hereinafter  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  be 

printed.  I just  want  to  say  a word 
before  we  adjourn.  The  county  has  ap- 
pointed a Civil  Service  Commission  and 
has  requested  the  Chairman  of  this  Con- 
vention to  designate  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  Convention  to  act  with  that 
commission,  and  I appoint  Mr.  J.  W. 
Eckhart  as  the  representative  of  this 
Convention  at  that  civil  service  confer- 
ence. Is  there  any  further  business? 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

regard  to  the  proposition  submitted  by 
Mr.  Pattersona  moment  ago,  I have  been 
speaking  with  Mr.  Patterson  about  it 
and  the  suggestion  is  made  that  it 
should  be  submitted  to  the  law  commit- 
tee to  frame  a proper  provision  carry- 
ing out  the  provision  of  his  recommenda- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections,  it  will  be  so  ordered,  but  the 
Chair  is  fearful  it  will  not  get  a report 
from  the  law  committee. 

The  Chair  desires  to  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  civil  service  proposi- 
tion of  Mr.  Rosenthal  was  recommitted 
to  a committee  to  be  reported  upon  in 
ten  days.  It  is  somewhat  over  the  ten 
days  now. 

MR.  POST:  Before  adjournment,  I 

wish  to  say  in  reference  to  this  motion 
of  Mr.  Patterson,  regarding  Mr.  Patter- 
son’s  resolution,  it  seems  to  me  that  it 
should  be  accompanied  with  some  in- 
struction before  a report.  I hope  it  will 
be  made  a special  order  so  it  will  not 
be  lost  sight  of  somewhere  in  the  basket 
and  we  adjourn  without  considering  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  bear  it 

in  mind. 

MR.  POST:  I move  to  make  it  a 


December  22 


691 


1906 


special  order  for  Thursday  night.  We 
can  have  it  then  before  us  and  we  can 
•consider  it  Thursday  afternoon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Thursday  after- 

noon. Once  more:  Wednesday  night, 


Thursday  afternoon  and  Friday  after- 
noon. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Wednesday,  December  26th,  at 
7:30  o’clock  p.  m. 


December  22 


692 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 

1.  A complete  charter  shall  be  drawn 
and  submitted  to  the  Legislature  em- 
bodying the  resolutions  adopted  by  this 
Convention. 

Alternative  to  1.  Separate  bills  shall 
be  drawn  covering  the  following  sub- 
jects: 

a.  Consolidation  (including  parks), 

b.  Public  utilities, 

c.  Education, 

d.  Revenue, 

e.  Amendments  (if  any)  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act! 

f.  All  other  charter  provisions, 
which  shall  be  submitted  to  a separate 
vote  for  adoption. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 


ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ite  provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 


December  22 


693 


1906 


vision  for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 

V.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  tne  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 


compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state;  and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


December  22 


694 


1906 


VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 
any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 

X.  REVENUE. 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen- 
eral taxation.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re- 


spective amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector’s  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tion herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 
the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  ' the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
sion. In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
funds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 
which  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him, 
upon  order  of  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 
year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  rc- 


December  22 


695 


1906 


ceipts  and  expenditures  for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 
tures for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 

4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 
year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 


Action  on  the  following  propositions 
has  been  deferred  pending  the  report 
of  the  special  commitee  on  revenue  in- 
formation. 

Alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 
taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  City  Council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 


to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  .those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 


3.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either,  any 
trade,  occupation  or  business  carried  on 
wholly  or  in  part  within  the  city  limits, 
and  all  persons,  firms  or  corporations 
owning  or  using  franchises  or  privi- 
leges. 

4.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles.  The  income  therefrom  shall 
be  used  in  the  repair  and  improvement 
of  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  ex- 
clusively. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 
by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 
50  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 
any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  contiguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 
and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 


December  22 


696 


1906 


lures  and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraph  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 
December  14,  1906,  have  been  re-re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan.  The  com- 
mittee report  will  be  found  under  ‘ ‘ Res- 
olutions.” 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XV.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  private  temporary  users  of  space 
above  or  below  the  level  of  streets,  al- 
leys or  other  public  places  shall  pay 
compensation  to  the  city  according  to 
some  definite  scale  to  be  fixed  by  gen- 
eral ordinance.  This  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  grants  for  public  utilities. 


XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 


or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 
The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 


December  22 


697 


1906 


floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

Provided  that  when  the  city  shall  own 
and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall 
be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 
dered or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 
city’s  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 

XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 


The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  management  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  education  of  fifteen  members 
to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  City 
Council. 

All  nominations  of  members  of  Board 
of  Education  by  the  mayor  shall  lie 
over  at  least  one  week  before  action 
for  confirmation  or  rejection  thereon 
by  the  City  Council. 

They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a person  shall  be  at  least  thirty 
years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 


December  22 


698 


1906 


of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 


Section  III,  with  amendments,  has 
been  re-referred  to  the  Committee  on 
RULES,  PROCEDURE  and  GENERAL 
PLAN.  The  committee  report  will  be 
found  under  “Resolutions.’ ’ 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 
purposes,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

BY  MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART: 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “pur- 
poses,” in  the  fifth  line,  and  add  “but 
no  real  estate  shall  be  leased  for  a term 
longer  than  five  years  without  the  con- 
currence of  the  City  Council,  nor  shall 
the  terms  of  any  lease  be  altered  with- 
out such  concurrence.” 

BY  MR.  EIDMANN: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“years,”  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  line, 
the  following  “unless  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  City  Council  by  a three- 
fourths’  vote.” 

BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“lease,”  at  the  end  of  the  seventh 
line,  the  following  “the  unexpired  term 
of  which  is  longer  than  five  years.” 


IY.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip- 


pled, schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 
ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 

It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 


Action  on  Section  V has  been  de- 
ferred pending  the  report  of  the  special 
committee  on  revenue  information. 

Y.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
months  of  the  year. 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 
money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 
provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 


VI.  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enacted  or  changed,  money  appro- 
priated or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text- 


December  22 


669 


1906 


books  adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 

VII.  OFFICERS. 

The  board  of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
education  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term 
of  office  of  the  superintendent  of  educa- 
tion and  of  the  business  manager  shall 
not  be  less  than  four  years.  And  the 
salary  of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint- 
ment be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall 
not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
education. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  education,  business 
manager,  attorney  and  auditor,  shall  not 
be  subject  to  the  civil  service  law,  but 
they  shall  be  removable  only  for  cause, 
by  a vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds 
of  all  the  members  of  the  board,  upon 
written  charges  to  be  heard  by  the 
board  on  due  notice  to  the  officers 
charged  therewith,  but  pending  the 
hearing  of  the  charges,  such  officers  may 
by  a two-thirds  vote,  be  suspended  by 
the  board. 

The  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  all 
the  members  of  the  board  shall  be  re- 


quired to  appoint  the  superintendent  of 
education  and  the  business  manager. 

VIII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  EDU- 
CATION. 

(1.)  The  superintendent  of  education 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  Board  of  Educa* 
tion,  but  no  vote. 


The  following  sections  are  still  pend- 
ing: 

(2.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers,  principals  and 
other  educational  and  attendance 
officers  shall  be  made,  and  text-books 
and  educational  apparatus  shall  be  in- 
troduced by  the  board  of  education  up- 
on the  recommendation  of  the  superin- 
tendent, but  upon  his  failure  to  make 
such  a recommendation  within  a reason- 
able time  after  demand,  the  board  may 
make  appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers,  and  adopt  text-books  and  edu- 
cational apparatus  by  a two-thirds  vote 
of  all  its  members, 

BY  MR.  JONES:  Amend  by  strik- 

ing out  everything  after  the  word  “su- 
perintendent ’ ’ in  the  eighth  line,  and 
inserting  in  lieu  thereof  “Provided, 
that  the  Board  of  Education  may  make 
appointments  and  introduce  text  books 
and  educational  apparatus  by  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  all  its  members. 

(3.)  He  shall  be  consulted  as  to  loca- 
tion and  plans  of  school  buildings  and 
as  to  plans  and  specifications  for  educa- 
tional supplies. 

(4.)  Text-books  and  apparatus  once 
adopted  shall  not  be  changed  within 
four  years  after  their  adoption,  except 
upon  vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds  of 
all  the  members  of  the  board  of  educa- 
tion. 

(5.)  The  superintendent  of  education 
shall  nominate  for  appointment  by  the 
board  of  education,  assistant  and  dis- 
trict superintendents  and  principals  of 
schools,  and  shall  have  power,  with  the 
consent  of  the  board,  to  remove  them 
upon  complaint  and  for  cause. 


December  22 


700 


1906 


IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 
property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

He  shall  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
board  of  education  appoint  his  subordi- 
nate officers  and  employes,  among  whom 
there  shall  be  a trained  architect  and  a 
trained  engineer. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 

X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers  shall  be  made  for 
merit  only,  and  after  satisfactory  ser- 
vice for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  the  needs  of  the  schools  require. 

(2.)  The  standing  of  teachers  for 
appointment  and  promotion  shall  be  en- 
trusted to  a bord  to  be  constituted  by 
the  board  of  education,  of  which  the  su- 
perintendent of  education  shall  be  the 
head. 

XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XII.  PENSIONS. 

The  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 
City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 


from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 
retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 
tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  be 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


BY  MR,  RITTER: 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  no  po- 
lice station,  fire  engine  house  or  patrol 
barn  shall  hereafter  be  built  within  400 
feet  of  any  school  building. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 


December  22 


701 


1906 


city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 

schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children.  c 

2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 
dinance granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below 
as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other 
public  places  for  any  public  utility, 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 


ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 


The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  at  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchise  be  altered  [extended],  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 


December  22 


702 


1906 


5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 
confer  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  “An 


act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages”  approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary's  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary's 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSRS  WERNO  AND  ROSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vested  in  a municipality. 

BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicle. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  TAYLOR: 

A permanent  educational  commission 
of  advisory  capacity  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  mayor  with  the  approval  of  the 
council,  to  consist  of  seventeen  mem- 
bers, who  shall  serve  without  compensa- 
tion, including  the  superintendent  of 


December  22 


703 


1906 


the  public  schools  and  the  librarian  of 
the  public  library,  who  shall  be  mem- 
bers ex  officio.  Each  other  member  shall 
hold  office  until  another  person  is  ap- 
pointed to  succeed  him. 

It  shall  be  the  function  of  the  educa- 
tional commission  to  tender  advice  and 
recommendations  regarding  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  to  correlate  the 
educational  forces  of  the  city  and  to 
prevent  unnecessary  duplication  of  ac- 
tivities by  exercising  their  influence  to- 
word  co-ordinating  the  various  educa- 
tional and  scientific  institutions  of  the 
city. 


BY  ME.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XYI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  ME.  SHEDD: 

Eesolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  ME.  VOPICKA: 

EESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 


be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  ME.  VOPICKA: 

Eesolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  ME.  VOPICKA: 

Eesolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  ME.  VOPICKA: 

Eesolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  of  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


Report  of  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan — B.  A.  Eck- 
hart,  Chairman. 

CHICAGO  CHARTER  CONVENTION, 
Gentlemen:  Your  committee  on 


,December  22 


704 


1906 


Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan,  to  t 
jvhom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions which  were  introduced  for 
consideration  at  the  meeting  of  Decem- 
ber 14th,  1906, 

XIII.  PROPERTY. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city 
limits  for  any  municipal  purpose. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Shanahan: 

* * * that  the  city  may  acquire 

property  by  purchase  outside  as  well 
as  within  the  city  limits  for  any  mu- 
nicipal purpose,  and  not  have  the  right 
to  condemn  outside  property. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Brown: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side of  the  city,  or  purchase  and  con- 
demn property  for  municipal  purposes 
within  the  city. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
B.  A.  Eckhart: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side as  well  as  within  the  city  limits, 
either  by  purchase  or  condemnation,  for 
park  and  boulevard  purposes. 

would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject-mat- 
ter, and  recommends  the  adoption  of 
the  following: 

The  city  may  acquire  by  purchase 
outside  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  and  may 
acquire  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits  by  purchase  or  condemnation  for 
park,  boulevard  or  forest  preserve  pur- 
poses. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART, 

Chairman. 


BY  MR.  PENDARYIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 


j power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters^  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  that  no  employe  of  the 
city  shall  become  or  continue  to  remain 
a member  of  any  society  or  organiza- 
tion, obedience  or  allegiance  to  whose 
rules,  principles  or  practices  shall  re- 
quire or  impose  any  express  or  implied 
obligation  upon  such  employe  to  refrain 
from  the  full  discharge  of  his  duties  or 
to  do  any  act  against  the  government 
of  the  city,  or  in  violation  of  any  ordi- 
nance or  law,  or  of  any  rule  or  regula- 
tion of  any  department  of  the  city,  or 
of  any  order  of  any  official  of  the  city 
or  of  any  of  its  departments.  For  any 
violation  of  this  provision  an  employe 
shall  be  at  once  discharged  from  the 
city  service  by  the  head  of  the  de- 
partment in  which  he  is  employed.' 


BY  MR.  WILKINS: 

Upon  the  adoption  of  this  charter,  the 
Board  of  Education  shall  prepare  or 
cause  to  be  prepared,  a code  of  morals, 
non-sectarian  in  character  and  tenor, 
and  put  the  same  into  book  form,  to 
be  used  as  one  of  the  text  books  of  the 
public  schools  and  taught  in  all  the 
branches  of  the  same. 


BY  MR.  WILKINS: 

During  the  life  of  this  charter  and 
while  it  operates  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  Municipality  of  Chicago,  the 
children  in  the  public  schools  shall  not 
be  segregated  or  separated  in  the  rooms 
and  classes  on  account  of  their  nation- 
ality, race  or  color. 


December  22 


705 


1906 


BY  MB.  EIDMANN: 

Kesolved,  That  no  appointment  by  the 
mayor  shall  be  made  unless  concurred 
in  by  the  City  Council  at  a subsequent 
meeting. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  II,  on  page  593,  pro- 
viding that  “members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation” was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 

REPORT  OF  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES, 
PROCEDURE  AND  GENERAL 
PLAN— -B.  A.  Eckhart,  Chair- 
man. 

Chicago  Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen: — Your  Committee  on 
Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan  to 
whom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions and  amendments: 

XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 
The  management  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  education  of  fifteen  members 
to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  City 
Council. 


All  nominations  of  members  of  Board 
of  Education  by  the  mayor  shall  lie 
over  at  least  one  week  before  action 
for  confirmation  or  rejection  thereon 
by  the  City  Council. 

would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject  mat- 
ter, and  recommends  the  adoption  of  the 
following: 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure 
and  disposition  of  property  used,  in- 
tended, acquired,  held  or  sought  to  be 
disposed  of,  for  school  purposes  or  the 
use  of  schools,  but  no  real  estate  shall 
be  leased  by  said  board,  either  as  lessor 
or  lessee,  for  a term  longer  than  five 
years  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
City  Council,  nor  shall  the  provisions 
of  any  lease,  now  or  hereafter  made, 
whose  unexpired  term  may  exceed  five 
years,  be  altered  without  such  concur- 
rence. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART,  Chairman. 

BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 
laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  the  present  pension  law 
providing  for  a pension  system  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Chicago  Public  Library  be 
included  in  the  proposed  charter  for  the 
City  of  Chicago. 


The  following  resolution  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  with 
instructions  to  draft  a provision  em- 
bodying the  sense  of  the  resolution: 

BY  MR.  PATTERSON: 

The  charter  shall  contain  a provision 
extending  the  jurisdiction  of  tho  City 
of  Chicago  over  those  submerged  lands 
up  to  the  line  of  navigation  which  arc 
not  now  under  jurisdiction  of  the  park 
boards. 


December  22 


706 


1906 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

SECTION  XVII. — Education  (Wednesday,  December  26,  at  7:30  o’clock  p.  m.). 
PARAGRAPH  3. — Suffrage,  at  page  52.  (To  be  taken  up  immediately  after 
the  disposition  of  the  subject  of  Education.) 


CORRECTIONS. 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  Page  618,  first 

column,  sixth  and  seventh  lines:  Btrike 
out  uto  a majority  of  the  council.” 
Also  at  page  631,  first  column,  strike 
out  “as,”  in  the  fourth  line  of  re- 
marks, and  insert  “and”  for  “that” 
in  the  fifth  line  of  remarks. 


MR.  SUNNY:  At  page  481  substi- 

tute the  following  for  remarks  as 
printed: 

“I  think  that  Mr.  Smulski’s  propo- 
sition is  theoretically  right,  but  it  is 
impracticable  from  a financial  stand- 
point, at  least  within  the  next  five 
years.  I think  this  is  a matter  which 
ought  to  be  left  entirely  with  the  City 
Council.  I doubt  if  there  are  five  men 
— I am  sure  not  ten  men  in  this  room — 
who  are  familiar  with  the  problem  or 
who  appreciate  what  the  repaving  of 


Chicago  streets  would  cost.  I can  imag- 
ine that  it  might  cost  enough  in  the 
next  five  years  to  bankrupt  us.  I re- 
gard Professor  Merriam’s  proposition  as 
entirely  safe,  inasmuch  that  it  leaves 
the  City  Council  the  right  to  assess 
property  for  repaving  at  not  to  exceed 
50  per  cent.  If  the  City  Council  shall 
find  in  the  operation  of  this  provision 
that  the  city  can  afford  to  stand  60  or 
70  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving, 
the  cost  of  repaving  to  the  property 
owners  could  be  cut  down  accordingly. 
Perhaps  in  the  operation  of  this  pro- 
vision over  a series  of  years,  the  cost  of 
repaving  could  be  cut  down  even  to  the 
extent  of  the  city  standing  the  entire 
charge  and  relieving  the  taxpayers  alto- 
gether. 

“For  these  reasons  I am  in  favor  of 
Professor  Merriam’s  proposition,  and  I 
hope  that  it  will  carry.” 


December  22 


707 


1906 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  th© 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
m the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may/ 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  .incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  o'herwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
ar?d  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  22 


708 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  26,  1906 


(Eljtraiui  (Eljartrr  (Cmuirutinn 

Convened,  December  12,  1900 

Headquarter* 

171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
telephone  main  4877 

Milton  J.  foreman Chairman 

Alexander  h.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin.  Asbt.  Sec  y 


December  26 


711 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Wednesday,  December  26,  1906 

7:30  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order,  and  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Clettenberg,  Crilly,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart, 
J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Erickson,  Guerin,  Hill, 
Hunter,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  MacMil 
lan,  McCormick,  McKinley,  O’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Re- 
vell,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Sun- 
ny, Taylor,  Vopicka,  Walker,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 41  . 

Absent  - Badenoch,  Burke,  Carey, 
Church,  Cole,  Ritter,  Dixorf,  T.  .7.,  Fish- 
er, Fitzpatrick,  Oansbergen,  Graham, 
Haas,  Harrison,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Lath 
rop,  Lundberg,  McGoorty  Merriam, 
Oeline,  Paullin,  Patterson,  Powers, 
Rainey,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Sethness, 


Shedd,  Smulski,  Snow,  Swift,  Thomp- 
son, Wilson — 33. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No  quorum  pres- 

ent. Does  the  Convention  want  to  take 
up  the  discussion  of  this  matter?  There 
need  be  no  vote  taken  until  a quorum 
arrives;  there  will  be  two  or  three  here 
immediately.  Suppose  the  Secretary 
reads  where  we  stopped  work  on  Satur- 
day last. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  before 

taking  that  up  T would  like  the  privi 
lege  of  a word  in  explanation  of  some- 
thing in  the  record.  In  the  latter  part 
of  the  last 'session  I indulged  in  a lit- 
tle horseplay  with  reference  to  Mr. 
Shepard,  and  I made  two  or  three  re- 
marks that  were  entirely  good-natured, 
and  I am  sure  he  understood  them  that 
way.  I find  that  one  of  them  reached 
the  stenographer’s  ears,  though  none  of 
them  were  intended  for  his  ears,  and 
this  one  standing  alone  on  page  (>8<X 
looks  a little  spiteful,  and  I move  to 
strike  out  that  portion.  It  was  a mo- 
tion to  strike  out  what  Mr.  Spopard  had 


December  26 


712 


1906 


said.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I have  had 
an  acquaintance  of  a year  with  Mr. 
Shepard,  and  I did  not  mean  anything 
personal,  and  I did  not  intend  to  move 
to  strike  out  anything  that  he  had  said 
that  was  put  upon  the  record,  and  I 
don ’t  want  to  appear  here  as  having 
asked  to  strike  out  what  Mr.  Shep- 
ard said,  which  amounts  in  doing 
that  which  apparently  is  spiteful  in 
manner,  and  I ask  leave  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  have  my  own  alleged  remark 
stricken  from  the  record,  on  page  688. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Suppose  the  Sec- 

retary reads  that  section. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  688,  sec- 
ond column:  “Mr.  Post:  Well,  I move 

to  strike  out  his  remarks.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Does  anybody 

want  to  renew  that  motion? 

MR.  POST:  I beg  pardon,  Mr.  Chair- 

man ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I asked  if  any- 

body else  wanted  to  renew  that  motion. 

MR.  POST:  Well,  I will  renew  it— 

no,  I did  not  understand  you,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. I will  renew  the  motion  that  I 
made — I will  renew  my  motion  to  strike 
that  motion  from  the  record. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Reading  from 

page  669,  to — 

MR.  REYELL:  There  seems  to  be  a 

mistake.  It  is  not  on  page  669. 

THE  SECRETARY : 699.  It  is  a ty- 

pographical error.  It  should  be  699  in- 
stead of  669. 

(Section  2,  on  page  699,  was  read.) 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  offer  a communication  which  I 
wish  should  be  read  and  published. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  communica- 

tion will  be  read  and  printed. 

UNITED  SOCIETIES  FOR  LOCAL 
S EL  P -GOVERNMENT. 

EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 

Chicago,  December  24th,  1906. 
Milton  .1.  Foreman,  Esq.,  Chairman,  and 


Members  of  the  Chicago  Charter 
Convention.. 

Gentlemen: — Our  memorial  of  the  3rd 
instant,  asking  that  provision  be  made  in 
the  new  city  charter  for  home  rule  rel- 
ative to  the  legal  observance  of  Sunday 
and  the  sale  of  liquors  by  our  societies 
at  social  gatherings  or  entertainments  is 
still  pending  before  your  convention. 

However,  since  then  your  honorable 
body,  at  a meeting  held  on  the  13th  in- 
stant, has  adopted  a provision  which  is 
herewith  placed  alongside  of  the  law  now 
in  force,  in  order  that  you  may  see  at 
a glance  how  vast  is  the  difference  be- 
tween the  old  and  the  new  dispensation 
of  powers  to  the  City  of  Chicago: 

As  Proposed  by  the  Charter  Con- 
vention. 

1 1 The  powers  of  the  City  Council  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  except  as 
modified  by  this  charter;  * * * it 

being  intended  to  grant  and  bestow  upon 
the  City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of 
municipal  government,  * * * which 

are  not  expressly  prohibited  to  it  by 
this  charter.  * * * and  are  not  jn 

conflict  with  any  general  law  of  the 
state. ’ ’ 

Present  City  Charter,  Law  of  1872, 
Article  I,  Section  6. 

* * * ‘ ‘ From  the  time  of  such  or- 

ganization the  provisions  of  this  act  shall 
be  applicable  to  such  cities  and  villages, 
and  all  laws  in  conflict  therewith  shall  no 
longer  be  applicable.  But  all  laws  or 
parts  of  laws  not  inconsistent  with  the 
provisions  of  this  act  shall  continue  in 
force  and  applicable  to  any  such  city  or 
village.  * * * ” 

A comparison  of  the  foregoing  would 
seem  to  demonstrate  that  your  action  not 
only  denies  home  rule  on  our  proposition, 
but  abrogates  some  of  the  great  local 
powers  now  possessed  by  the  city.  In 
order  to  elucidate,  we  propose  to  pass  in 
review  before  you  the  laws  and  ordi- 
nances we  had  in  mind  when  this  subject 


December  26 


713 


1906 


was  first  under  consideration  by  our  com- 
mittee. 

The  Sunday  Laws  Are  as  Follows: 
Criminal  Code,  Ch.  38,  Rev.  Stat.  1845, 
Sec.  259 : ‘ ‘ Whoever  keeps  open  any 

tippling  house,  or  place  where  liquor  is 
sold  or  given  away,  upon  the  first  day  of 
the  week,  commonly  called  Sunday,  shall 
be  fined  not  exceeding  $200.  ” 

Sec.  260 : ‘ ‘ Sunday  shall  include  the 

time  from  midnight  to  midnight.  ’ ’ 

Sec.  261 : ‘ ‘ Whoever  disturbs  the 

peace  and  good  order  of  society  by  labor, 
* * * or  by  any  amusement  or  diver- 

sion on  Sunday,  shall  be  fined  not  ex- 
ceeding $25.  * * * ’ ’ (Section  262 

omitted.) 

The  Cities  and  Villages  Act  of  1872, 
Ch.  24,  Rev.  Stat.,  now  in  force,  pro- 
vides as  follows: 

Article  I,  Sec.  6,  as  shown  above. 
Article  I,  Sec.  10:  ‘‘Cities,  organized 

under  this  Act,  shall  * * * exercise 

all  the  powers  hereinafter  conferred.  ’ ’ 
Article  V,  Sec.  1 : The  City  Council 

in  cities,  and  President  and  the  Board 
of  Trustees,  in  villages,  shall  have  the 
following  powers: 

“Forty-sixth.  To  license,  regulate  and 
prohibit  the  selling  or  giving  away  of 
any  intoxicating  * * * liquor;  * * * 

provided,  further,  that  in  granting  li- 
censes such  corporate  authorities  shall 
comply  with  whatever  general  law  of  the 
state  may  be  in  force  relative  to  the 
granting  of  licenses.  ’ ’ 

The  only  general  law  on  the  subject 
of  licenses  is  Ch.  43,  Rev.  Stat.,  entitled 
‘ ‘ Dramshops, 1 * which  provides  that  the 
corporate  authorities  of  any  city,  town 
or  village  in  this  state  may  grant  li- 
censes for  the  keeping  of  dramshops  upon 
payment  of  a sum  not  less  than  at  the 
rate  of  five  hundred  dollars  ($500.00) 
per  annum. 

Construing  all  those  laws  together,  we 
maintain  that  the  power  to  regulate,  now 
vested  in  the  City  Council  by  the  pro- 
visions of  the  (Jities  and  Villages  Act, 


repealed  by  implication,  if  not  expressly, 
a part  at  least  of  the  Sunday  laws  of 
1845.  This,  however,  is  denied  by  our 
opponents,  who  demand  that  the  mayor 
enforce  these  laws. 

The  City  Council  for  many  years  very 
properly  has  construed  the  powers  vested 
in  that  body  by  the  present  city  charter 
by  passing  ordinances  whereby  the  legal 
observance  of  Sunday  by  the  keepers  of 
saloons  and  others  is  regulated  in  con- 
travention to  the  Sunday  laws  of  1845. 

We  refer  here  only  to  the  provision 
how  saloons  shall  be  kept  on  Sunday, 
the  one  o’clock  closing  ordinance  and  the 
‘ ‘ bar  permit  ’ ’ ordinance,  with  all  of 
which  the  Sunday  laws  of  1845  are  in- 
consistent and  in  conflict. 

The  mayor  only  enforces  the  ordinances 
passed  by  the  City  Council  by  virtue  of 
the  powers  vested  in  that  body  by  the 
city  charter. 

Under  the  present  city  charter  all  laws 
inconsistent  or  in  conflict  with  the  pow- 
ers thereby  granted  are  no  longer  appli- 
cable, but  by  the  action  of  your  honorable 
body  of  the  13th  instant,  all  powers  now 
exercised,  which  are  in  conflict  with  any 
general  law  of  the  state,  are  abrogated 
and  annulled — the  very  opposite  of  the 
present  charter. 

It  should  be  understood  that  there  are 
today  still  in  existence  in  Illinois  many 
cities  and  villages  which  have  never  or- 
ganized under  and  are  therefore  not  gov- 
erned by  the  provisions  of  the  Cities 
and  Villages  Act  of  1872. 

They  are  governed  by  special  and  in 
many  instances  very  illiberal  charters. 
To  all  of  them  the  Sunday  laws  of  1845 
still  apply  in  all  their  severity  and  ab- 
surdity. 

And  unless  your  honorable  body  shall 
reconsider  and  annul  its  action  of  the 
13th  instant,  these  laws  will  be  revived 
in  this  city — a thing  not  desired  by  the 
people  of  Chicago  nor  intended  by  the 
charter  amendment  of  1903. 

We  therefore  respectfully  request  your 


December  26 


714 


1906 


honorable  body  to  reconsider  and  annul 
your  action  of  the  13th  instant. 

Respectfully  submitted. 

By  direction  of  the  Executive  Com- 
mittee. 

Fritz  Glogauer, 
Nicholas  Michels, 

A.  Landa, 

Committee  on  Charter  Legisla- 
tion, United  Societies  for 
Local  Self-Government. 

Charles  C.  Gilbert, 

President. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  now  read  Section  No.  2. 

(The  Secretary  read  Section  No.  2 and 
Mr.  Jones’  amendment.) 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  to 

simplify  and  condense  all  that  which  is 
included  in  Section  2,  and  the  amendment, 
and  the  following  sections,  I move  a sub- 
stitute for  Section  2,  and  the  amend- 
ment thereto,  and  for  Sections  3,  4 and 
5.  Copy  is  in  the  hands  of  the  clerk. 

(The  amendment  was  read  as  herein- 
after printed.) 

MR.  TAYLOR:  With  the  approval  of 

the  Board  of  Education.  In  the  copy  I 
must  have  omitted  that  phrase.  “Upon 
the  recommendation  of  the  Superintend- 
ent of  Education,  with  the  approval  of 
the  Board  of  Education ; or  by  the 
Board  of  Education  by  a two-thirds  vote 
of  all  its  members.”  Now,  if  you  will 
complete  the  reading,  Mr.  Secretary. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask — 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Just  a minute;  the 

reading  has  to  be  completed. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

Dr.  Taylor  just  which  he  means  there; 
whether  he  means  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion or  a two-thirds  vote  of  the  members 
of  the  Board  of  Education?  Did  I un- 
derstand the  reading  of  that  correctly? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  says  both  ways. 

MR.  J.  W.  DIXON : May  we  have 

that  read  over  again? 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Secretary, 

read  that  once  more. 

(The  amendment  was  re-read.) 

MR.  RAYMER : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  suggest  to  Dr.  Taylor  that 
the  word  “majority”  of  the  members  of 
the  Board  of  Education  might  appear 
there.  In  one  place  you  provide  for  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  all  of  the  members, 
and  the  other  case,  it  seems  to  me, 
should  require  a majority  of  the  mem- 
bers. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  The  difference  is  in- 

tentional, may  I state  in  response  to  the 
inquiry.  When  the  superintendent  rec- 
ommends text  books  or  nominations  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  board  is 
necessary.  But  to  override  the  superin- 
tendent’s recommendation,  or  to  super- 
sede him,  or  to  take  the  matter  into  the 
hands  of  the  board  without  the  superin- 
tendent, a two -thirds  majority  vote  of  all 
the  members  of  the  board  is  required. 
That  was  the  intention. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I think,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  the  word  “majority”  still 
should  go  in  there  to  make  it  consistent. 

MR.  TAYLOR : In  the  first  clause, 

you  mean? 

MR,  RAYMER:  Yes. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Pardon  me,  I do  not 

mind  that. 

MR.  RAYMER : I move  that  the  word 

“majority”  be  inserted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

word  ? 

MR.  RAYMER : I move  that  the  word 
“majority”  be  inserted  in  the  first 
clause. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Where  is  that 

to  go? 

MR.  TAYLOR : In  the  first  clause. 

MR.  RAYMER : The  approval  of  the 

majority  of  the  members  of  the  Board 
of  Education. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  strike  out  of 

Mr.  Taylor’s  substitute  all  after  the 
words  “by  the  Board  of  Education,”  ex- 
cept the  proviso  with  regard  to  the  re- 
tention of  text  books  for  four  years. 


December  26 


715 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  write  i 

that  out  and  send  it  up,  so  that  the  Sec- 
retary will  have  it? 

MR.  POST:  I will  write  it  out,  yes, 

and  send  it  up. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  If  Mr.  Post  will 
allow  me,  I will  make  a verbal  change 
in  Prof.  Taylor ’s  amendment,  which 
will  make  it  perfectly  clear,  I think.  He 
has  in  his  amendment,  second  line,  the 
word  “principals;”  then  there  follows 
the  word  “assistant.”  What  does  that  I 
mean,  to  what  does  that  refer? 

MR.  TAYLOR : Assistant  and  district 
superintendent. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  That  is  relative 

to  the  superintendent? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes,  sir;  assistant 

and  district  superintendent. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Then  there 

should  follow  a comma  in  there,  and 
then  the  rest  of  it  will  read  “assistant 
and  district  superintendent.” 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  Now,  I find  upon  look- 

ing at  Prof.  Taylor’s  amendment  that  it 
is  not  exactly  in  the  language  of  the 
first  five  or  six  lines  of  the  original  mo- 
tion, as  I supposed  it  would  be,  and  I 
will  have  to  draft  a full  section;  but  I 
would  like  to  speak  upon  this  matter 
now  and  describe  what  I wish  to  accom- 
plish. I wish  to  strike  out  all  of  that 
part  of  the  amendment  that  proposes 
the  recommendation,  imperatively,  of 
the  superintendent;  I wish  to  retain  that 
part  that  requires  text  books  to  remain 
in  the  system  for  four  years,  having 
been  once  adopted.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman, 
the  point  I make  in  regard  to  that  is 
this,  that  this  whole  idea  that  is  indi- 
cated here  is  based  upon  the  theory  of 
giving  the  superintendent  the  initiative. 

I maintain  that  instead  of  giving  the 
superintendent  the  initiative  in  educa- 
tional matters,  which  is  something  he 
surely  ought  to  have,  that  it  is  giving  ' 
him  the  control,  and  that  it  is  making  j 
the  board  a mere  buffer  for  the  super 


| intendent,  enabling  the  superintendent, 
if  he  should  so  choose,  to  enter  into  ar- 
rangements with  a minority  of  the  board 
which  would  give  him  control  of  the 
system.  Now,  as  a matter  of  fact,  it  is 
not  necessary,  and  it  is  not  wise,  I sub- 
mit, for  a state  law  to  prescribe  that 
this  board  shall  be  unable  to  move  prac- 
tically without  the  recommendation  of 
the  superintendent. 

As  a matter  of  actual  experience,  the 
superintendent  is  always  asked  advice 
in  regard  to  educational  matters  natural- 
ly. He  is  an  expert  chosen  by  the  board, 
and  I will  defy  you  to  look  over  the 
records,  especially  the  records  of  the 
present  board,  and  find  therein  any  im- 
portant educational  matters  in  which  the 
advice  of  the  superintendent  has  not 
been  distinctly  asked,  and  in  regard  to 
which  the  advice  of  the  superintendent 
when  given  has  not  been  almost,  if  not 
always,  acted  upon.  That  has  been  the 
experience  since  I have  been  on  the 
board,  and  our  difficulty  since  that  time 
has  been  not  in  refusing  to  get  the  opin- 
ion of  the  superintendent,  but  in  our 
inability  to  get  his  opinion  when  we 
want  it,  or  get  his  initiative,  or  to  get 
his  advice.  Now,  what  we  need  from  a 
superintendent  of  a public  school  sys- 
tem is,  I think,  his  advice;  advice  to  be 
sought  by  the  board;  advice  to  be  in- 
itiated by  the  superintendent  and  wel- 
comed by  the  board;  welcomed,  to  be 
acted  upon  by  the  board  or  not  upon  its 
own  responsibility.  That  is  the  advice 
that  we  want;  that  is  the  initiative  that 
we  want.  You  are  going  to  promote  a 
system  here  which  .is  going  to  create  a 
superintendent  whose  initiative  will  be 
controlled  obstruction  if  he  and  the 
board  do  not  agree.  You  are  turning 
two-thirds  of  the  board  over  to  the  con- 
trol of  any  superintendent  who  may  hap- 
pen to  be  appointed  for  a term  of  four 
1 years  under  a law.  All  he  has  to  do 
after  he  is  in,  to  monkey  with  the  pub- 
| lie  school  system,  is  to  associate  himself 


December  26 


716 


1906 


with  the  minority  of  the  board.  Make 
the  majority  of  the  board  responsible 
for  the  school  system.  That  is  your 
duty;  professedly  you  require  the  board 
to  pass  upon  his  action,  but  if  the  su- 
perintendent is  to  initiate,  and  if  the  su- 
perintendent is  to  be  responsible  for  it, 
let  a responsible  superintendent  initiate 
it  and  be  responsible  for  it;  but  if  the 
board  is  to  be  responsible  for  it,  give 
the  board  a little  power  in  the  matter; 
let  the  board  by  a majority  determine 
what  shall  be  promoted  and  who  shall 
be  appointed,  and  upon  such  a system, 
as  you  please,  to  secure  appointment  by 
merit.  That,  of  course,  should  be  done. 
Don’t  put  the  superintendent  in  the  po- 
sition to  hold  up  the  board  in  any  way 
he  may  choose.  That  will  be  done  if  you 
make  it  a four-year  term  of  office,  if 
you  require  the  board  to  take  no  action 
unless  the  superintendent  advises  it,  and 
unless  on  matters  on  which  there  is  a 
two-thirds  of  the  board. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I do  not  expect,  when 
I consider  the  sources  outside  of  this 
Convention  from  which  this  movement 
comes  for  the  revolution  of  our  public 
school  system — I do  not  expect  to  have 
many  votes  on  my  side  of  this  matter, 
but  I do  intend  to  record  my  position 
in  regard  to  it,  and  I think  if  you  should 
succeed  in  enacting  this  proposition  into 
law,  that  the  time  will  come,  perhaps 
at  no  distant  date,  when  you  will  have 
more  cause  for  sorrow  in  having  done  it 
than  I shall  have  in  warning  you  against 
doing  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  further 

discussion  is  there?  The  question  is  up- 
on Mr.  Taylor’s  substitute  to  Section  2, 
and  3 and  4 and  5.  A number  of  dele- 
gates have  come  in  since  the  motion 
was  made,  and  the  Secretary  will  read 
it  again  if  he  has  it  there,  and  then  we 
will  wait  for  a vote  until  Mr.  Post  com- 
pletes his  substitute. 

MR.  POST:  I will  write  this  out  in 

a moment,  but  the  substance  of  it  is 


simply  to  put  the  responsibility  of  the 
board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  write  it 
out,  Mr.  Post,  so  we  may  get  it  in  the 
record?  Do  you  desire  the  floor,  Mr. 
O’Donnell, — or  Mr.  MacMillan? 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I will  yield  the 
floor  to  you,  Mr.  O’Donnell. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
wanted  the  whole  amendment  read. 
There  was  only  the  amendment  to  Sec- 
tion 2 read,  and  I would  like  to  have 
them  all  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  are  waiting 

for  Mr.  Post’s  amendment  now,  Mr. 
MacMillan. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : While  we  are 

waiting  for  Mr.  Post  to  draft  his  amend- 
ment, Mr.  Chairman,  I desire  to  say  a 
word  or  two  respecting  the  matter  of 
changing  the  text  books,  which  comes, 
I believe,  under  the  head  of  Dr.  Tay- 
lor’s amendment,  and,  I think,  is  also 
concurred  in  by  Mr.  Post. 

I think  it  needs  but  a word  or  two  to 
emphasize  the  value  of  this  fourth  year 
provision,  and  in  the  first  place  I be- 
lieve that  a four-year  provision  em- 
bodied in  the  charter  would  have  more 
weight  with  the  Board  of  Education 
when  the  time  came  for  it  to  take  up 
the  matter  of  selecting  text  books  and 
providing  apparatus  for  the  several 
schools.  If  the  Board  of  Education  is 
aware  of  the  fact  that  the  text  books 
selected  by  it  shall  not  be  changed  with- 
in four  years,  such  board  will  be  very 
likely  to  go  into  the  matter  with  a 
great  deal  of  care.  Wherever  difficulty 
has  arisen  in  the  past,  as  I am  informed, 
it  has  arisen  because  of  the  rapidity 
with  which  some  of  these  changes  have 
been  made.  They  have  not  been  made 
at  times  with  that  deliberation  and  care 
which  should  characterize  the  changing 
of  one  single  text  book.  In  the  second 
place,  a teacher  who  is  abreast  of  the 
times  and  is  up  to  his  or  her  work,  will, 
as  many  of  you  must  know,  find  that  one 


December  26 


717 


1906 


year  or  two  years  is  a short  enough  time 
in  which  to  thoroughly  equip  one’s  self 
with  the  tools  at  hand,  and  these  tools 
are  the  text  books.  No  teacher  can 
plan  his  or  her  work  intelligently,  as  it 
ought  to  be  planned,  if  the  idea  be  in 
mind  that  the  text  book  is  to  be 
changed  or  will  be  changed  at  the  end 
of  a year  or  two.  A teacher  who  plans 
the  work  of  his  room  or  his  school  or 
her  room  or  her  school  must  know  how 
many  weeks  are  in  the  year,  how  to  di- 
vide and  subdivide,  how  to  arrange  and 
differentiate  so  that  the  pupils  may  get 
the  very  best  there  is  out  of  the  books 
that  have  been  selected  by  the  Board  of 
Education. 

And  in  the  third  place,  the  reason- 
ably permanency  of  the  text  books  in 
the  hands  of  our  young  people  is  in 
some  sense  the  poor  man’s  safety. 
There  has  been,  I submit,  in  years  past, 
too  great,  too  rapid,  too  radical  a change 
even  in  the  text  books  used  by  the 
pupils  in  the  public  schools.  And  those 
upon  whom  this  burden  will  fall  most 
heavily  are  the  ones  often  who  are 
least  able  to  bear  the  expense.  And  I 
submit  that  for  these  and  some  other 
reasons  that  will  suggest  themselves 
to  you  in  a consideration  of  the  mat- 
ter, that  the  four-year  clause  is  such  a 
clause  as  should  be  adopted  by  this 
Convention  and  inserted  in  the  charter. 
I do  not  know  that  I would  extend  this 
precisely  to  the  selection  and  purchase 
of  apparatus,  but  I am  very  insistent 
that  it  should  be  provided  in  the  char- 
ter that  text  books  shall  not  be  changed 
at  least  oftener  than  once  in  four 
years. 

MR.  WHITE:  I am  personally  in 

favor  of  the  four-year  clause;  but  I 
want  to  call  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention to  the  fact  it  is  already  a state 
law;  therefore,  whether  it  is  necessary 
for  us  to  re-enact  it  in  the  charter  or 
not,  T am  not  sure.  I find  nothing  in 
the  special  charter  granted  to  the  City 


of  Chicago  which  indicates  that  the 
City  of  Chicago  has  had  it  taken  from 
it  under  the  operation  of  the  law.  In 
fact,  there  is  one  court  decision  I no- 
ticed which  says  that  ‘the  statute  pro- 
hibiting the  change  of  text  books 
oftener  than  once  in  four  years  must 
be  held  to  apply  to  board  of  education 
in  districts  having  a population  of 
more  than  1,000  inhabitants.”  I mere- 
ly raise  the  question,  Mr.  Chairman,  so 
that  the  lawyers  can  decide  whether 
we  want  to  insert  in  the  charter  what 
already  probably  exists  in  the  state 
law. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  Mr. 

Post’s  amendment?  Mr.  Post’s  amend- 
ment is  being  written  out  by  the  clerk. 
In  the  meantime  you  might  read  Dr. 
Taylor’s  amendment,  Mr.  Secretary, 
and  by  that  time  the  clerk  will  be 
through. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Tay- 
lor: Substitute  in  Section  8 on  super- 

intendent of  education  for  Section  2 an 
amendment  thereto,  and  Sections  3,  4 
and  5,  printed  on  page  699: 

‘ * Appointments,  promotions  and 
transfers  of  teachers,  principals,  as- 
sistants and  district  superintendents 
and  other  educational  and  attendant 
officers  shall  be  made,  and  text  books 
and  specifications  for  educational  ap- 
paratus shall  be  introduced  only  upon 
the  recommendation  of  the  superintend- 
ent of  education  with  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  the  Board  of  Education,  or 
by  the  Board  of  Education  by  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  all  of  its  members.  Pro- 
vided, that  said  text  books  and  ap- 
paratus when  once  adopted  shall  not  be 
changed  within  four  years  thereafter.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now  read  Mr. 

Post ’s  amendment. 

TTIE  SECRETARY:  “Appoint- 

ments, promotions  and  transfers  of 
teachers,  principals,  assistants  and  as- 
sistant superintendent  and  other  educa- 
tional and  attendance  officers,  and  text 


December  26 


718 


1906 


books  and  specifications  for  educational 
apparatus  shall  be  introduced  by  the 
Board  of  Education  by  a majority  vote 
of  all  of  its  members.  Provided,  that 
said  text  books  and  apparatus  when 
once  adopted  shall  not  be  changed 
within  four  years  thereafter.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Post’s  substitute  for  Dr.  Tay- 
lbr’s  resolution,  and  if  there  is  no  fur- 
ther discussion  the  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

Yeas  — Dever,  Erickson,  Linehan, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Post — 6. 

Nays— Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brosseau,  Brown,  Clettenberg, 
Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.;  Eckhart,  B.  A.; 
Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Eidmann,  Hill,  Hunter, 
Kittleman,  MacMillan,  McCormick,  Mc- 
Kinley, Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Revell,  Ro- 
senthal, Shanahan,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Vo- 
picka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young, 
Zimmer — 31. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Post’s 

motion  to  adopt  the  yeas  are  6 and  the 
noes  31  and  one  not  voting.  The  mo- 
tion is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  re- 
curs upon  Dr.  Taylor’s  substitute  for 
Section  2 and  Sections  3,  4 and  5.  Are 
you  ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Sections  3,  4 

and  5? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Those  in 

favor  say  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  be  recorded 

as  voting  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  desires 
to  be  recorded  as  voting  no. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I desire  to  be 
recorded  as  voting  no. 

the  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell 

desires  to  be  recorded  as  voting  no. 
The  motion  is  carried. 

The  Secretary  will  read  the  next 
page:  “Business  Manager.” 

The  section  was  read. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I move  the  adop- 

tion of  the  section. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Did  I not  under- 
stand that  the  previous  section  has 
provided  for  the  selection  of  an  archi- 
tect? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I beg  pardon. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Did  I not  under- 
stand that  a previous  section  adopted 
the  other  night  provided  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  an  architect? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  that  went 

into  the  question  of  civil  service  en- 
tirely, I think. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  was  not 

adopted. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Yes. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  Not  for  one— 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Is  he  not  under 

the  civil  service  law — under  the  pres- 
ent law  a civil  service  appointee? 

A VOICE:  Yes. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  This  is  going  op- 
posite to  the  section  already  in  exist- 
ence. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  There  is  always  a 

choice  of  three  on  the  eligible  list. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Well,  the  pres- 

ent section  provides  that  he  shall  be 
a trained  architect. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This,  I think, 

is  purely  descriptive. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I think  so,  too, 

but  I don’t  know  what  it  means.  I do 
not  understand  at  all  how  this  can,  by 
any  genuflection  or  manipulation,  be 
made  to  apply  to  civil  service.  It  gives 
the  present  manager  absolute  authori- 
ty to  go  outside  anywhere  to  employ 
a trained  architect  or  a trained  engi- 
neer. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Subject  to  the  other 

provisions,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Beyond  those. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Doesn’t  it  read 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Let  us  see  a 

minute 


MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman 


December  26 


719 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  I want  to  find 

it  in  the  record.  Wait  a minute,  please, 
gentlemen. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  is  on  page 

699. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  “The  appoint- 

ment and  removal  of  the  superinten- 
dent of  education,  business  manager, 
attorney  and  auditor  shall  not  be  sub- 
ject to  the  civil  service  law,  but  they 
shall  be  removable  only  for  cause 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  not  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 

arises  then  upon  the  question  whether 
the  appointment  shall  be  under  civil 
service. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

on  page  699  you  will  see  neither  the 
architect  nor  the  engineer  are  men- 
tioned. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  roll  will  be 

called  on  the  motion  to  exempt  the 
chief  architect  from  the  operation  of 
the  civil  service  law.  For  this  motion 
the  ayes  are  21  and  nays  23.  So  far 
as  the  civil  service  is  concerned  the 
Convention  has  disposed  of  the  matter. 

MR.  McMILLAN:  Then  I don't  see 

any  reason  for  this  paragraph  at  all, 
Mr.  Chairman;  why  it  should  be  in  this 
instrument. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I suppose  it 

simply  reiterates  the  fact  that  there  is 
to  be  a trained  engineer  and  a trained 
architect. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  And  that  is  con- 
sequently— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal, 

do  you 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  May  I be  per- 

mitted? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  The  phrase 

“engineer"  means 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  MacMillan. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : “To  appoint  sub- 
ordinate officers  and  employes"  should 


they  not  come  under  the  civil  service 
law? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  mean 

the  architect  and  the  engineer? 

MR.  MacMILAN:  No,  sir.  “He 

shall  with  the  concurrence  of  the 
Board  of  Education  appoint  his  subor- 
dinate officers  and  employes." 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Those  are  under 

the  civil  service,  yes,  sir. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  How  shall  they 

now  be  appointed? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  this  de- 

fines the  duties  of  the  business  mana- 
ger. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Are  these  ceri- 

fied  upon  by  the  superintendent? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I believe  they 

are  civil  service  employes.  We  were 
so  advised  the  other  night. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I would  like  to 

say  I believe  so,  too.  I feel  that  we 
desire  to  have  it  so. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

when  this  was  adopted  the  other  night, 
on  page  699,  we  find  that  the  appoint- 
ment and  removal  of  the  superinten- 
dent of  education,  and  the  business 
manager,  the  attorney  and  the  auditor 
shall  not  be  subject  to  the  civil  service 
law.  Neither  in  that  section  nor  any 
other  except  in  this  section,  are  the 
engineer  and  architect  mentioned.  I 
think  these  are  the  only  employes  ex- 
empted from  the  civil  service  that 
would  come  under  the  operation  of  that 
law. 

MR,  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I move  to  strike  out  of  Section  3,  para- 
graph 11 — Section  9,  beginning,  “he 
shall  with  the  concurrence  of  the  Board 
of  Education,"  and  so  forth. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I second  that.  I 

think  this  is  useless. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I second  the  mo- 

tion of  Mr.  Shanahan.  I think  it  is 
useless  to  put  in  here  once  more,  be- 


December  26 


720 


1906 


cause  the  board  makes  rules  for  these 
officers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

Mr.  Shanahan’s  motion. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Shanahan  moves  to 

strike  out  two  paragraphs. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  He  moves  to 

strike  out  the  last  two  paragraphs  of 
Section  9. 

MR.  POST:  I cannot  accept  that, 

because  I am  in  favor  of  striking  out 
one  paragraph  and  not  both. 

MR.  DEYER:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  it  is  clear  there  has  been 
some  mistake  here.  It  "says  in  the  sec- 
ond paragraph:  “He  shall,  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
appoint  his  subordinate  officers  and  em- 
ployes, among  whom  there  shall  be  a 
trained  architect  and  a trained  engi- 
neer. ’ ’ If  they  are  civil  service  em- 
ployes and  officers,  there  would  not  be 
required  any  concurrence  on  the  part 
of  the  board  under  the  action  of  the 
civil  service  law. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  correct; 

those  officers  are  certainly  under  the 
civil  service  law. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

offer  as  a substitute  to  strike  out  the 
second  clause. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  an  amend- 

ment to  Mr.  Shanahan’s  motion? 

MR.  RAYMER:  Yes. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I will  accept  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

should  like  to  ask  some  one  who  knows, 
whether  the  civil  service  law  as  ap- 
plied to  the  Board  of  Education  is  the 
same  as  the  city  civil  service  law, 
which,  in  most  cases,  I think,  provides 
that  the  head  of  the  department  shall 
select  from  the  three  highest  on  the 
eligible  list,  and  possibly  with  this 
clause  in  Section  9 it  would  mean  that 
the  head  of  the  department  should  se- 


lect from  those  three  as  provided  in 
the  civil  service  list. 

MR.  HUNTER:  The  city  selects  the 

highest;  you  cannot  select  from  the 
three  highest. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  un- 

derstands it  that  the  same  civil  service 
law  applies  to  the  employes  of  the 
Board  of  Education  as  applies  to  other 
city  employes. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  In  reply  to  the  ques- 
tion just  asked  by  Mr.  Eidmann,  I de- 
sire to  say  that  the  civil  service  law 
only  gives  the  option  of  selecting  one 
in  three  in  promotional  examination. 
In  original  examination  they  are  ap- 
pointed according  to  the  applicants 
and  only  in  promotional  examinations 
have  any  departments  the  right  to  se- 
lect one. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

now  upon  Mr.  Raymer’s  motion. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  inquire  as  a matter  of  informa- 
tion whether  any  action  has  been  taken 
by  this  Convention  exempting  the  en- 
gineer from  the  civil  service  law? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  not. 

MR.  YOUNG:  He  is  exempt? 

MR,  SHANAHAN:  He  is  not  under 

civil  service. 

MR.  YOUNG:  He  is  not  under  civil 

service.  Is  the  architect  under  civil 

service? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  He  is  under  civ- 
il  service.  The  question  now  is  upon 
Mr.  Raymer’s  amendment  to  Mr.  Shan- 
ahan’s motion  to  strike  out  the  second 
paragraph  of  Section  9. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  question  will  signify  by  say- 
ing aye;  opposed,  no.  The  proposition 
is  stricken  out. 

The  question  now  recurs  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  first  and  third  para- 
graphs. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I move  their  adop- 

tion. 


December  26 


721 


1906 


MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  before 

that  is  done  I desire  to  ask  where  we 
provide,  or  will  we  provide  later  for 
an  engineer  and  architect,  and  where 
do  you  propose  to  put  this  engineer, 
under  the  civil  service,  or  as  he  is  now, 
outside  of  it?  I do  not  know  that  we 
need  to  discuss  that  just  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Under  this  he 

would  be  under  civil  service,  because  the 
section  adopted  by  this  Convention  ex- 
empts from  the  civil  service  law  the  busi- 
ness manager,  attorney,  auditor  and  su- 
perintendent of  schools ; all  other  em- 
ployes will  be  under  civil  service.  That 
is  an  action  taken  at  the  last  session  of 
the  Convention. 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  favor 
of  adopting  the  first  and  third  para- 
graphs of  Section  9 will  signify  by  say- 
ing aye;  those  opposed,  no.  It  is  car- 
ried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  now  read  No.  10. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Before  proceed- 

ing with  No.  10  I offer  an  additional 
section  for  No.  IX. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Ros- 
enthal : Among  the  employes  of  the 

Board  of  Education  shall  be  a trained 
architect  and  a trained  engineer.  7 7 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

the  experience  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion has  shown  that  a trained  architect 
and  a trained  engineer  are  essential  for 
the  performance  of  their  functions  and 
duties.  In  ho  other  section  of  this  char- 
ter have  we  positively,  or  in  any  way 
provided  for  the  appointment  of  an  engi- 
neer and  architect.  If  the  engineer  and 
architect  are  not  exempted  from  the  op- 
eration of  the  civil  service  law,  they  nat- 
urally would  come  under  the  civil  ser- 
vice law. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Why  does  not 

Section  7 cover  that  point  as  adopted: 
* ‘ The  Board  of  Education  7 7,  and  so  forth, 


‘ 1 the  board  shall  appoint  as  executive 
officers  a superintendent  of  education 
and  a business  manager,  and  may  also 
appoint,  or  provide  for  the  appointment 
of  such  other  officers  and  employes  as 
may  be  deemed  necessary.  7 7 . 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  authorizes 

the  appointment  of  a trained  architect 
and  a trained  engineer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  authorizes 

the  appointment  of  a trained  architect 
and  a trained  engineer;  but  in  my 
opinion,  and  in  the  opinion  of  those  who 
stand  with  me  in  this,  it  does  not  suffi- 
ciently provide,  it  is  not  sufficient  to 
cover  the  point ; it  provides  that  the 
board  may  appoint  them;  a board  shall 
have  a certain  staff  of  employes,  and  on 
the  staff  of  employes  may  be  a trained 
architect  and  a trained  engineer.  If  we 
do  not  prdvide  for  this  now,  if  we  do> 
not  make  any  provision  for  it  now,  the 
board  could  indulge  in  extravagance  if 
they  wished  to,  if  that  were  not  provided 
for.  I,  myself,  am  of  the  opinion  that 
a trained  architect  and  a trained  engi- 
neer would  come  as  little  under  the  op- 
eration of  the  civil  service  law  as  a law- 
yer would.  I do  not  see  any  more  reason 
for  excepting  an  attorney  than  for  ex- 
cepting a professional  man  such  as  an 
architect  or  an  engineer.  But  this  Con- 
vention has  decided  otherwise.  But  in 
any  view  of  it,  I believe  their  appoint- 
ment should  be  provided  for. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  other  words, 

your  position  is  that  the  board  should  be 
required  to  appoint  them. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I think  that  is  the 

proper  method. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemfen,  you 

have  heard  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal. Let  the  Secretary  read  it  again. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Ros- 
enthal : Among  the  employes  of  the 

Board  of  Education  shall  be  a trained 
architect  and  a trained  engineer. 7 7 


December  26 


722 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  WHITE:  I am  not  at  all  cer- 

tain but  what  I am  out  of  order  at  this 
point,  but  I shall  move  later  in  this  Con- 
vention, and  I trust  the  members  will 
think  carefully  about  it,  that  the  archi- 
tect of  the  board  and  the  engineer  of 
the  board  be  not  under  civil  service. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  require 

a reconsideration  at  some  other  time. 

MR.  WHITE:  I know  it;  but  I shall 

make  such  a motion  later  in  the  Con- 
vention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : At  present  it  is 

not  in  order.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question  upon  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  motion? 

(Cries  of  “Question,”  “Question.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor the  motion  will  signify  by  saying 
aye ; those  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 
The  Secretary  will  read  No.  10. 

The  Secretary  thereupon  read  No.  10 
as  printed  on  page  700  of  the  proceed- 
ings. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I move  its  adoption. 

MR.  POST:  I rise  to  a point  of  in- 

formation. Before  you  consider  that,  I 
would  like  to  make  this  point:  Mr.  White 
has  given  notice  of  his  purpose  to  move 
to  reconsider.  Now,  we  are  held  pretty 
closely  to  attendance  here  and  I do  not 
wrant  to  be  surprised  by  a motion  to  re- 
consider at  some  future  time.  Mr.  White 
voted  on  the  wrong  side  of  the  motion 
to  entitle  him  to  move  to  reconsider. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  He  has  not  made 

the  motion  yet. 

MR.  POST:  What  is  that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  He  has  not  made 

the  motion  yet. 

MR.  POST:  He  gave  notice,  and  I 

■wish  to  give  notice,  too. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  When  he  makes 

the  motion  though  there  will  be  an  in- 
quiry. 

MR.  POST : I wish  to  offer  an  amend- 

ment to  No.  1,  or  an  addition  as  follows, 
to  No.  1 of  10. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  it  an  amend- 

ment, Mr.  Post? 

MR.  POST:  It  is  an  amendment,  an 

addition  by  way  of  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  it  be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Post: 

At  paragraph  1,  Section  10,  page  700: 
The  salary  of  no  teacher  or  principal 
shall  be  lowered  during  the  term  of  his 
or  her  appointment.  * ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  ques- 

tion will  be  upon  the  resolution,  as 
printed. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I second  that  mo- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  offered 

as  an  addition  to  the  resolution? 

MR.  POST:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  an  explanation  from  the  committee 
of  the  reason  why  the  words,  in  para- 
graph 1,  section  10,  are  inserted,  which 
words  are  as  follows:  “But  the  board 

need  not  retain  in  service  more  princi- 
pals or  teachers  than  the  needs  of  the 
schools  require.  ’ ’ I want  to  know  what 
the  object  of  retaining  that  in  the 
charter  is.  I see  no  reason  for  its  re- 
tention whatever.  It  is  a matter  of 
detail  at  the  very  best,  which  does  not 
need  any  place  in  a document  of  this 
kind,  and  I see  no  reason  on  earth  why 
such  a paragraph  should  be  retained  in 
a section  of  this  character. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  Taylor  is  the 

one  to  answer  that. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I just  desire  to 

make  another  suggestion,  and  perhaps 
they  will  come  in  together 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  Taylor  has 

the  floor  to  answer  Mr.  MacMillan ’s 
question. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : * 1 Appointments, 

promotions  and  transfers  of  teachers 
shall  be  made  for  merit  only.  * 1 Sup- 
pose a teacher  is  transferred  from  one 
school  to  another  in  the  same  grade,  how 
can  that  be  a transfer  for  merit  only? 
Is  not  the  phrase  ‘ 1 transferred  for  mer- 
it only”  slightly  misleading?  If  it 


December  26 


723 


1906 


be  a promotion  it  will  be  a promotion, 
if  tbe  teacher  is  transferred  from  one 
school  and  put  in  another  and  higher 
grade,  in  another  school;  but  no  pro- 
motion would  cover  that.  Is  not  that 
word  ‘ 1 transfer,  ’ ’ Dr.  Taylor,  a little 
superfluous? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

first  clause  was  inserted  here  simply 
as  a precautionary  measure,  and  the 
point  is  well  taken  by  Mr.  MacMillan. 
The  other  clause  he  refers  to  in  his 
second  question  does  not  allude  to  trans- 
fers. It  has  crept  in  by  the  effort  to 
convince,  that  is  all.  ‘ 1 Appointments  and 
promotions  shall  be  made  for  merit 
only.  ” Of  course,  that  refers,  not  to 
transfers,  and  the  point  is  well  taken. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  a mo- 

tion to  strike  out  the  word  1 ‘ transfer?  ’ ’ 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I would  so  move, 

Mr.  Chairman,  if  it  be  proper  at  this 
time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Air.  MacMillan 

moves  to  strike  out  the  word  ‘ 1 trans- 
fers, ’ ’ so  that  the  sentence  will  read 
1 1 Appointments,  promotions  shall  be 
made  on  merit.  ’ 1 As  many  as  favor  that 
motion  signify  by  saying  aye.  Those 
opposed,  no.  The  word  will  be  stricken 
out. 

The  next  question  that  MacMillan 
inquires  about  is  the  last  sentence,  “But 
the  board  need  not  retain  in  service  more 
principals  or  teachers  than  the  needs 
of  the  schools  require.  ’ ’ 

MR.  WHITE:  I don’t  know  whether 

that  question  was  answered,  but  the  sit- 
uation is  this:  You  appoint  your  teach- 

ers here  permanently,  that  is,  during  good 
behavior,  subject  to  removal  for  cause 
only.  Suppose  that  at  any  time  by  vir- 
tue of  the  consolidation,  or  for  any 
reason  whatsover,  you  could  get  along 
with  100  less  teachers  than  you  had,  for 
instance,  a year  ago,  if  you  did  not  have 
some  such  clause  as  this  it  would  seem 
to  me  that  your  unnecessary  teachers 
might  turn  around  and  insist  under  the 
law  on  being  paid  their  salaries,  at  any 


rate,  if  they  stood  ready  and  willing  to 
work;  and  I am  sure  that  clause  ought 
to  be  put  in,  because  such  matters  have 
arisen,  such  a case  has  arisen  in  the 
Board  of  Education  within  my  memory. 

MR.  BENNETT:  In  connection  with 

that  paragraph  it  seems  to  me  that  an 
addition  might  properly  be  made  to  it 
to  the  effect  that  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation should  be  the  sole  judge  of  the 
necessity.  Now,  I understand  that  the 
teachers  are  not  under  civil  service,  but 
wTe  had  better  look  into  this  matter,  be- 
cause instances  have  arisen  where  under 
the  civil  service  law  where  employes  have 
been  discharged  and  gone  into  court  to 
show  that  they  were  willing  to  work  and 
that  there  was  work  for  them  to  do. 
Now,  in  my  opinion,  it  ought  to  be 
made  clear  if  this  is  going  into  the 
charter,  that  the  Board  of  Education 
ought  to  have  the  power  to  determine 
whether  the  service  was  any  longer  need- 
ed; I believe  that  should  not  be  left  in 
the  dark. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  mo- 

tion before  the  house  on  either  of  those 
propositions. 

MR.  BENNETT : Very  well. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I move  to  in- 
sert the  following:  “But  the  board 

need  not  retain  in  service  more  princi- 
pals or  teachers  than  in  its  judgment 
the  needs  of  the  schools  require,  ’ ’ in- 
serting the  words  1 ‘ in  its  judgment  ’ ’ be- 
tween the  words  1 1 than  ’ 1 and  1 1 the  ’ ’ in 
the  last  line  of  the  printed  paragraph. 
I believe  that  meets  Alderman  Bennett ’s 
suggestion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

Mr.  MacMillan’s  amendment.  Are  you 
ready  for  the  question?  All  those  in 
favor  of  it  will  signify  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  The  ayes  have  it  and  it  is 
carried. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish 

to  offer  in  suggestion,  to  add  in  No.  1 
under  Section  10,  after  the  word  “merit” 
the  following : ‘ ‘ such  merit  to  be  test- 

ed by  scholarship  and  length  and  char- 


December  26 


724 


1906 


acter  of  service.”  That  is  merely  ex- 
planatory of  what  I suppose  almost  all 
of  us  mean  by  the  word  1 1 merit,  ’ ’ and  yet 

I am  not  certain  but  what  the  word 

I I merit  ’ ’ is  elastic  enough  so  that  un- 
der certain  circumstances  it  might  be 
so  broadly  interpreted  as  to  mean  almost 
anything. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  Dr.  White’s  amendment? 

MR.  POST:  When  you  have  “schol- 

arship” inserted,  it  is  about  as  indefin- 
ite a term  as  1 1 merit,  ’ ’ and  in  a charter 
it  seems  to  me  the  broader  term  of  merit 
is  better  in  order  to  leave  it  to  the  board 
as  to  what  shall  constitute  merit.  If 
you  put  in  scholarship,  what  does  it 
mean.  We  have  had  evidence  in  our 
investigations  in  the  board  that  schol- 
arship consists  in  getting  87.7  or  87.9 
in  marks  by  somebody.  A scholarship 
consists  in  getting  favorable  marks  by 
boards  in  secret  rooms  passing  upon 
teachers  ’ examinations.  It  does  not  seem 
to  me  that  that  justifies  scholarship  at 
all,  and  yet  it  is  better  to  leave  it  to 
the  board  to  determine  whether  it  shall 
be  scholarship  or  something  else,  and  then 
the  board  can  be  held  responsible,  and 
not  attempt  to  codify  this  charter  any 
further  than  we  are  attempting  to  codify 
it.  We  are  coming  down  pretty  close 
to  brass  tacks  now,  it  seems  to  me.  It 
seems  to  me  that  we  might  take  chances 
on  the  meaning  of  merit  without  getting 
it  into  the  charter. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, it  seems  to  me  that  we  should  not 
try  to  define  the  word  ‘ ‘ merit  ’ ’ here, 
and  I think  it  could  be  wrell  left  to  the 
Board  of  Education  after  awhile  to  de- 
fine the  word  “merit.”  I think  the 
word  merit  is  plain  and  ought  to  be 
definite  enough. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Dr.  White’s  amendment. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  As  many  as  favor  the 


amendment  signify  by  saying  aye ; op- 
posed, no.  The  motion  is  lost. 

The  question  is  now  upon  the  first  para- 
graph of  Section  10,  as  amended  by  Mr. 
MacMillan.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question  ? 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman,  I offered 

an  addition  by  way  of  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I thought  yours 

was  a separate  propostion,  Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST : No,  it  is  an  addition  to 

that  paragraph.  The  object  of  it  is  to 
prevent  a reduction  of  the  pay  of  the 
teachers  during  their  term  of  appoint- 
ment, and  it  is  based  upon  the  same 
theory  that  the  like  provision  is  based 
upon  under  which  we  have  decided  not 
to  allow  any  reduction  in  the  salary  of 
the  superintendent  during  the  term  of 
his  appointment,  or  of  the  business  man- 
ager during  the  term  of  his  appoint- 
ment. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  right  to  alter 
salaries  during  term  of  officb  should  be 
substantially  the  same  with  regard  to 
the  teaching  force  as  with  regard  to  the 
superintendent  and  business  manager.  So 
far  as  the  good  of  the  system  is  con- 
cerned, it  is  of  much  more  importance 
to  avoid  producing  discontent  among  the 
teaching  force  who  come  directly  in  con- 
tact with  the  children,  than  it  is  to 
produce  discontent  among  the  gentlemen 
who  command  salaries  of  $7,000,  $8,000, 
$9,000,  or  $10,000.  Of  course  so  far 
as  the  positions  themselves  are  concern- 
ed it  is  doubtless  just  as  objectionable 
to  the  superintendent  to  have  his  salary 
reduced  during  his  term  of  office  as  it 
would  be  to  the  teacher,  but  so  far  as 
the  effect  upon  the  pupils  is  concerned 
the  reduction  of  salaries  during  terms 
of  office  is  calculated  to  be  far  more 
prejudicial  to  the  children  who  go  to 
public  schools  if  the  reduction  relates 
to  the  teachers  than  if  it  relates  to  those 
highly  paid  gentlemen  at  the  top  of 
the  system. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  proposition? 


December  26 


725 


1906 


The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Post ’s  amend- 
ment, as  heretofore  printed. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I rise  to  a question  of  information:  I 

would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Post  what  is  the 
term  of  appointment  ? 

ME.  POST:  I have  followed  the  lan- 

guage that  you  have  already  adopted  in 
the  paragraph  relating  to  the  superin- 
tendent and  business  manager. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  We  haven’t 

adopted  it.  That  would  become  perma- 
nent after  three  years? 

ME.  POST : Yes,  it  would  become 

permanent  unless  because  there  is  no 
necessity  for  as  many  teachers,  then  they 
may  be  reduced.  That  is  to  say,  the 
teachers  that  remain  in  the  city. 

ME.  SHANHAN : Under  your  amend- 

ment they  could  not  be  raised  or  lowered 
during  the  term. 

VOICES:  They  could  be  lowered. 

MB.  WHITE:  I am  so  much  in  sym- 

pathy with  Mr.  Post’s  suggestion  that 
I reluctantly  ask  the  Convention  to  con- 
sider this  proposition.  These  teachers 
are  elected  for  life,  which  means  that 
having  established  their  salary  at  any 
given  time  you  could  not  reduce  them 
under  any  circumstances.  Now,  suppose 
for  any  reason,  suppose  because  of  a 
slump  in  the  value  of  property  or  a 
change  in  the  tax  rate  the  board  should 
find  itself  up  against  a possible  deficit, 
and  I know  it  is  a horrid  mean  thing 
to  turn  around  and  take  that  out  of 
the  pockets  of  the  teachers,  I am  not  in 
sympathy  with  it,  but  I can  see  where  you 
might  strike  a situation  where  you  could 
not  do  anything  else  unless  Mr.  Post 
or  some  one  else  will  show  us  how  we 
could  meet  an  emergency  of  that  kind, 
if  they  can  do  that  I am  entirely  in 
sympathy  with  the  idea,  but  under  the 
circumstances  as  at  present  I should  be 
compelled  to  vote  against  it. 

ME.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, 1 am  also  in  sympathy  with  the 
theory  of  fixing  the  salaries  permanent- 
ly, if  it  can  be  done,  but  you  are  now 


preparing  an  organic  law  for  the  City 
of  Chicago.  You  are  embodying  pro- 
visions, if  Mr.  Post ’s  amendment  pre- 
vails, that  would  prevent  you  from  ever 
making  any  change  at  any  time  without 
going  to  the  legislature.  Suppose  that 
a calamity  should  befall  us  some  time  in 
the  future  as  it  has  in  the  past,  when 
the  City  of  Chicago  should  burn  down, 
or  some  other  calamity  should  befall  the 
City  of  Chicago,  and  a deficit  would  take 
place  in  your  revenues,  what  would  you 
do?  Close  up  your  schools,  or  would  you 
call  upon  the  teachers  to  accept  a hori- 
zontal cut?  It  seems  to  me  that  good 
business  sense  would  dictate  that  we 
should  leave  that  matter  for  the  future 
to  determine.  The  future  can  take  care 
of  it  and  I hope  that  will  not  prevail. 

ME.  LINEHAN : It  seems  to  me,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  sound  business  sense 
would  impel  us  to  state  the  same  thing 
in  regard  to  the  first  paragraph  of  Sec- 
tion 7 in  regard  to  the  salaries  of  the 
officers,  which  was  passed  at  the  last 
meeting,  and  which  says  that  the  salary 
of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  during  the 
his  term  of  office.  Now,  we  are  willing 
to  do  that,  but  when  it  comes  down  to 
the  question  of  teachers  we  are  willing 
that  they  shall  be  lowered  or  raised  to 
meet  these  possible  conditions.  I think 
what  is  sauce  for  the  goose  is  sauce  for 
the  gander,  and  that  the  same  action 
should  apply  with  regard  to  the  officers 
as  with  regard  to  the  teachers. 

ME.  B.  A.  ECKHABT:  But  there  is 

a difference  between  them  in  this,  that 
the  officers  are  appointed  for  a term  of 
years,  and  this  means  the  appointment 
of  the  teachers  for  life. 

ME.  YOUNG:  I think  the  gentlemen 

do  not  give  enough  attention  to  the  fact 
that  these  teachers  are  appointed  for  life 
i after  a three  year  probationary  term. 
You  are  not  appointing  the  superintend- 
ent for  life,  nor  the  other  officers  in  the 
j school  system.  They  are  appointed  for 
i limited  terms.  It  is  a very  different 
i proposition  when  you  provide  that  this 


December  26 


726 


1906 


salary  is  to  apply  to  a life  tenure  of 
office.  You  provide  no  means  of  dis- 
charging those  teachers  except  upon  writ- 
ten charges  preferred  against  them,  and 
there  is  no  means,  as  pointed  out  by  Mr. 
Eckhart  and  Mr.  White,  in  the  event  of 
some  calamity,  to  make  any  reduction  in 
your  school  expenses.  It  would  seem  to 
me  almost  suicidal  for  us  to  place  such 
a clause  as  this  in  the  charter,  and  I 
believe  that  the  speakers  on  the  other  side 
of  this  question  have  continued  to  point 
to  the  board  as  being  entitled  to  be 
trusted  with  these  matters,  and  it  would 
seem  to  me  perfectly  safe  to  trust  such 
a propostion  in  the  hands  of  the  school 
board  as  they  may  be  called  upon  to 
face  under  the  necessities  as  they  arise. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  POST : One  moment,  Mr.  Chair- 

man. One  or  two  questions  have  been 
asked  me,  and  I do  not  wish  to  be 
understood  as  not  being  willing  to  re- 
ply* 

Now,  I wish  it  to  be  understood,  Mr. 
President,  that  I am  not  putting  in  this 
amendment  because  I believe  in  doing 
this  particular  thing.  I am  putting  it 
in  because  you  have  put  it  in — I do  not 
mean  you,  Mr.  President;  I mean  the 
Charter  Convention  have  put  it  in,  in 
regard  to  the  other  officers.  And  just 
as  Mr.  Linehan  says,  I believe  if  it 
is  proper  in  regard  to  the  other  offi- 
cers it  is  proper  in  the  case  of  the  teach- 
ers ; and  if  it  not  proper  in  the  case 
of  the  teachers  then  it  is  not  proper 
in  regard  to  the  other  officers.  1 voted 
against  the  proposition  when  it  came 
up  in  regard  to  the  salaries  of  the  other 
officers.  We  are  told  it  is  different  be- 
cause these  teachers  are  appointed  for 
life.  Gentlemen  who  have  had  any  ex- 
perience in  affairs  know  very  well  that 
when  they  have  got  a position,  that  if 
the  board  in  its  judgment  finds  that  it 
has  gotten  in  its  service  more  teachers 
than  the  schools  require  that  it  is  not 
their  experience  that  the  teachers  hold 


their  tenure  of  office  for  life.  That  need 
not  be  dwelt  upon.  We  all  know  there 
have  been  ways  and  there  will  be  ways 
of  seeing  that  the  teachers  do  not  hold 
their  positions  for  life.  But  if  this 
goes  into  effect  in  regard  to  the  other 
officers,  then  you  should  have  it  in  regard 
to  the  teaching  force.  You  are  injuring 
your  teaching  force  and  you  will  rffect 
its  power  if  you  do  not  secure  its  tenure 
of  office,  at  any  rate,  so  long  as  you  do 
that  with  the  superintendent  and  busi- 
ness manager. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

voted  against  this  proposition  in  con- 
nection with  the  superintendent,  because 
I believed  that  the  entire  system  should 
stand  or  fall  together  in  a case  of  emer- 
gency. I shall  have  to  vote  against  Mr. 
Post’s  provision,  for  it  is  certainly,  it 
seems  to  me,  inconsistent — that  is,,  my 
action  seems  inconsistent,  otherwise.  I 
think  that  if  we  vote  in  favor  of  this 
we  are  putting  up  too  great  chances 
against  the  possible  financial  position  of 
the  City  of  Chicago,  at  some  time  in  the 
future;  and  we  should  not  do  that  in 
connection  with  a charter  proposition. 
I believe  that  some  of  the  gentlemen  who 
voted  in  favor  of  the  proposition  regard- 
ing the  superintendent,  would  do  well 
to  move  reconsideration,  in  order  that 
we  may  put  this  entire  question  into 
our  system  upon  the  same  basis.  There 
is  nothing  that  will  go  more  against 
the  grain  than  discrimination  cf  this 
character. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I do  not  hardly 

think  that  these  two  situations  are  ex- 
actly alike.  I was  opposed  to  putting 
in  a provision  that  would  reduce  the 
salary  of  the  superintendent  for  the  rea- 
son that  I believed  we  should  fix  it  so 
that  the  superintendent  the  Board  of 
Education  might  select  should  feel  ab- 
solutely secure  of  his  remuneration  for  a 
fixed  period ; believing  that  by  so  doing 
we  would  be  able  to  get  the  best  possible 
talent  for  that  position.  That  is  the 
question,  as  it  seems  to  me.  We  have 


December  26 


727 


1906 


fixed  the  period  of  service  for  the  super- 
intendent at  four  years,  ami  we  are  fix- 
ing here  a position  that  is  permanent; 
in  other  words,  a life  position.  I think 
that  the  question  shouM  be  left  entirely 
with  the  Board  of  Education  to  meet 
in  case  of  such  an  emergency  arising 
where  it  might  be  necessary  to  reduce  the 
average  salaries. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Post ’s  amendment,  and  upon 
this  amendment  the  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

Yeas  — Beebe,  Dever,  Linehan,  Mac- 
Millan, O’Donnell,  Owens,  Post,  Vopicka, 
Zimmer — 9. 

Nays — Baker,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Clettenberg,  Crilly,  Dix- 
on. G.  W. ; Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart, 
J.  W. ; Eidmann,  Erickson,  Hill,  Hunter, 
Kittleman,  McCormick,  McKinley,  Pen- 
darvis,  Raymer,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 
Shepard,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Walker,  Wer- 
no,  White,  Wilkins,  Young — 29. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I stand 

exactly  where  Mr.  Revell  does  on  that 
subject  I wish  to  explain  my  vote  on 
this  question,  that  I am  voting  aye  to. 
this  motion  because  the  Convention  has 
already  applied  this  principle  to  the 
superintendent,  for  that  reason,  and  for 
that  reason  alone,  I vote  aye. 

MR.  REVELL:  I wish  you  to  pass 

me  on  this  subject. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

like  to  change  my  vote  from  no  to  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Beebe 

changes  his  vote  from  no  to  aye. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I vote  aye,  Mr. 

Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Vopicka 

votes  aye. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Beebe,  aye; 

Vopicka,  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Post’s 

motion  the  yeas  are  9,  and  the  noes 
are  29,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  re- 

curs upon  the  adoption  of  Section  10  as 


! amended  by  Mr.  MacMillan.  As  many 
as  favor  its  adoption  signify  by  saying 
aye.  Opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

The  Secretary  will  read  No.  2. 

(No.  2 was  read.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  now  read  Mr.  Hill ’s  amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY : By  Mr.  Hill : 

The  standing  of  teachers  for  appoint- 
ment and  promotion  shall  be  entrusted 
to  a board  made  up  of  the  superintend- 
ent of  education  and  of  an  assistant 
or  district  superintendent  selected  by  the 
superintendent  and  three  other  members, 
who  shall  be  educators  and  who  shall 
be  appointed  by  the  Board  of  Education. 

MR.  HILL:  I move  its  adoption. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I second. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your 

motion,  Dr.  Taylor? 

MR.  TAYLOR : I second  the  amend- 

ment. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : May  we  have  that 
amendment  read  over  again,  Mr.  Secre- 
tary? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Hill 
again. 

(Mr.  Hill’s  amendment  was  re-read.) 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I may 

explain  my  amendment.  It  seems  to  me 
that  it  should  be  a board  of  at  least 
five  members,  and  they  should  be  as 
equally  divided  as  possible.  I do  not 
think  it  wise  to  place  it  wholly  in  the 
hands  of  the  superintendent;  or  wise, 
perhaps,  to  place  it  wholly  in  the  hands 
of  the  Board  of  Education.  By  divid- 
ing it  in  this  manner  you  make  the  board 
of  five,  and  the  Board  of  Education  has 
the  appointment  of  three  men  who 
shall  be — three  members  who  shall  be 
educators,  and  the  superintendent  and 
one  appointed  by  him  to  form  two  mem- 
bers of  that  board.  1 think  it  is  as 
fair  a .proposition  as  we  can  have. 

MR.  HUNTER:  In  listening  to  that 

amendment  I presumed  that  the  Board 
of  Education  were  to  appoint  these 


December  26 


728 


1906 


three  educators  from  their  own  num- 
ber. 

MR.  HILL:  Not  necessarily,  Mr. 

Hunter.  I do  not  anticipate  that.  They 
should  use  their  own  judgment  about 
that.  They  can  choose  educators  of 
standing  outside  their  own  body,  if  they 
prefer ; or  they  can  choose  gentlemen 
from  their  own  number,  if  they  so  pre- 
fer. The  idea  is  to  get  an  efficient  board 
to  examine  the  teacher ’s  standing  not 
limited  necessarily  to  their  own  num- 
bers. They  will  be  educators. 

MR.  BENNETT:  For  a point  of  in- 

formation. This  is  not  the  exact  lan- 
guage to  be  used  in  drafting  the  bill? 

MR.  HILL:  No,  sir.  This  not  to  be 

the  exact  language.  If  it  was  left  in  this 
shape  it  would  be  uncertain  what  it 
meant  by  the  words  ‘ 1 standing  of  the 
teachers,  ’ ’ that  should  be  amplified  and 
defined  as  to  what  is  meant  by  the 
words : 1 1 standing  of  the  teacher.  ’ ’ 

MR.  HILL:  If  I may  be  permitted 

to  explain 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hill. 

MR.  HILL:  This  is  the  language  of 

the  draft  as  drawn.  I followed  the  lan- 
guage exactly,  as  drawn.  If  I under- 
stand it,  the  standing  of  the  teachers 
probably  applies  to  their  different  ap- 
pointments, or,  perhaps,  their  salary; 
their  appointment  and  their  promotion; 
advance,  from  one  step  to  another.  I 
followed  the  language  of  the  original 
draft,  supposing  it  had  a definite  mean- 
ing in  the  board  and  in  educational  par- 
lance. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  I am  heartily  in 

favor  of  Mr.  Hill ’s  amendment,  but  I 
think  we  ought  to  have  one  thing  fur- 
ther in  it.  I think  none  of  those  per- 
sons, none  of  those  three  members  ap- 
pointed should  be  members  of  the  Board 
of  Education ; and  that  it  should  not 
be  necessary  that  they  should  be  in  any 
active  employment  at  the  time  as  teach- 
ers, or  pedagogues,  or  anything  of  that 
sort.  Therefore,  in  drafting  this  pro- 
vision in  place  of  the  two  shall  be  edu- 


cators, who  shall  not  be  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  but  who  shall  have 
experience  as  educators,  should  be  added. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  that  your 

amendment? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : Yes. 

MR.  HILL:  I will  accept  the  amend- 

ment, Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Hill ’s  resolution  as  amend- 
ed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Hill,  as 

amended  by  Mr.  Rosenthal : ‘ ‘ The 

standing  of  teachers  for  appointment  and 
promotion  shall  be  entrusted  to  a board 
made  up  of  the  superintendent  of  edu- 
cation and  of  an  assistant  or  district 
superintendent  selected  by  the  superin- 
tendent, and  three  other  members  who 
shall  not  be  members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  but  who  shall  have  experience 
as  educators  and  shall  be  appointed  by 
the  Board  of  Education.  ’ 1 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  inquire  how  many  assistant 
superintendents  are  to  be  appointed.  In 
other  words,  the  number  of  the  board; 
I don’t  find  it. 

MR.  HILL:  Five. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  One  superintendent 

and  five  assistants? 

A VOICE:  One  assistant,  the  super- 

intendent and  three  educators. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

rise  to  speak  against  the  amendment  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Rosenthal.  There  is  not 
any  reason  to  anticipate  why  we  should 
not  have  members  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation who  are  as  fully  competent,  or 
possibly  more  competent  than  anyone 
else,  aside  from  the  superintendent  of 
schools  himself  to  sit  upon  this  board 
to  determine  the  standing  of  the  va- 
rious teachers.  We  have  had  men  and 
have  men  on  the  Board  of  Education 
who  have  taken  and  who  take  a great 
interest  in  the  school  question.  They 
have  had  years  of  experience  to  support 
them.  We  may  have  upon  the  Board 
of  Education  in  the  future  splendid 


December  26 


729 


1906 


educators  in  this  community,  and  there 
is  no  reason  in  my  judgment  why  the 
Board  of  Education  should  be  forbid- 
den to  appoint  one  or  more  of  those  three 
members  to  this  board  that  you  are  now 
creating  from  its  own  membership.  I 
believe  that  we  can  safely  leave  that 
with  the  board,  as  originally  contem- 
plated by  Mr.  Hill’s  amendment;  more 
safely  than  we  can  by  shutting  them 
out  from  membership  in  this  board  by 
a charter  provision. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  offer  a sub- 

stitute. I suppose  liberality  as  to  the 
number  of  substitutes  still  prevails? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  the  Christ- 

mas season,  Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST:  Well,  I will  be  as  lib- 

eral as  the  President;  I will  furnish  the 
substitutes  and  the  President  will  ad- 
mit them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  Mr.  Post’s  substitute  for  the 
entire  matter. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Post: 

“ Appointments,  promotions  and  trans- 
fers of  teachers,  principals,  assistant 
and  district  superintendents  and  other 
educational  and  attendance  officers,  and 
text  books  and  specifications  for  educa- 
tional apparatus  shall  be  introduced  by 
the  Board  of  Education  by  a majority 
vote  of  all  of  its  members;  provided, 
that  said  text  books  and  apparatus 
when  once  adopted  shall  not  be  changed 
within  four  years  thereafter.” 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  if  you 

are  going  to  adopt  Mr.  Hill’s  motion,  I 
would  suggest  it  would  be  wise  to  adopt 
Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  amendment,  in  view  of 
the  functions  of  the  board  as  so  far  es- 
tablished; because  unless  you  do  allow 
the  members  of  the  school  board  to  be 
appointed  on  this  examining  commit- 
tee, I doubt  if  the  members  of  the 
school  board  hereafter  will  have  enough 
work  to  do  to  earn  even  the  meager 
salary  you  are  allowing  them.  Tt  ought 
to  be  proper,  therefore,  to  appoint  them 
on  the  examining  committee,  and  as- 


sign them  such  other  collateral  duties 
which  may  occur. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  May  I ask  a 

question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  What  is  the 

salary  of  the  members  of  the  school 
board? 

MR.  POST:  The  present  board  gets 

nothing.  As  to  the  old  board  there  is 
nobody  discloses  how  much  they  got, 
and  there  has  been  some  question  as 
to  the  future  board.  (Laughter.) 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I wish  to  call 
attention  to  one  particular  omission 
which  may  be  easily  cured  in  Mr.  Hill’s 
motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Attention,  gen- 

tlemen. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Hill’s  intention  is 

to  have  this  examining  board  appointed 
once  and  for  all,  but  there  is  no  term 
of  office  indicated.  I would  also  call 
your  attention  to  another  thing.  Your 
superintendent  is  to  be  in  for  four 
years,  practically;  he  cannot  be  got  out. 
He  cannot  be  gotten  out  if  he  can  come 
to  a good  understanding  with  a third — 
with  one  more  than  a third  of  the 
board,  which  is  sometimes  feasible.  He 
is  there  for  four  years.  If  the  majori- 
ty of  the  board  and  he  do  not  agree  and 
yet  he  can  stand  in,  there  is  likely  to  be 
a pulling  and  a hauling  in  regard  to 
this  committee.  It  is  possible.  I say, 
possible,  of  course,  I would  not  predict 
positively.  That  is  something  that 
should  be  taken  into  consideration,  as 
it  seems  to  me.  Another  thing:  While 
you  are  adding  this,  why  not  specify 
what  this  examining  committee  is  to 
do.  Why  do  you  tell  the  board  what 
kind  of  an  examining  committee  it 
must  have  and  then  save  the  board  the 
trouble  of  figuring  out  what  the  ex- 
amining committee  is  to  do?  Why 
don’t  you  specify  its  functions?  Why 
not  go  into  details?  If  you  are  going 
into  details,  why  not  go  far  enough  into 
details  to  let  us  know  what  this  board 


December  26 


730 


1906 


is  to  do;  what  kind  of  an  examination 
to  give,  and  what  circumstances  it  has 
to  submit  to;  whether  it  is  to  indicate 
its  judgments  by  marks,  and,  if  so, 
whether  it  is  to  be  allowed  to  use  frac- 
tions in  the  marks,  and  so>  on  and  so 
forth? 

Now,  Mr.  President,  why  not  make 
a provision  here  that  will  leave  rea- 
sonable freedom  to  this  board?  You 
talk  about  the  dignity  of  the  superin- 
tendent; and  you  give  him  dignity  by 
giving  him  a big  salary,  and  making  it 
perpetual  to  the  term  of  office.  Why 
not  give  a little  dignity  to  the  Board  of 
Education?  Why  not  assume  you  are 
going  to  have  a Board  of  Education 
that  is  to  be  regarded  as  a dignified 
body,  and  that  it  is  to  be  entitled  to  be 
entrusted  with  the  duties  of  directing 
the  school  system?  Why  don’t  you  as- 
sume that  that  board  will  consult  its 
superintendents  in  technical  matters, 
as  any  reasonable  men  would  natural- 
ly do,  instead  of  legislating  it  into  a 
consultative  state  of  mind?  Why  not 
make  a board,  Mr.  President,  instead  of 
making  a stack  for  a favorite  superin- 
tendent? I presume,  Mr.  President,  we 
ought  to  try  to  legislate  this  matter  re- 
gardless of  private  members  and  re- 
gardless of  personalities,  and  with  a 
view  to  the  future  organization  of  this 
school  system.  This  kind  of  legislation 
is  not  doing  that. 

It  is  tying  the  whole  system  up  by 
saying  whether  the  handling  be  done 
according  to  the  ideals  that  prevail 
among  the  majority  of  this  Convention, 
which  is  not  a representative  Conven- 
tion of  the  City  of  Chicago.  Let  us  all 
bear  that  in  mind;  it  is  simply  an  ap- 
pointive Convention,  a voluntary  body 
gotten  together  because  the  legislature 
refused  to  provide  for  a Charter  Con- 
vention under  the  constitutional  amend- 
ment. Let  us  not  forget  that.  Let  us 
try  to  get  up  a system  that  will  have 
a degree  of  freedom,  and  that  will 
place  in  charge  of  the  public  schools 


of  the  City  of  Chicago  a board  with 
some  powers  and  some  dignity  and 
some  responsibility. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I am  inclined  to 

think  that  Section  2 is  entirely  su- 
perflous  as  it  is  here,  or  as  amended. 
In  Article  Y,  of  Section  8,  we  give  au- 
thority to  the  superintendent  of  edu- 
cation to  nominate  for  appointment  by 
the  Board  of  Education  assistants  and 
district  superintendents  and  principals 
of  schools.  I am  inclined  to  think,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  we  should  leave  some 
duties  for  the  Board  of  Education,  in- 
stead of  placing  all  of  those  duties  un- 
der the  direction  of  minor  boards,  and  I 
move  you  as  a substitute  that  No.  2 
be  not  concurred  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  the  amendments? 

MR.  RAYMER:  Lay  them  on  the 

table. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  I favor  Mr. 

Raymer ’s  motion,  I think  that  that 
should  be  cut  out  and  left  to  the  Board 
of  Education. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Raymer 

moves  that  No.  2,  and  all  substitutes 
and  amendments  thereto  be  laid  upon 
the  table. 

(Cries  of  ‘ ‘Question.’’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR,  BROSSEAU:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  here  a copy  of  the  original  report 
of  the  committee,  which  was  reported 
here  on  the  third  of  October,  and  I 
would  offer  this  part  of  the  report  as 
a substitute  for  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Hill  and  for  the  motion  made  that  we 
now  have  under  consideration;  I would 
move  that  this  be  substituted,  and  I 
will  send  it  up  to  the  desk. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Before  that  can 

be  received  I will  have  to  put  this 
motion,  that  all  of  this  matter  as  in- 
dicated be  laid  on  the  table,  because 
we  have  three  substitutes  now,  Mr. 
Brosseau,  to  the  original  matter. 


December  26 


731 


1906 


MR.  BROSSEAU:  I would  like  to 

have  this  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it. 

MR.  BROSSEAU:  This  is  the  origi- 

nal report,  page  15. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  15,  right 

hand  column: 

“The  standing  of  teachers  for  ap- 
pointment and  promotion  shall  be  en- 
trusted to  a board  made  up  of  the  su- 
perintendent of  education  and  of  an  as- 
sistant or  district  superintendent  se- 
lected by  the  superintendent  and  three 
other  members,  who  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  Board  of  Education,  one  each 
year  for  a term  of  three  years,  from 
an  eligible  list  at  least  three  times  the 
number  to  be  appointed,  certified  to  by 
the  superintendent;  and  such  board/ ' 
etc. 

MR.  HUNTER:  When  I asked  a 

question  originally  of  Mr.  Hill  it  was 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  getting  an 
expression  with  reference  to  this  board 
that  is  talked  about.  I don't  see  what 
the  members  of  the  Board  of  Education 
— I don't  see  why  they  should  be  elec- 
ted— if  they  are  not  competent  to  per- 
form their  duties,  they  should  not  be 
there  in  my  opinion.  I think  that  the 
superintendent  and  the  district  Super- 
intendent, and  three  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education  are  the  parties  who 
should  decide  on  this  thing.  I don't 
believe  that  it  is  necessary  to  go  out- 
side, or  it  should  not  be  necessary  to 
go  outside  to  get  other  members,  or 
either  of  any  other  organization,  or  col- 
lege graduates  or  anything  like  that  to 
set  with  these  two  men;  I think  they 
should  be  from  the  members  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  if  they  are 
not  competent  they  should  not  be  ap- 
pointed. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

ask  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Con- 
vention for  the  consideration  of  Aider- 
man  Ravmer's  motion  to  eliminate  this 
section  entirely.  T think  the  discussion 


here  shows  we  are  going  into  details 
that  should  be  left  to  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation. I think  Alderman  Raymer 's 
motion  ought  to  be  passed. 

(Cries  of  “Question.") 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I will  ask  to 

have  it  substituted  for  my  motion,  if 
that  is  agreeable. 

MR.  DEVER:  I understand  that  the 

proposition  is  to  give  practically  to  the 
superintendent  the  power  to  name  a 
board  which  will  constitute,  as  they 
call  it,  a civil  service  board  for  the  ex- 
amination and  appointment  of  teachers 
for  promotion.  Now,  if  that  is  the 
thing,  it  seems  to  me  that  would  be 
wrong,  that  we  would  be  making  a 
very  grave  mistake  in  doing  that,  if 
we  propose  to  have  the  people  of  this 
city  adopt  this  charter.  I cannot  re- 
call now — I confess  I have  only  a lim- 
ited knowledge  of  the  subject — but, 
anyway,  I cannot  recall  at  this  time 
any  public  official  in  this  country  en- 
dowed with  such  complete  autocratic 
powers  as  will  this  superintendent  be 
possessed  of,  if  the  things  we  seem  to 
favor  here  are  finally  carried,  if  they 
finally  become  a part  of  the  basic  law 
of  this  city.  You  giveito  the  Board  of 
Education  the  power  of  appointing  the 
superintendent,  his  office  to  be  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  to  hold  that 
office  subject  only  to.  discharge  there- 
from when  two-thirds  of  the  board  that 
creates  him  says  so.  That  of  itself  is 
an  almost  absolute  guaranty  that  he 
will  serve  his  term  of  office,  as  things 
go  in  this  city.  Beyond  that,  you  give 
him  the  power  of  naming  the  text 
books;  those  text  books  are  not  to  be 
changed  during  the  term  of  four  years; 
and  you  also  now  desire  to  let  him 
name  the  board,  which  will  have  the 
complete  control  of  the  appointment 
and  promotion  of  the  public  school 
teachers,  so  that  after  you  get  through 
with  this  whole  subject  you  create  one 
office  practically,  • that  is  the  superin- 
tendent of  public  schools. 


December  26 


732 


1906 


MR.  McCORMICK:  May  I interrupt 
you  for  a moment? 

MR.  DEVER:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I believe  you 

are  mistaken,  or  at  least  I think  you 
are  mistaken;  I understood  that  the 
Board  of  Education  was  to  appoint  the 
three  civil  service  examiners. 

MR.  DEVER:  Yes,  out  of  the  list  to 

be  prepared  by  the  superintendent  of 
education,  who  shall  present  at  least 
three  times  as  many  names  as  are  to  be 
appointed.  I understood  the  amend- 
ment was  the  one  offered  by  Mr.  Bros- 
seau. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  not  be- 

fore the  house  now. 

MR.  DEVER:  That  is  not  before 

the  house? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No. 

MR.  BROSSEAU:  I was  just  going 

to  rise  to  correct  Alderman  Dever.  The 
three  members  to  be  appointed  by  the 
Board  of  Education — well,  I will  say 
I am  not  stickling  about  that,  that  the 
members  should  be  certified  by  the  super- 
intendent; I am  willing  to  strike  those 
words  out  and  let  it  be  that  the  three 
members  shall  be  selected  by  the  Board 
of  Education.  • 

MR.  DEVER:  Out  of  how  many? 

MR.  BROSSEAU:  Out  of  five.  The 

purport  of  it  is  that  the  superintendent 
of  schools  shall  be  one  of  the  examin- 
ers, one  superintendent,  and  three  mem- 
bers appointed  by  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I submit  this  is 

apart  from  the  proposition  before  the 
house  which  is  to  be  voted  upon;  I call 
for  the  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Brosseau’s 

matter  is  not  before  the  house. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I wish  to  speak 

before  Alderman  Raymer’s  motion  is 
put.  The  question  as  to  whether  or  not 
the  three  other  members  controlling  the 
board,  if  I may  use  the  term,  shall  be 
members  of  the  school  board  or  not,  is 


the  one  upon  which  we  are  called  to 
vote.  Now,  if  you  have  a board  of  five, 
of  whom  three  are  trustees,  and  of 
whom  two  are  creatures  of  the  trus- 
tees, it  does  not  occur  to  me  that  the 
creatures  of  the  trustees  will  have  the 
backbone  to  oppose  the  wishes  of  their 
creator.  I know  of  a public  body  in 
this  community  that  had  that  experi- 
ence in  a very  recent  time,  and  I am  not 
speaking  of  the  Board  of  Education,  be- 
cause I do  not  want  anybody  to  take 
offense,  pardon  me  for  not  mentioning 
the  name;  whether  it  is  under  the  civil 
service  law  or  not,  I cannot  say,  but  the 
civil  service  commissioners  are  not  ac- 
customed to  holding  personal  examina- 
tions for  applicants;  it  is  their  custom 
to  appoint  civil  service  sub-commission- 
ers or  examiners,  who  prepare  the  ex- 
aminations for  the  applicants  and  pass 
upon  them.  For  instance,  the  examina- 
tion under'  which  Mr.  Shaw  was  recent- 
ly appointed  consulting  engineer  for 
the  city,  the  civil  service  commission- 
ers appointed  several  engineers,  of 
whom  Mr.  Wisener,  assistant  chief  en- 
gineer of  the  Sanitary  District,  was  one, 
and  those  men  passed  on  that  examina- 
tion. It  would  appear  to  me  that  it 
would  not  be  advisable  or  even  fair  to 
the  members  of  the  school  board  to  ask 
them  to  go  into  the  qualification  of 
every  candidate  for  promotion;  nor  does 
it  appear  to  me  that  it  would  be  good 
policy.  It  would  be  in  the  nature  or 
in  the  way  of  introducing  politics  into 
it,  and  that  is  not  to  be  tolerated.  It  is 
not  to  be  expected  that  ambitious 
school  teachers  will  not  endeavor  to 
use  what  influence  they  can  to  get  the 
trustees  to  procure  promotions  for 
them.  We  know  that  every  other  kind 
of  public  employes  use  all  the  influence 
they  can  get  upon  their  superiors  to  get 
promotion  either  in  salary  or  in  rank. 
When  the  trustees — if  that  is  the  word 
used  by  the  school  board  members,  the 
members  of  the  school  board — if  the 
trustees  are  free  from  this  pressure,  bo 


December  26 


733 


1906 


much  the  better  for  them.  If  they  can 
appoint  three  reputable  people  to  do 
this  work  so  much  the  better  for  them, 
so  much  farther  are  they  away  from  the 
pressure,  a pressure  which  does  untold 
harm  to  the  very  foundation  of  govern- 
mental organizations  in  this  country. 

(Cries  of  “ Question,  Question.  ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 

upon  Alderman  Raymer ’s  motion  that 
paragraph  2 and  all  the  amendments 
thereto  be  laid  on  the  table.  Do  you 
wish  a roll  call? 

(Cries  of  “Roll  call.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  there  be  a 

roll  call. 

MR.  DEYER:  I would  like  to  ask 

for  information.  I was  not  at  the  last 
session  of  the  Convention,  so  I would 
like  to  ask  where  that  will  leave  us 
with  reference  to  this  subject  how  will 
the  appointments  and  promotions  be 
made,  and  by  what  authority,  if  this 
whole  subject  is  stricken  out? 

MR.  RAYMER:  It  seems  to  me,  if 

I may  answer  that  question,  if  I may 
be  permitted  to  answer  it,  that  it  vests 
the  power  in  the  board  to  make  provi- 
sion to  take  care  of  the  provisions 
enumerated  in  Section  10  referred  to. 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Clet- 
tenberg,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.; 
Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Erick- 
son, Hunter,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  Mac- 
Millan, O’Donnell,  Owens,  Pendarvis, 
Post,  Raymer,  Rosenthal,  Shepard,  Sun- 
ny, Yopicka,  Walker,  Werno,  White, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 29. 

Nays — Baker,  Brosseau,  Brown,  Eid- 
mann,  Hill,  McCormick,  Revell,  Taylor 
—8. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I desire 

to  be  recorded  as  voting  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hill  votes 

no. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  be  recorded  as  voting  aye 


for  the  purpose  of  moving  a reconsid- 
eration of  the  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Young 

changes  his  vote  to  aye.  Upon  Mr. 
Raymer ’s  motion  that  the  entire  sub- 
ject lie  on  the  table,  the  ayes  are  29, 
and  the  nays  are  8,  and  3 not  voting, 
and  the  motion  to  lie  on  the  table  is  car- 
ried. 

MR.  POST:  Might  I ask,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, who  does  not  vote  on  that  ques- 
tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  give  you  their  names,  those  who 
are  present  and  not  voting. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Mr.  McKinley, 

Mr.  Shanahan  and  the  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  No.  11. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  the 
Convention  will  indulge  me  just  a mo- 
ment, I would  like  to  make  a motion 
at  this  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  mo- 

tion? 

MR.  WERNO:  I would  like  to  make 

a motion  that  the  proposition  published 
on  page  702,  relating  to  the  power  to 
regulate  the  legal  observance  of  the 
weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly  called 
Sunday,  be  made  a special  order  imme- 
diately after  the  Convention  gets 
through  with  the  subject  of  Woman’s 
Suffrage. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  it  will  be  so  ordered. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  that  Woman’s  Suffrage  be  made  a 
special  order  at  the  opening  of  the  next 
session  of  this  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  it  is  so  ordered. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  also  to  have  the  Secretary 
read  a communication  sent  up  to  him. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Has  it  to  do 

with  this  subject? 

MR.  WERNO:  It  relates  to  the 

same  subject. 


December  26 


734 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : The  communi- 

cation will  be  read  as  soon  as  the  pres- 
ent section  under  consideration  is  dis- 
posed of. 

MR.  WERNO:  And  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be 

printed.  Let  the  Secretary  read  No.  11, 
on  page  700. 

(The  Secretary  read  No.  11.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell 

has  an  amendment,  I believe. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I will  give  way 

to  Professor  Taylor. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

wish  to  state  again  very  briefly  the  rea- 
sons for  the  introduction  of  this  provi- 
sion. The  child  labor  laws  provide  that 
children  between  fourteen  and  sixteen 
years  of  age  cannot  be  employed  more 
than  eight  hours  nor  after  7 o ’clock  in 
the  evening.  That  makes  the  employ- 
ment of  these  children  precarious  and 
transient.  It  leaves  a large  proportion 
of  them  on  the  street,  as  they  neither 
can  keep  at  work  nor  are  they  expected 
to  be  in  school. 

Now,  since  the  last  session  of  the 
Convention  I called  together  the  chair- 
man of  the  Board  of  Education,  the 
chief  probationary  officer  of  the  Juven- 
ile Court,  the  superintendent  of  the  de- 
partment of  compulsory  education,  and 
the  chief  factory  inspector,  and  with- 
out any  reservation  they  each  and  all 
declared  that  in  their  administration 
of  the  laws  committed  to  their  care 
they  had  more  difficulty  with  the  chil- 
dren between  fourteen  and  sixteen  sim- 
ply because  they  were  not  required  to 
be  either  at  school  or  at  work,  than 
with  any  other  class  of  children.  The 
last  school  census  of  Chicago  reports 
3,219  boys  over  fourteen  and  under  six- 
teen who  are  neither  at  school  nor  at 
work,  and  4,857  girls  over  fourteen  and 
under  sixteen  who  are  neither  at  school 
nor  at  work.  The  chief  probation  offi- 
cer of  the  Juvenile  Court  also  says  that 
by  far  the  largest  number  of  cases 


brought  before  that  court  for  adjudica- 
tion in  delinquency,  not  for  dependency, 
are  between  the  ages  of  fourteen  and 
sixteen.  In  one  single  gang  numbering 
between  seven  and  eight  boys  there 
were  twenty-three  burglaries  charged 
by  the  police,  and  I think  if  you  will 
inquire  at  the  police  stations,  and  es- 
pecially of  the  police  probation  officers 
detailed  at  the  department  for  service 
in  the  Juvenile  Court  you  will  get  an 
almost  unanimous  endorsement  of  this 
wise  and  simple  restraining  provision 
for  caring  for  these  children. 

It  is  absolutely  no  hardship  to  the 
parents,  for  if  they  can  show  regularity 
of  employment — and  I would  be  per- 
fectly willing  to  have  a number  of 
hours  per  week  instead  of  five  hours  per 
day,  for  five  days  a week  inserted — I 
think  there  is  no  hardship  to  the  par- 
ents at  all,  and  in  fact  I know  by  per- 
sonal experience  that  many  parents  are 
only  too  grateful  for  the  safeguard 
which  the  probation  officers  throw 
around  their  children  in  trying  to  se- 
cure their  attendance  at  night  school 
as  they  may  now,  or  some  regularity  of 
employment.  It  is  with  no  idea  of  in- 
terfering with  parental  cares,  but  only 
for  the  protection  of  little  children  who 
can  neither  get  permanent  work  nor  are 
expected  to  be  at  school,  that  I move 
the  adoption  of  this  provision. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman, 

when  Mr.  Taylor  made  his  explanation 
the  other  evening  I was  not  impressed 
with  the  statements1  he  made  as  I am 
tonight.  I received  some  information 
this  afternoon  from  happening  into  a 
court  room  in  which  were  assembled 
Judge  Mack  and  Judge  Carpenter,  the 
most  of  the  Municipal  Court  judges 
and  nearly  all  of  the  captains  and  lieu- 
tenants of  police,  and  the  assistant  su- 
perintendent was  there,  and  during  the 
general  conversation  from  the  remarks 
made  by  the  different  individuals  who 
were  there — and  there  were  a number 


December  26 


735 


1906 


of  men  and  women  who  were  probation 
officers — it  was  plainly  evident  that  be- 
tween these  ages  the  greatest  trouble 
to  all  the  departments  was  experienced. 
I am  therefore  heartily  in  favor  of  the 
motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O'Donnell's 
amendment  is  in  the  hands  of  the  Sec- 
retary. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  O'Don- 

nell: “The  maximum  age  of  compul- 
sory school  attendance  shall  be  four- 
teen years." 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is,  instead 

of  sixteen  you  desire  to  strike  out  the 
first  sentence? 

MR.  O'DONNELL:  I move  that  for 

the  entire  section  as  it  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  entire  sec- 

tion? 

MR.  O'DONNELL:  Yes.  Now,  it  is 
very  essential  to  have  good  schools  and 
it  is  necessary  that  every  child  in  the 
community  should  learn  to  read,  write 
and  cipher.  It  is  also  necessary  that 
the  child  should  learn  how  to  work. 
That  is  just  as  essential  as  to  acquire 
an  education.  It  is  an  education  in  it- 
self to  learn  to  work  for  a given  num- 
ber of  hours,  a given  number  of  hours 
every  day.  The  state  should  not  seek 
to  be  the  parent  of  the  child  if  the 
state  can  avoid  being  the  parent.  The 
child  goes  to  school  here  when  it  is  six 
years  of  age,  and  continues  on  in 
school  until  the  age  of  fourteen.  If  the 
child  is  a normal  child  at  the  age  of 
fourteen  it  will  have  acquired  an  ordi- 
nary education  and  is  fitted  then,  I 
think  in  training,  in  education,  and  in 
physique  to  go  to  work;  to  start  in  and 
earn  a livelihood  for  itself,  or  probably 
to  assist  parents  who  are  poor. 

Now,  I introduced  in  the  State  Legis- 
lature the  original  juvenile  court  law. 
T also  introduced  in  the  State  Legisla- 
ture several  bills  looking  to  the  pre- 
vention of  child  labor,  and  during  my 
practice  in  Chicago  for  twenty  years  I 


have  given  the  little  children  a great 
deal  of  time  and  a great  deal  of  study. 

Now,  this  proposition  is  that  between 
the  ages  of  fourteen  and  sixteen  years, 
the  child,  if  it  goes  out  on  the'  street 
will  be  liable  to  be  taken  up  by  a tru- 
ant officer  and  dragged  to  the  Juvenile 
Court  if  it  is  not  engaged  in  some  em- 
ployment. No  opportunity  under  this 
law  will  be  given  it  to  seek  employ- 
ment. It  will  be  hounded  continually. 
Remember,  gentlemen,  we  are  not  legis- 
lating here  for  the  great  majority  of  the 
children  of  this  community.  The  great 
majority  of  the  children  of  this  commu- 
nity have  good  homes  and  good  par- 
ents; and  let  us  allow  those  good  par- 
ents to  look  after  their  children  with- 
out having  the  state  come  in  and  in- 
terfere. 

When  the  parent  deems  it  wise  after 
the  child  comes  to  the  age  of  fourteen 
that  it  shall  go  to  work  let  not  the  state 
dare  interfere  with  that  prerogative  of 
the  parent.  . The  parent  loves  the  child 
truly.  It  knows  what  is  best  for  the 
child.  The  home  is  the  institution  to 
bring  the  child  up  in,  not  any  of  these 
institutions  that  you  have  around  here 
in  any  of  these  different  schools.  The 
child’  that  is  a product  of  one  of  these 
schools  is  a problem.  It  is  the  home 
that  is  the  telling  thing  with  the  child. 

Now,  what  do  you  propose  to  do 
here?  “The  maximum  age  of  compul- 
sory school  attendance  shall  be  in- 
creased from  fourteen  to  sixteen 
years."  Then  there  is  a saving  clause: 
“But  the  children  between  the  ages  of 
fourteen  years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be 
required  to  attend  school  for  such  time 
during  said  years  as  they  may  be  in 
good  faith  engaged  in  regular  employ- 
ment not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for 
not  less  than  five  days  in  each  week." 

T maintain  that  the  age  between 
fourteen  and  sixteen  ought  to  be  the 
age  that  the  parent  would  be  allowed 
exclusive  discretion  of  what  his  child 


December  26 


736 


1906 


shall  do.  If  the  parent  wants  it  to  go 
to  school  until  it  is  sixteen,  let  the  par- 
ent have  that  privilege,  let  the  parent 
send  the  child  to  school.  If  the  parent 
desires  the  child  to  go  to  work  the  par- 
ent should  be  allowed  to  have  his  child 
go  to  work.  If  the  parent  deems  it 
essential  that  the  child  learn  how  to 
work  so  that  it  can  support  itself  in 
future  life  let  the  parent  do  so. 

Now,  the  law  Says  that  a child  of 
fourteen  is  mature  to  the  extent  that  it 
can  select  its  own  guardian.  It  gives 
it  credit  for  a sufficient  degree  of  in- 
telligence against  its  father  and  mother 
and  all  the  world,  the  law  says  that  the 
child  can  select  its  own  guardian  with- 
out any  interference  from  any  person 
Or  persons  whatsoever. 

I know  of  one  case  here  that  came 
to  my  own  notice  in  the  last  few  days. 
A little  child  was  employed  down  here 
on  State  street  during  the  rush  season, 
a girl  over  the  age  of  fourteen,  and  one 
day  down  there  looking  in  the  shop 
windows  since  the  employment  ceased  a 
few  days  before  Christmas,  the  child 
was  accosted  on  the  street,  interrogated 
where  its  father  find  mother  lived,  what 
its  father's  business  was,  and  almost 
forcibly  taken  into  custody.  Now,  that 
is  only  one  instance  of  what  happens 
here  every  day.  The  children  are  afraid 
to  go  out  on  the  street,  and  they  will 
be  more  afraid  to  go  out  on  the  street 
if  this  law  here  is  carried  to  the  ex- 
tent that  this  amendment  suggests  that 
it  shall  be  carried. 

I want  to  see  the  children  off  the 
streets.  I do  not  want  to  allow  them 
time  to  fall  into  evil  ways,  but  I want 
to  say  to  you  that  we  must  call  a halt 
upon  the  State  assuming  parental  con- 
trol of  the  child  when  we  have  thou- 
sands and  thousands  of  good  homes  in 
this  city  eager  and  willing  to  take  care 
of  their  children. 

Now,  I do  not  know  what  actuates  this 
army  that  we  have  employed  now  in  the 


place  of  the  parents  that  surrounds  this 
Juvenile  Court,  but  in  their  mad  career 
they  may  blast  the  life  of  these  chil- 
dren if  they  are  given  the  power  to  do 
so.  Mind  you,  gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, the  state  law  says  that  after  the 
age  of  fourteeh,  the  state  law  at  pres- 
ent fixes  the  compulsory  school  atten- 
dance age  at  fourteen  years,  and  not 
above  it.  The  present  state  law  that 
was  threshed  out  in  the  legislature  where 
every  man  in  this  Convention  and  else- 
where representing  his  district  in  the  leg- 
islature had  something  to  say  about  it, 
and  the  united  wisdom  of  the  state  fixed 
this  age,  the  age  of  compulsory  school 
attendance  at  fourteen. 

The  Juvenile  Court  law  still  apper- 
tains no  matter  what  age  the  child  is 
if  the  child  is  only  thirteen  or  fourteen, 
or  over  fourteen,  fifteen  or  sixteen,  if 
the  child  is  neglected  or  dependent  or 
incorrigible  the  Juvenile  Court  steps  in 
and  takes  possession  of  that  child  and 
commits  it  to  some  institution  if  there 
is  no  home  to  guard  it  and  to  guide  it. 

It  would  be  a great  mistake  for  you 
to  adopt  this  amendment.  The  princi- 
pal objection  I See  to  it  is  that  every 
little  child  going  out  on  the  street  is 
apt  to  be  hounded  and  terrorized  and 
made  to  feel  that  they  are  in  the  position 
of  criminals.  If  a child  has  arrived  at 
this  maximum  school  age,  the  age  of 
fourteen,  it  has  a right  to  go  out  on 
the  street  to  seek  employment,  to  go 
to  the  parks  and  to  enjoy  itself,  if  the 
parent  is  willing;  and  for  the  small 
number  of  children  that  would  fit  in 
the  class  that  Professor  Taylor  speaks 
of  you  would  put  all  the  good  children 
of  the  City  in  a position  where  they  are 
liable  to  be  called  criminals  and  taken 
up  off  the  street  as  criminals  if  you  pass 
this  amendment. 

Now,  a great  many  of  the  successful 
men  who  own  their  Stores  today  in  this 
city  and  were  successful  in  business  went 
to  work  long  before  they  were  fourteen 
years  of  age.  I know  several  successful 


December  26 


737 


1906 


business  men  and  professional  men,  too, 
that  when  they  were  eleven  or  twelve  or 
thirteen  years  of  age  went  to  work  for 
one  reason  or  another;  sometimes  be- 
cause they  had  the  opportunity,  some- 
times to  support  a sick  father  or  a sick 
mother,  to  keep  the  wolf  from  the  door, 
and  I feel  that  it  would  be  a great  in- 
justice to  the  children  of  this  city  to 
pass  this  amendment. 

Now,  I have  been  watching  this  Juve- 
nile Court  and  its  great  corps  of  at- 
tendants, and  I have  gone  down  several 
times  to  see  the  way  it  conducts  its 
business,  and  the  little  child  is  not  al- 
lowed to  say  a word.  The  sensitive  little 
thing  is  brought  up  there  in  all  the 
confusion  of  the  court,  and  a truant  offi- 
cer does  all  the  talking.  The  little  child 
is  so  abashed  and  scared  it  cannot  make 
itself  heard,  nor  can  it  speak  intelli- 
gently. The  judge  there,  sitting  in  all 
bis  majesty,  strikes  a note  of  terror  into 
the  little  heart  and  mind.  The  child  is 
paralyzed.  There  may  be  some  incor- 
rigible children,  but  there  are  very  few, 
very  few  of  them  compared  to  the  many 
that  go  there. 

Now,  let  us  not  make  this  mistake. 
I fear  you  are  loading  down  your  char- 
ter with  a lot  of  unnecessary  things,  and 
that  you  will  rouse  among  the  people 
great  opposition  to  it.  This  is  one  thing 
you  should  leave  to  the  parents  and  to 
parental  control.  Do  not  fly  in  the  face 
of  the  judgment  of  the  sincere  men  of 
this  state  in  raising  the  maximum  school 
age.  This  is  a question  which  the  legis- 
lature is  sincere  on.  There  is  nothing 
in  this  Juvenile  Court  law  to  bias  the 
judgment  of  the  members;  it  comes  from 
their  hearts  and  it  is  their  best  judg- 
ment. 

Let  not  the  City  of  Chicago  fly  in  the 
face  of  the  judgment  of  the  legislators 
Of  the  state.  There  is  no  motive  in  hav- 
ing a law  of  this  kind,  but  the  best 
hiotive  in  the  world.  Let  the  thousands 
and  thousands  Of  good  parents  in  good 
homes  govern  their  Children  between  the 


ages  of  fourteen  and  sixteen  years,  and 
let  the  state  cease  to  compel  children 
to  go  to  school,  cease  to  badger  and 
browbeat  and  intimidate  children  that 
appear  on  the  street,  over  the  age  of 
fourteen. 

Why,  a boy  of  fourteen  years  of  age 
is  quite  a husky  boy  these  days.  Look 
around  and  see  them.  Girls  at  the  age 
of  fourteen  in  some  countries  marry, 
and  I think  in  this  state  with  the  con- 
sent of  their  parents  they  can  marry. 
Now,  at  this  age,  when  the  home  will 
do  everything,  when  the  parents  ’ watch- 
fulness and  care  is  the  great  thing,  you 
will  turn  the  children  over  to  the  state. 
I know  that  Professor  Taylor  is  the 
kindest  of  men.  What  he  means  to  do  is 
done  in  the  best  spirit  in  the  world,  but 
I say  that  I have  just  as  much  experi- 
ence as  he  has  in  these  matters  here 
in  Chicago.  I have  given  these  mat- 
ters my  especial  attentioh.  I know  that 
everything  he  does  is  from  the  kind- 
ness of  his  heart,  but  I am  afraid  that 
back  of  all  this  they  want  to  have  more 
truant  officers,  they  wrant  to  have  more 
power,  they  W’ant  to  domineer  more  over 
the  children.  I think  it  a great  mis- 
take and  something  that  will  bring  about 
a bitter  feeling  against  the  present  con- 
ditions. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  cer- 

tainly the  subject  is  of  great  importance, 
and  it  is  wrorthy  of  a very  careful  con- 
sideration. I am  quite  aware  that  Mr. 
O ’Donnell  with  the  rest  of  tis  wrants 
wrhat  is  best  for  the  ehildren  of  Chi- 
cago. 

Now’,  in  a word,  what  is  the  situation1? 
The  state  law  provides  that  up  to  the 
age  of  fourteen  children  must  attend 
some  school  for  a period  of  110  days 
in  each  year.  After  the  age  of  fourteen 
the  compulsory  department  of  the  Board 
of  Education  cannot  compel  them  to  go 
to  school.  Thefe  are  certain  kinds  of 
wOrk  between  the  ages  of  fourteen  and 
sixteen  Which  they  can  engage  in.  There 
arc  certain  other  kinds  of  work  that  they 


December  26 


738 


1906 


are  already  prohibited  by  state  law  from 
undertaking.  Now,  I speak  out  of  some 
knowledge  of  what  results  from  this  situ- 
ation. 

Today  the  streets  of  your  city  and  es- 
pecially certain  sections  of  this  city  have 
not  scores,  but  hundreds  of  children  who 
have  passed  the  age  of  fourteen  and  are 
not  regularly  employed  but  are  turned 
loose  on  the  streets  of  Chicago  to  do 
practically  as  they  will.  And  the  re- 
port of  the  compulsory  educational  de- 
partment of  the  Board  of  Education  is 
today  in  line  with  what  Professor  Tay- 
lor has  said,  what  Judge  Mack,  after 
much  experience  and  careful  study  of  the 
situation,  bears  witness  to,  that  one  of 
the  great  sources  of  juvenile  crime  in 
the  city  of  Chicago  today  is  that  class 
of  uncared  for  children  between  the  ages 
of  fourteen  and  sixteen. 

Now,  everyone  who  has  made  any 
study  of  childhood  at  all,  who  knows 
anything  about  the  modern  science  of 
childhod,  knows  that  the  impressionable 
years,  the  years  of  danger  to  boyhood 
and  girlhood  are  between  the  ages  of 
fourteen  and  sixteen.  And,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  there  is  any  reason  under 
Heaven  why  the  state  should  take  in  its 
charge  the  welfare  of  the  children  of 
Chicago  at  all,  the  same  reason  applies 
with  ten-fold  force  to  children  between 
the  ages  of  fourteen  and  sixteen. 

Now,  this  provision  here  is  very  fair 
and  it  is  very  simple.  It  merely  states 
this,  that  a child  after  the  age  of  four- 
teen if  regularly  employed  is  exempt 
from  the  compulsory  educational  law. 
That  is  all  there  is  to  it.  But  if  they 
are  not  so  regularly  employed  then  the 
state  proposes  to  say,  or  the  city 
through  this  charter  provision,  that  the 
state  shall  extend  its  supervision  over 
these  children  between  the  ages  of  four- 
teen and  sixteen  and  send  them  to 
school.  T believe  that  the  judgment 
of  all  men  and  women  in  this  city  who 
know  best  the  state  of  childhood  in  this 
city  between  the  ages  of  fourteen  and 


sixteen  entirely  coincide  with  this  pro- 
vision, and  if  they  were  permitted,  Mr. 
Chairman,  would  emphasize  the  abso- 
lute necessity  of  some  such  extension 
of  the  compulsory  aducational  law  as 
this. 

It  is  not  necessarily  an  infringement 
on  the  rights  of  any  home  or  any  par- 
ent any  more  than  it  would  be  between 
the  ages  of  twelve  and  fourteen,  be- 
cause the  danger  age  of  children  is  not 
between  the  ages  of  twelve  and  four- 
teen, but  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
and  sixteen.  It  is  a perfectly  fair  prop- 
osition in  every  way.  Its  whole  aim 
and  intent  is  to  protect  the  childhood 
of  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  I believe 
we  should  make  a great  mistake  indeed 
if  we  missed  this  opportunity  of  pro- 
tecting the  children  of  Chicago  be- 
tween the  ages  of  fourteen  and  six- 
teen. If  the  parents  desire  them  to  go 
to  work  there  is  absolutely  nothing  in 
this  law  that  prevents  them  from  hav- 
ing them  go  to  work.  If,  however,  they 
are  not  at  work  it  simply  says  that 
the  children,  and  hundreds  of  them  are 
today  adrift  on  the  streets  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  many  of  those  streets  are 
the  breeding  places  of  juvenile  crime, 
shall  be  where  children  between  four- 
teen and  sixteen  ought  to  be  if  they 
are  not  regularly  employed,  in  the 
schools  of  Chicago.  I certainly  hope 
that  this  provision  will  carry. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I want 

to  make  more  or  less  of  a personal  ap- 
plication to  this  particular  thing.  Right 
in  my  neighborhood  less  than  two 
weeks  ago,  I saw  a crowd  of  about 
twenty  boys;  one  of  them  was  nine- 
teen and  the  rest  of  them  were  between 
the  ages  of  fourteen  and  sixten.  After 
some  inquiry  I found  that  four  of 
those  boys  had  a police  record,  and  I 
found  that  the  reason  for  it  was  that 
they  had  nothing  to  do;  that  they  spent 
their  days  and  nights  running  the 
streets,  simply  driven  from  place  to 


December  26 


739 


1906 


place,  gambling  here  and  there.  I 
talked  with  the  policemen  in  the 
neighborhood  and  they  were  uniform 
in  the  idea  that  there  must  be  some 
extension  of  the  age  of  compulsory  edu- 
cation if  anything  was  to  be  done,  and 
I hunted  up  some  of  the  parents  and 
they  were  uniformly  in  favor  of  the 
extension  of  the  law  of  compulsory 
education. 

In  my  judgment  this  will  go  a long 
way  towards  taking  care  of  some  of 
the  problems  we  have  now  in  relation 
to  the  boys  between  those  ages.  I 
think  that  that  is  the  most  dangerous 
period  of  a boy's  life,  and  I am 
firmly  and  strongly  of  the  opinion  that 
the  adoption  of  some  measure  of  this 
kind  would  be  a great  material  benefit 
to  the  people  of  this  city  and  the  boys 
of  this  city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question  on  Mr.  O 'Donnell 's  sub- 
stitute? 

MR.  McCORMICK : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

wish  to  speak  a word  on  this  subject  of 
education.  I have  refrained  addressing 
many  remarks  on  the  subject  of  educa- 
tion, because  I have  not  studied  the  ques- 
tion as  much  as  many'  other  gentlemen 
here.  But  when  you  come  to  the  ques- 
tion of  boys  of  from  fourteen  to  sixteen 
years  of  age,  perhaps  I can  be  listened 
to  with  some  degree  of  confidence,  be- 
cause I may  remember  that  age  better 
than  some  of  the  members  present.  It 
is  not  a very  long  time  since  I passed 
through  the  years  of  from  fourteen  to 
sixteen.  In  these  days  boys  learn  to 
read  much  earlier  than  they  did  ten  or 
fifteen  years  ago,  I imagine,  but  it  is 
practically  true  today,  as  it  was  then, 
that  when  a boy  comes  to  the  age  of  four- 
teen he  arrives  at  the  age  of  imagination. 
His  imagination  does  not  take  to  science, 
or  to  the  study  of  political  economy,  or 
studies  like  that,  but  he  bends  in  his 
untrained  ways  towards  adventures  of 
various  kinds.  If  the  boy  was  properly 
looked  after  he  probably  read  stories  of 


the  great  explorers,  of  the  crusade  and 
the  conqueror,  and  his  mind  was  turned 
towards  war. 

If  he  was  not  so  fortunate  as  that  he 
undoubtedly  took  to  dime  novels,  of  the 
Dynamite  Dick  type  and  the  James 
Brothers,  and  probably  in  a few  years 
he  would  be  reading  about  the  Auto- 
matic Trio.  That  is  the  kind  of  litera- 
ture that  a boy  of  that  age  naturally 
turns  towards.  If  a boy  of  fourteen 
or  sixteen  gets  money  enough  together 
he  does  not  buy  Bryce’s  American  Com- 
monwealth; if  he  can  get  $20.00  together 
he  buys  an  automatic  revolver,  and  if 
he  can  get  only  $2.00  he  buys  a bull 
dog  revolver,  whether  he  intends  to  com- 
mit murder  or  it  is  merely  in  the  spirit 
of  romanticism.  I believe  a boy  is  in 
great  danger  of  committing  a crime  from 
such  surroundings  when  he  is  allowed  to 
go  in  that  path  at  that  age,  or  at  least 
that  it  breeds  in  him  the  instinct  that 
will  lead  him  to  that  another  time  in 
his  life.  It  is  but  a short  step  from  that 
age,  the  age  of  boyhood,  to  the  age  of 
manhood.  Now,  in  the  public  schools  in 
England,  where  the  habits  perhaps  are 
not  exactly  the  same  as  in  this  country, 
I have  been  told  that  more  boys  are 
expelled  for  those  habits  during  those 
ages  than  during  any  other  period,  than 
when  they  are  older,  than  when  they 
had  arrived  at  eighteen  or  twenty  years, 
and  so  forth. 

At  the  school  where  I had  the  pleasure 
to  attend,  which  did  not  happen  to  be 
a public  school,  but  a boarding  school, 
where  a boy  had  the  benefits,  if  I may 
use  the  word,  of  the  exclusive  attention 
of  trained  educators,  the  age  of  fifteen 
was  the  turning  age.  Boys  became  older 
boys  at  that  time.  Instead  of  having 
less  attention  paid  to  him  he  had  more. 
After  fifteen  the  boys  were  allowed  and 
ordered  to  go  into  studies  every  night, 
and  more  care  was  taken  of  them  at  that 
time  than  at  any  other  time.  Without 
their  knowing  it  they  were  encouraged 
to  go  out  for  walks  in  company  with  the 


December  26 


740 


1906 


master;  they  were  encouraged  to  go  out 
on  the  river  in  canoes;  and  since  I have 
grown  up  I have  been  informed — al- 
though I did  not  dream  it  at  that  time 
— that  the  purpose  was  to  watch  the  boys 
through  those  crucial  years  so  that  they 
would  be  able  to  take  more  care  of  them- 
selves. The  experience  of  Dr.  Taylor, 
which  is  undoubtedly  as  great  as  that 
of  any  man  in  this  room,  would  be  of 
itself  sufficient  to  make  me  vote  for  this 
even  were  it  not  for  my  own  memory  of 
these  things  in  years  that  are  not  so 
many  ago. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Can  we  not  vote 

on  the  question,  Mr.  Chairman?  I would 
like  to  be  recorded  on  this  question,  but 
I have  to  catch  my  train. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  has  no 

right  to  record  anybody  who  is  not  pre- 
sent. How  soon  have  you  to  catch  your 
train? 

MR,  PEND AR VIS:  Ten  twenty-five. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : We  will  have  the 

vote  in  the  meantime. 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  say  a word, 

and  perhaps  we  can  pair  on  this. 

MR.  PEND  AR  VIS:  I would  like  to 

vote  against  Mr.  O’Donnell — against  the 
question. 

MR.  POST : Then  we  cannot  pair. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  one  min- 

ute. 

MR,  POST : I dislike  very  much  to 

disagree  with  my  friend,  Mr.  O ’Donnell. 
I am  very  glad  that  until  now  we  have 
parted  company  but  once,  and  even  now 
our  disagreement  is  not  one  of  principle. 
I enter  thoroughly  into  his  view  of 
repugnance  to  this  interference,  and  with 
due  fear  of  the  child  labor  laws.  I can- 
not overlook  the  fact,  however,  that 
whether  the  conditions  are  normal,  or 
whether  they  are  abnormal,  there  are 
conditions  which  exist  now  that  we  must 
take  notice  of  and  that  we  must  act  in 
regard  to.  Whenever  I go  into  the  Juve- 
nile Court,  and  whenever  I see  these  chil- 
dren pulled  in  for  crimes,  or  charged  with 


crimes,  I recollect  that  when  I was  a 
boy  out  in  the  country  I committed  pre- 
cisely the  same  crimes,  possibly.  I used 
to  commit  burglary  by  breaking  into  the 
barn;  I used  to  rob  the  grocery,  or  the 
apple  barrel — it  was  not  a grocery,  and 
it  was  not  an  apple  barrel,  perhaps,  but 
an  apple  tree  out  in  the  orchard.  I 
realize  if  I had  been  living  under  these 
conditions  that  these  boys  are  living  un- 
der I would  have  gone,  probably,  to  the 
reform  school,  and  would  have  been  very 
lucky  if  I did  not  get  into  the  peniten- 
tiary. Mr.  President,  in  order  that  we 
may  have  a few  homes  that  are  comfort- 
able and  luxurious  we  are  destroying  the 
homes  of  the  great  masses  of  the  people. 
When  my  friend  Mr.  O’Donnell  speaks 
about  children  of  fourteen  and  sixteen 
taken  care  of  in  their  homes,  he  appeals 
to  me  in  reference  to  the  homes  that  exist, 
but  I cannot  forget  that  we  have  very 
few  homes  in  which  the  children  can  be 
taken  care  of.  They  are  growing  fewer 
and  fewer.  Now,  the  practical  ques- 
tion is  this : Whether  we  like  it,  or 
whether  we  don ’t ; we  have  a set  of 
laws  which  practically  forbids  the  em- 
ployment of  children  under  sixteen  years 
of  age.  There  are  some  modifications 
of  that,  I believe? 

A MEMBER:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  But  substantially  the 

children  are  forbidden  freedom  of  em- 
ployment until  they  are  sixteen  years 
of  age.  But  they  are  not  compelled  to 
go  to  school  when  they  reach  fourteen. 
If  we  adopt  my  friend  Mr.  O ’Donnell ’s 
motion  we  are  going  to  maintain  that 
condition,  and  for  a period  of  two  years 
children  will  be  allowed  to  be  absent 
from  school — they  will  not  be  allowed  to 
work,  and  they  will  not  be  compelled 
to  go  to  school.  Now,  in  this  great  city 
and  under  the  existing  normal  conditions, 
it  seems  to  me  that  is  a bad  thing,  and 
while  we  have  got  to  hold  to  the  general 
principle,  under  these  circumstances,  and 
on  the  question  of  this  kind  make  an 
exception,  rhat  is  my  reason  for  sup- 


December  26 


741 


1906 


porting — for  opposing  my  friend,  Mr. 

0 ’Donnell ’s  motion,  and  supporting  that 
of  Mr.  Taylor. 

Just  a word  in  conclusion:  I wish 

to  say,  Mr.  President,  by  way  of  remind- 
er to  our  friend,  Mr.  McCormick,  that 
it  is  a well  known  fact  which  in  course 
of  years  he  will  discover,  that  as  he 
begins  to  get  old  memory  becomes  more 
acute  than  it  was.  I have  reference  to 
the  period  of  boyhood.  The  probability 
is  that  those  of  us  who  are  nearly,  or 
over  sixty  years  of  age,  remember  our 
boyhood  much  more  distinctly,  probably 
circumstances  and  events  of  our  boy- 
hood we  remember  much  more  distinctly 
than  does  Mr.  McCormick  in  his  com- 
parative youthful  period  of  life  today. 
(Laughter.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Shall  we  have  a 

vote  on  this  question  now? 

MR.  EIDMANN : Just  one  question: 

1 would  like  to  ask  Prof.  Taylor’s  con- 
struction on  ‘ 1 regular  employment.  ’ ’ 

MR.  TAYLOR : Good  faith  covers  all 

that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I want  a roll 

call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  roll  be 

called  on  the  motion  of  Mr.  O’Donnell’s 
substitute.  Will  the  gentlemen  take 
their  seats,  there  are  just  two  more  para- 
graphs to  this  educational  bill.  We  have 
got  to  get  through  that  tonight. 

Yeas — Erickson,  McKinley,  O’Donnell, 
Shepard — 4. 

Nays  — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brosseau,  Brown,  Clettenberg, 
Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; 
Eckhart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.; 
Eidmann,  Hill,  Hunter,  Kittle- 
man,  Linehan,  McCormick,  Owens,  Pen- 
darvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Revell,  Rosenthal, 
Shanahan,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Walker, 
Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer 
—33. 

MR.  POST:  There  are  some  matters 

in  the  educational  bill  not  disposed. of. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Revenue  features 

only.  On  the  motion  to  substitute  the 
yeas  are  4 and  the  nays  33.  The  mo- 
tion is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is  to 
adopt  the  section  as  amended.  Those 
in  favor  signify  the  same  by  saying- 
aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

MR.  O’DOInNELL:  I would  like  to 

be  recorded  as  voting  no,  Mr.  Chairman, 
on  that  proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  Mr.  O’Don- 

nell be  recorded  as  voting  no. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  two  sec- 

tions here,  amendments  to  fhe  educational 
system,  which  I would  like  to  have  read 
and  be  incorporated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  them  be  read. 
Do  you  desire  action  tonight? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  If  we  have  a 

quorum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  them,  please. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendments, 
as  hereinafter  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  was  dis- 

posed of  at  a prior  meeting. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

understand  that  the  matter  of  the  archi- 
tect was  disposed  of.  I understand  also 
that  Mr.  Shanahan  is  ready  to  move  re- 
consideration of  that  matter,  so  that  we 
can  take  it  up  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  dispose  of 
these  two  remaining  sections  here,  and 
then  we  can  take  these  matters  up.  I 
believe  there  won ’t  be  much  contest  about 
this  question  and  pensions,  No.  12.  The 
Secretary  will  read  No.  12. 

The  Secretary  read  No.  12,  as  printed 
in  the  proceedings  at  page  700. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I move  its  adop- 

tion. 

MR.  POST:  I move  to  strike  out 

the  passage  there  that  provides  for  com- 
pulsory contribution  from  the  teachers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  does  not  pro- 

pose compulsory  contribution,  but  volun- 
tary contributions. 


December  26 


742 


1906 


MR.  POST:  Oh,  is  that  it?  I was 

mistaken  then. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  signify  by  saying  aye.  All  those 
opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  sec- 

tion. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Number  13,  page 
700.  (Reads.) 

MR.  BENNETT:  I move  its  adop- 

tion. 

THE  CHAlitMAN : All  those  in  fav- 

or signify  by  saying  aye;  those  opposed, 
no. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Ritter: 
The  charter  shall  provide  that  no  police 
station,  fire  engine  house  or  barn  shall 
hereafter  be  built  within  four  hundred 
feet  of  any  school-board  building.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  that?  . 

MR.  ROSElViHAL:  I move  that  it 

be  laid  on  the  table.  I don’t  think  that 
should  be  a charter  provision.  I think 
that  should  be  by  ordinance. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  that  is 

required  by  ordinance.  All  those  in  fav- 
or of  laying  it  on  the  table  will  signify 
by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

MR.  POST:  I move  that  that  be  laid 

over  until  Mr.  Ritter  is  here.  He  evi- 
dently has  been  detained.  I do  not  think 
we  ought  to  pass  that  in  that  way. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON : I move  that  that 
be  deferred. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections  it  will  be  deferred. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : I nowr  move 

that  we  take  up  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General 
Plan  with  reference  to  Section  3,  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  some  few  days 
ago. 

THE  CHAIRMANS  That  is  publish- 
ed on  page  704? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Page  699,  I 

believe. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

have  Mr.  Eckhart ’s  consent  to  a con- 


sideration of  these  two  sections,  which 
are  really  an  amendment  to  the  act 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I didn’t  get  you, 

Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I asked  the  con- 

sent of  Air.  Eckhart  to  the  consideration 
of  two  motions  that  I have  sent  up  to 
the  desk. 

AIR.  SHEPARD:  I do  not  think  that 

we  should  take  up  that  matter  at  this 
time;  it  is  liable  to  take  a long  time. 

THE  CHAIRAI AN : Gentlemen,  what 

do  you  wish  to  do? 

AIR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move  the 

adoption  of  the  substitute  offered  by  the 
committee,  and  I ask  the  Secretary  to 
read  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  one  about 

the  acquiring  of  property? 

AIR,  B.  A.  ECKHART:  On  page  703, 

the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Rules, 
Procedure  and  General  Plan. 

THE  CHAIRAI  AN : The  last  para- 

graph on  that  page,  left  hand  column — 
I should  say,  the  last  paragraph  on  page 
704,  is  the  portion  you  want. 

AIR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  That  is  not 

the  correct  proposition. 

THE  SECRETARY:  It  is  found  on 

page  698,  left  hand  column,  page  698, 
School  Property.  That  is  merely  the 
original,  Air.  Eckhart;  the  resport  is  on 
page  705,  the  recommendation  of  the 
committee  is  as  follows:  (Reading  report 
as  printed). 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move  its 

adoption. 

AIR.  POST : That  involves  what  seems 

to  me  to  be  an  exceedingly  important, 
not  to  say  somewhat  dangerous  alteration 
of  the  existing  situation  wdth  regard  to 
school  board  property.  I don ’t  think 
that  at  this  hour  we  should  take  that 
up.  I wish  to  be  heard  upon  that  with 
some  degree  of  fullness,  so  that  I may 
make  my  position  understood.  I do  not 
believe  that  this  Charter  Convention  un- 
derstands— I do  not  believe  that  Mr. 
Eckhart  understands  what  he  is  prob- 
ably asking,  or  what  probably  would  be 


December  26 


743 


1906 


the  effect  upon  the  financial  interests  of 
the  school  board  with  reference  to  its 
landed  property,  by  the  adoption  of  this 
amendment.  But  I ask  that  it  be  de- 
ferred for  the  meeting  tomorrow,  if  we 
have  a meeting  tomorrow,  or  if  not,  until 
we  meet  again.  I don’t  care  what  the 
time  is,  so  that  it  can  be  taken  up  and 
considered  with  deliberation. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : I have  no  ob- 

jection to  having  it  go  over. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right.  Your 

committee  has  another  report,  Mr.  Eck- 
hart,  upon  another  proposition,  on  page 
704,  upon  the  question  of  purchase  or 
condemnation  of  property  for  park  pur- 
poses. 

MR.  TAYLOR : Before  we  pass  off  of 

education 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  won’t  pass 

away  from  Education.  Do  you  wish  to 
call  that  report  up,  Mr.  Eckhart?  “The 
city  may  acquire  by  purchase  outside  as 
well  as  within  the  city  limits,  for  munici- 
pal purposes,  and  may  acquire  property 
outside  of  the  city  limits  by  purchase  or 
condemnation,  for  park,  boulevard  or  for- 
est preserve  purposes.  ’ ’ 

A DELEGATE:  I move  the  adoption 

of  the  resolution. 

MR.  TAYLOR : I claim  the  right  to 

have  the  attention  of  the  Convention  on 
the  subject  of  Education  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right.  This 

will  be  withdrawn,  and  Dr.  Taylor  will 
have  the  floor  for  his  educational  reso- 
lution. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I offer  the  resolution 

offered  by  me  and  printed  in  the  pro- 
ceedings at  page  598.  I might  state 
that  it  is  with  the  urgent  request  of  the 
Library  Club  of  Chicago,  representatives 
of  the  Field  Museum  and  the  quasi  pub- 
lic educational  institutions,  that  want  to 
co-operate  with  each  other  for  the  ex- 
tension of  their  facilities  to  the  people 
on  a larger  scale.  I should  hardly  think 
this  would  bring  forth  any  discussion. 
It  is  on  page  598,  second  column. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  resolu- 
tion. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I think  it  would  be 

a very  bad  proposition  for  this  Conven- 
tion to  adopt  this  resolution.  It  seems 
to  me  we  have  in  our  midst  enough  civic 
bodies  to  take  good  care  that  the  differ- 
ent bodies  appointed  by  the  mayor  per- 
form the  functions  for  which  they  are 
appointed  without  creating  another 
board  of  seventeen  whose  sole  duty  it 
would  be  to  interfere  with  the  workings 
of  the  different  boards  now  provided  for 
and  appointed  by  ' the  mayor.  I move 
you  that  this  be  laid  upon  the  table. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  May  I state,  in  an- 

swer to  Alderman  Raymer  that  the  City 
Council  of  Chicago  has  already  author- 
ized the  mayor  to  appoint  such  a com- 
mission, that  the  mayor  has  appointed 
such  a commission,  that  there  is  such  a 
commission  in  service ; that  it  is  very 
harmless,  that  it  is  trying  to  bring  into 
co-operation  the  public  library  and  the 
public  schools  and  the  other  great  li- 
braries of  the  City  of  Chicago,  a co- 
operation which  every  city  in  the  United 
States  has  to  a greater  degree  than  we 
have.  This  is  a matter  of  advisory  re- 
lationship, and  the  representatives  of  all 
these  organizations  are  urgent  for  the 
passage  of  this  section  so  that  we  may 
have  co-operative  effort.  There  is  no 
African  in  the  wood  pile,  and  I assure 
the  alderman  it  is  entirely  harmless  and 
wholly  an  advisory  relation. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I second  the  mo- 

tion to  lay  on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion  of  Alderman  Raymer  that  it 
be  laid  on  the  table.  The  question  “ts 
whether  the  motion  shall  be  laid  on  the 
table. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

A DELEGATE : I have  a resolution 

which  I should  like  to  have  read  and 
published. 


December  26 


744 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  to 

have  it  read? 

MR.  McCORMICK : I don’t  care  so 

much  about  having  it  read,  but  I would 
like  to  have  it  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Send  it  up  to 

the  Secretary  and  it  will  be  printed. 
The  Chair  has  a communication  from 
A.  J.  Carey,  which  will  be  printed  and 
published  in  the  proceedings. 

Chicago,  111.,  Dec.  26,  1906. 
Hon.  Milton  J.  Foreman, 

Chicago  Charter  Convention,  City: 

My  Dear  Sir — My  attention  has  just 
been  called  to  the  fact  that  on  Saturday 
Mr.  Wilkins  introduced  a resolution  in 
the  Convention  to  the  effect  that  1 1 Dur- 
ing the  life  of  this  Charter  the  children 
in  the  public  schools  shall  not  be  segre- 
gated or  separated  in  buildings,  rooms 
or  classes  on  account  of  nationality,  race 
or  color.  ’ ’ 

Believing  that  you  see  at  a glance 
the  righteousness  of  this  proposition,  and 
believing  that  you  stand  for  all  that 


is  just  and  right  to  all  men,  I hasten  to 
call  your  especial  attention  to  this  reso- 
lution of  Mr.  Wilkins’  and  beg  that  you 
give  it  your  heartiest  support. 

Faithfully, 

A.  J.  CAREY, 

Pastor  Bethel  A.  M.  E.  Church. 

Residence,  3428  Yernon  Ave. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Conven- 

tion will  meet  again  tomorrow  afternoon 
and  the  special  order  will  be  the  question 
of  Woman  Suffrage,  the  extension  of  suf- 
frage, after  which  the  Sunday  Closing 
Law  will  be  taken  up. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON : What  meetings 

are  arranged  for  this  week  for  this  Con- 
vention? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  have  agreed 

to  meet  tomorrow  afternoon  and  the  next 
afternoon  we  hope  to  get  through.  The 
Convention  will  stand  adjourned  until  to- 
morrow afternoon  at  2 o ’clock  P.  M. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned  to 
meet  Thursday,  December  27th,  at  2 
o ’clock  P.  M. 


December  26 


745 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 

I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 

1.  A complete  charter  shall  be  drawn 
and  submitted  to  the  Legislature  em- 
bodying the  resolutions  adopted  by  this 
Convention. 

Alternative  to  1.  Separate  bills  shall 
be  drawn  covering  the  following  sub- 
jects: 

a.  Consolidation  (including  parks), 

b.  Public  utilities, 

c.  Education, 

d.  Revenue, 

e.  Amendments  (if  any)  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act. 

f.  All  other  charter  provisions, 
which  shall  be  submitted  to  a separate 
vote  for  adoption. 

II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 


ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ite  provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


The  following  resolution  on  the  sub- 
ject of  suffrage  for  women  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

3.  The  charter  shall  contain  no  pro- 


December  26 


746 


1906 


vision  for  conferring  the  right  of  suf- 
frage on  women. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  .sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 

Y.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  tne  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the . 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 


compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  /The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  wrhich  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state;  and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 


December  26 


747 


1906 


VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 
any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen-  i 
eral  taxation.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re-  1 


I spective  amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
! ment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
: interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
| amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector's  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tion herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 
the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
sion. In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
funds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 
which  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him, 
upon  order  of  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 
year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  re- 


December  26 


748 


1906 


ceipts  and  expenditures  for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 
tures for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 

4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 
year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 


Action  on  the  following  propositions 
has  been  deferred  pending  the  report 
of  the  special  commitee  on  revenue  in- 
formation. 

Alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 
taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  'apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  City  Council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the'  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 


to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 


3.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either,  any 
trade,  occupation  or  business  carried  on 
wholly  or  in  part  within  the  city  limits, 
and  all  persons,  firms  or  corporations 
owning  or  using  franchises  or  privi- 
leges. 

4.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles.  The  income  therefrom  shall 
be  used  in  the  repair  and  improvement 
of  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  ex- 
clusively. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 
by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 
50  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 
any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  contiguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 
and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 


December  26 


749 


1906 


tures  and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 

XIII.  TPROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  following  paragraph  together 
with  all  substitutes  and  amendments 
thereto  as  printed  in  the  proceedings  of 
December  14,  1906,  have  been  re-re- 
ferred  to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan.  The  com- 
mittee report  will  be  found  under  “Res- 
olutions.” 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city  lim- 
its for  any  municipal  purpose. 

XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XY.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  private  temporary  users  of  space 
above  or  below  the  level  of  streets,  al- 
leys or  other  public  places  shall  pay 
compensation  to  the  city  according  to 
some  definite  scale  to  be  fixed  by  gen- 
eral ordinance.  This  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  grants  for  public  utilities. 

XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 


or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to'  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 
The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 


December  26 


750 


1906 


floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

Provided  that  when  the  eity  shall  own 
and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall 
be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 
dered or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 
city’s  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 


XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 


The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park*  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  management  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  education  of  fifteen  members 
to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  City 
Council. 

All  nominations  of  members  of  Board 
of  Education  by  the  mayor  shall  lie 
over  at  least  one  week  before  action 
for  confirmation  or  rejection  thereon 
by  the  City  Council. 

They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a person  shall  be  at  least  thirty 
years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 


December  26 


751 


1906 


of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 


Section  III,  with  amendments,  has 
been  re-referred  to  the  Committee  on 
RULES,  PROCEDURE  and  GENERAL 
PLAN.  The  committee  report  will  be 
found  under  “Resolutions.” 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 
purposes,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

BY  MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART: 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “pur- 
poses, ” in  the  fifth  line,  and  add  “but 
no  real  estate  shall  be  leased  for  a term 
longer  than  five  years  without  the  con- 
currence of  the  City  Council,  nor  shall 
the  terms  of  any  lease  be  altered  with- 
out such  concurrence.” 

BY  MR.  EIDMANN: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“years,”  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  line, 
the  following  “unless  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  City  Council  by  a three- 
fourths  * vote.” 

BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“lease,”  at  the  end  of  the  seventh 
line,  the  following  “the  unexpired  term 
of  which  is  longer  than  five  years.” 


IY.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip- 


pled, schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 
ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 

It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 


Action  on  Section  V has  been  de- 
ferred pending  the  report  of  the  special 
committee  on  revenue  information. 

Y.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
months  of  the  year. 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 
money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 
provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 


VI.  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enacted  or  changed,  money  appro- 
priated or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text* 


December  26 


752 


1906 


books  adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 

VII.  OFFICERS. 

The  board  of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
education  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term 
of  office. of  the  superintendent  of  educa- 
tion and  of  the  business  manager  shall 
not  be  less  than  four  years.  And  the 
salary  of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint- 
ment be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall 
not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
education. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  education,  business 
manager,  attorney  and  auditor,  shall  not 
be  subject  to  the  civil  service  law,  but 
they  shall  be  removable  only  for  cause, 
by  a vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds 
of  all  the  members  of  the  board,  upon 
written  charges  to  be  heard  by  the 
board  on  due  notice  to  the  officers 
charged  therewith,  but  pending  the 
hearing  of  the  charges,  such  officers  may 
by  a two-thirds  tote,  be  suspended  by 
the  board. 

The  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  all 
the  members  of  the  board  shall  be  re- 


quired to  appoint  the  superintendent  of 
education  and  the  business  manager. 

VIII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  EDU- 
CATION. 

(1.)  The  superintendent  of  education 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  Board  of  Educa* 
tion,  but  no  vote. 


Appointments,  promotions,  and  trans- 
fers of  teachers,  principals,  assistant 
and  district  superintendents  and  other 
educational  and  attendance  officers 
shall  be  made;  and  text  books  and  spe- 
cifications for  educational  apparatus, 
shall  be  introduced  only  upon  the  rec- 
ommendation of  the  superintendent  of 
education,  with  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
or  by  the  Board  of  Education  by  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  all  its  members. 

Provided,  That  said  text  books  or  ap- 
paratus when  once  adopted  shall  not  be 
changed  within  four  years  thereafter. 

IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 
property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 

Among  the  employes  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  be  a trained  architect 
and  a trained  engineer. 

X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments  and  promotions 
of  teachers  shall  be  made  for  merit 
only,  and  after  satisfactory  service 
for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  in  its  judgment  the  needs  of  the 
schools  require. 


December  26 


753 


1906 


XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XII.  PENSIONS. 

The  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 
City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 
from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 
retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 
tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  be 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


The  following  resolution  is  still  pend- 
ing: 

BY  MR.  RITTER: 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  no  po- 
lice station,  fire  engine  house  or  patrol 


barn  shall  hereafter  be  built  within  400 
feet  of  any  school  building. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 

2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


XXL  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 
dinance granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below 


December  26 


754 


1906 


as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other 
public  places  for  any  public  utility, 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 


The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 


an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  at  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchise  be  altered  [extended],  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 
confer  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  1 ‘An 
act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages’’  approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


December  26 


755 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MESSRS  WERNO  AND  ROSEN- 
THAL: 

Chapter  7,  section  1,  alternative  1. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and 
the  amendments  thereof,  the  charter 
shall  vest  in  the  city  council  the 
power  to  regulate  the  legal  observance 
of  the  weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly 
called  Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors 
by  bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  edu- 
cational, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only;  and 
in  general  all  powers  of  local  legisla- 
tion which  may  under  the  constitution 
be  vegted  in  a municipality. 

BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehieh*. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 

BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XVI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


December  26 


756 


1906 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR,  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


Report  of  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan — B.  A.  Eck- 
hart,  Chairman. 

CHICAGO  CHARTER  CONVENTION, 

Gentlemen:  Your  committee  on 

Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan,  to 
whom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions which  were  introduced  for 
consideration  at  the  meeting  of  Decem- 
ber 14th,  1906, 

XIII.  PROPERTY. 

2.  The  city  may  so  acquire  property 
outside  of  as  well  as  within  the  city 
limits  for  any  municipal  purpose. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Shanahan: 

* * * that  the  city  may  acquire 

property  by  purchase  outside  as  well 
as  within  the  city  limits  for  any  mu- 
nicipal purpose,  and  not  have  the  right 
to  condemn  outside  property. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Brown: 

The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side of  the  city,  or  purchase  and  con- 
demn property  for  municipal  purposes 
within  the  city. 

Also  an  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
B.  A.  Eckhart: 


December  26 


757 


1906 


The  city  may  acquire  property  out- 
side as  well  as  within  the  city  limits, 
either  by  purchase  or  condemnation,  for 
park  and  boulevard  purposes. 

would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject-mat- 
ter, and  recommends  the  adoption  of 
the  following: 

The  city  may  acquire  by  purchase 
outside  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  and  may 
acquire  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits  by  purchase  or  condemnation  for 
park,  boulevard  or  forest  preserve  pur- 
poses. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART, 

Chairman. 


BY  MR.  PENDARVIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish, any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  that  no  employe  of  the 
city  shall  become  or  continue  to  remain 
a member  of  any  society  or  organiza- 
tion, obedience  or  allegiance  to  whose 
rules,  principles  or  practices  shall  re- 
quire or  impose  any  express  or  implied 
obligation  upon  such  employe  to  refrain 
from  the  full  discharge  of  his  duties  or 
to  do  any  act  against  the  government 
of  the  city,  or  in  violation  of  any  ordi- 
nance or  law,  or  of  any  rule  or  regula- 
tion of  any  department  of  the  city,  or 


of  any -order  of  any  official  of  the  city 
or  of  any  of  its  departments.  For  any 
violation  of  this  provision  an  employe 
shall  be  at  once  discharged  from  the 
city  service  by  the  head  of  the  de- 
partment in  which  he  is  employed. 


BY  MR.  WILKINS: 

Upon  the  adoption  of  this  charter,  the 
Board  of  Education  shall  prepare  or 
cause  to  be  prepared,  a code  of  morals, 
non-sectarian  in  character  and  tenor, 
and  put  the  same  into  book  form,  to 
be  used  as  one  of  the  text  books  of  the 
publie  schools  and  taught  in  all  the 
branches  of  the  same. 


BY  MR,  WILKINS: 

During  the  life  of  this  charter  and 
while  it  operates  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  Municipality  of  Chicago,  the 
children  in  the  public  schools  shall  not 
be  segregated  or  separated  in  the  rooms 
and  classes  on  account  of  their  nation- 
ality, race  or  color. 

BY  MR.  EIDMANN: 

Resolved,  That  no  appointment  by  the 
mayor  shall  be  made  unless  concurred 
in  by  the  City  Council  at  a subsequent 
meeting. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  II,  on  page  593,  pro- 
viding that  “members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation” was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 


REPORT  OF  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES, 
PROCEDURE  AND  GENERAL 
PLAN — B.  A.  Eckhart,  Chair- 
man. 

Chicago  Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen: — Your  Committee  on 


December  26 


758 


1906 


Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan  to 
whom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions and  amendments: 

XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  management  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  education  of  fifteen  members 
to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  City 
Council. 

All  nominations  of  members  of  Board 
of  Education  by  the  mayor  shall  lie 
over  at  least  one  week  before  action 
for  confirmation  or  rejection  thereon 
by  the  City  Council. 

would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject  mat- 
ter, and  recommends  the  adoption  of  the 
following: 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure 
and  disposition  of  property  used,  in- 
tended, acquired,  held  or  sought  to  be 
disposed  of,  for  school  purposes  or  the 
use  of  schools,  but  no  real  estate  shall 
be  leased  by  said  board,  either  as  lessor 
or  lessee,  for  a term  longer  than  five 
years  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
City  Council,  nor  shall  the  provisions 
of  any  lease,  now  or  hereafter  made, 
whose  unexpired  term  may  exceed  five 
years,  be  altered  without  such  concur- 
rence. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART,  Chairman. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 
laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  the  present  pension  law 
providing  for  a pension  system  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Chicago  Public  Library  be 
included  in  the  proposed  charter  for  the 
City  of  Chicago. 


The  following  resolution  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  with 
instructions  to  draft  a provision  em- 
bodying the  sense  of  the  resolution: 

BY  MR.  PATTERSON: 

The  charter  shall  contain  a provision 
extending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  over  those  submerged  lands 
up  to  the  line  of  navigation  which  are 
not  now  under  jurisdiction  of  the  park 
boards. 

BY  MR.  McCORMICK: 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually,  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
city,  and  the  report  thereof,  together 
with  any  recommendation  of  such  ac- 
countants, as  to  change  in  the  business 
methods  of  the  city,  or  of  any  of  its  de- 
partments, officers,  or  employes,  shall 
be  made  to  the  mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, and  be  spread  upon  the  records  of 
the  latter.  The  expenses  of  such  audit 
shall  be  paid  by  the  city. 


BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

All  appointments  and  removals  of 
employes  of  the  Board  of  Education,  ex- 
cept as  herein  otherwise  expressly  pro- 
vided, shall  be  made  pursuant  to  the 
provisions  of  the  general  civil  service 
law. 


December  26 


759 


1906 


BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

The  business  manager  shall  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  Board  of  Education 
appoint  a trained  chief  architect  and  a 
trained  chief  engineer,  both  of  whom 


shall  be  in  the  business  manager's 
department,  and  whose  term  of  office 
shall  be  four  (4)  years,  and  whose  ap- 
pointment and  removal  shall  not  be 
subject  to  the  civil  service  law. 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

PARAGRAPH  3. — Suffrage  (Thursday,  December  27,  1906,  at  2 o'clock  p.  m.) 

Resolution  of  Messrs.  Werno  and  Rosenthal,  concerning  Sunday  laws  (to  be 
taken  up  immediately  after  the  disposition  of  the  subject  of  Suffrage.) 


December  26 


760 


1906 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  the 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  mayf 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  26 


761 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  27,  1906 


(Ehiraiui  (Chartrr  (Hmuirution 

Convened,  December  12,  1908 

Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin.  asst  Sec-v 


December  27 


765 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Thursday,  December  27,  1906 

2:oo  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order,  and  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brown,  Burke,  Carey,  Church, 
Cole,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dix- 
on, T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Erickson,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne, 
Hunter,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  MacMil- 
lan, McKinley,  O’Donnell,  Oehne, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Powers,  Ray- 
mer,  Revell,  Ritter,  Rosenthal,  Seth- 
ness,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Swift,  Taylor,  Thompson,  Vopicka, 
White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 47. 

Absent — Brosseau,  Clettenberg,  Eid- 
mann,  Fisher,  Fitzpatrick,  Gansbergen, 
Graham,  Haas,  Harrison,  Jones,  Lath- 
rop,  Lundberg,  McCormick,  McGoorty, 
Merriam,  Paullin,  Patterson,  Rainey, 
Rinaker,  Robins,  Shedd,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Walker,  Werno,  Wilson,  Young — 27. 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any 

corrections  or  amendments  to  the  min- 
utes? If  so,  they  will  be  handed  to  the 
Secretary  in  writing. 

MR.  POST:  Not  a correction  of  the 

minutes;  I suppose  that  is  passed.  I 
wish  to  call  attention  to  Mr.  Patter- 
son ’s  resolution  which  was  ordered  to 
be  referred  to  the  Law  Committee, 
and  in  order  that  the  resolution  might 
not  get  lost  in  the  pigeon  holes  of  the 
Law  Committee,  a motion  was  made 
and  adopted  making  that  a special  or- 
der for  this  afternoon.  Of  course,  I 
have  no  desire  to  press  it  for  this 
afternoon,  but  I move  that  it  be  'a 
special  order  following  immediately 
after  the  last  special  order  named  in  the 
list. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I will  maintain 

its  position. 

MR.  POST:  Do  I understand  that 

the  motion  was  approved? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  spe- 

cial order  to-day  is  printed  on  page 
745. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  T suggest,  Mr. 


December  27 


766 


Chairman,  that  we  proceed  with  the 
two  little  matters  on  the  educational 
program  before  we  take  that  up,  or  at 
least  that  they  be  taken  up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  They  will  be 

taken  up  and  disposed  of  to-day,  I 
hope.  The  first  special  order  is  printed 
on  page  745,  t'he  lower  right-hand  cor- 
ner. The  Secretary  will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  745,  lower 
right-hand  corner:  “The  Charter  shall 

contain  no  provision  conferring  the 
right  of  suffrage  on  women.’’  • 

MR.  COLE:  I move  to  substitute 

“a”  for  “no.” 

MR.  POST:  The  educational  mat- 

ter was  pending  when  we  adjourned 
last  night.  What  disposition  has  been 
made  of  that,  I would  like  to  ask? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Those  two  mat- 

ters introduced  by  Mr.  Rosenthal? 

MR.  POST:  No,  there  is  more  than 

that;  there  is  the  property  right,  the 
leases  and  two  or  three  other  questions 
involved. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  the  revenue 

question? 

MR.  POST:  I am  not  particular 

about  the  order,  but  I suggest — I un- 
derstood that  the  suffrage  question  was 
to  follow  immediately  after  the  educa- 
tional matter  has  been  finished. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Tbe  Chair  does 

not  understand  that  anything  in  the 
educational  section  was  left  undisposed 
of  excepting  those  things  which  were 
inter-related  to  the  revenue  question, 
and  at  a previous  meeting  of  the  Con- 
vention it  was  decided  that  they  should 
wait  until  t'he  special  committee  on 
revenue  should  have  made  its  report. 

MR.  POST:  I did  not  understand 

that  such  disposition  has  been  made  of 
it.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  pardon  me, 
allow  me  to  remind  you  that  during 
last  evening  a part  of  this  very  educa- 
tional question  was  taken  up  and  was 
to  have  been  voted  on  instanter;  it  was 
then  ten  o’clock  and  twenty  minutes, 
and  I asked  that  it  be  deferred,  be- 


1906 

cause  I wished  to  be  heard  upon  it,  and 
that  was  done  when  we  adjourned. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Oh,  yes,  that  is 

right. 

MR.  POST:  I do  not  desire  to  press 

the  matter  now.  I did  not  understand 
it  was  finished. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  begs 

Mr.  Post’s  pardon. 

MR.  POST:  That  is  the  matter  that 

was  presented  by  Mr.  Eckhart  last 
night  and  was  about  to  be  passed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  it  is  the  de- 

sire of  the  Convention  to  take  this  mat- 
ter up  ahead  of  the  special  order,  the 
Chair  has  no  objection. 

MR.  POST:  I am  not  pressing  it.  I 

simply  do  not  want  it  to  get  lost,  that 
is  all,  and  catch  me  when  I do  not 
happen  to  be  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

see  that  it  is  taken  up  immediately 
after  these  matters  are  disposed  of. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  do  I 

understand,  then,  that  we  proceed  with 
the  special  order? 

MR.  COLE:  I move  to  amend  by 

substituting  “a”  for  “no.” 

MR.  POST:  That  motion  is  pending 

already,  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I rise 

to  say  that  I already  have  an  amend- 
ment which  I think  covers  the  point 
which  Mr.  Cole  has  in  mind,  and  which 
I should  like  to  have  read. 

MR.  COLE:  Very  well. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Has  the  Secre- 

tary the  amendment? 

THE  SECRETARY:  No,  sir. 

MR.  WHITE:  You  remember,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  I moved  to  substitute 
“shall”  for  “no,”  or  some  such  words 
as  “shall”  for  “no,”  which  simply 
changed  it  from  a negative  to  a posi- 
tive proposition.  That  was  properly 
presented  to  the  Secretary  at  the 
proper  time.  However,  if  that  propo- 
sition, Mr.  Chairman,  is  not  before  the 
Convention,  I am  perfectly  willing  my- 
self to  let  the  clause  stand  as  it  is, 


December  27 


767 


though  I prefer  to  discuss  a positive 
proposition  rather  than  a negative  one. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  that  is 

desirable,  and  Mr.  Cole’s  motion  will 
bring  that  matter  before  the  house. 
Mr.  Cole  moves  to  strike  out  the  word 
“no”  and  insert  the  word  “a, ” which 
would  make  it  read:  “The  charter 

shall  contain  a provision,”  and  under 
that  amendment  the  entire  matter  may 
be  discussed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole  moves 

to  strike  out  the  word  “no”  and  in- 
sert the  letter  “a,”  which  would  make 
it  read:  “The  charter  shall  contain  a 

provision,”  etc.,  and  it  is  upon  that 
amendment,  under  that  amendment, 
that  the  entire  matter  may  be  dis- 
cussed. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  what 

is  the  question  now?  What  shape  is  it 
now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Cole’s  amendment,  “That  the 
charter  shall  contain  a provision,”  in- 
stead of.  “The  charter  shall  contain  no 
provision,”  and  when  a vote  is  taken, 
if  the  vote  is,  “That  the  charter  shall 
contain  a provision,”  it  will  be  an 
affirmative  vote.  The  matter  is  before 
the  house  for  its  discussion,  and 
whether  it  shall  be  changed  from  a neg- 
ative to  an  affirmative,  which  brings 
the  whole  matter  before  the  house.  Dr. 
White^  has  the  floor. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gen- 
tlemen of  the  Convention:  Trusting  to 

the  wisdom  and  the  well-known  phil- 
anthropy of  this  assembly,  I really  have 
no  feeling  in  my  mind  but  what  this 
resolution  will  carry  by  a large  ma- 
jority. T even  venture  to  say,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  the  arguments  which 
will  carry  this  proposition  to  a tri- 
umphal success,  in  my  judgment,  will 
not  be  made  on  the  floor  of  this  Con- 
vention, but  that  those  arguments  are 
already  seated  in  small  numbers  in  the 
gallery  and  in  the  corners  of  this  as- 
sembly. To  characterize  woman,  Mr.  | 


1906 

Chairman,  as  an  argument,  I can  read- 
ily see,  in  the  eyes  of  those  who  are 
opposed  to  woman’s  suffrage,  may  seem 
a little  far  fetched  and  altogether 
wrong.  If  I had  characterized  woman 
as  a sentiment,  as  an  intuition,  as  an 
ideal,  such  a statement  or  characteriza- 
tion would  have  met  with  instantaneous 
and  very  hearty  response.  But  to 
characterize  woman  as  an  argument  is 
another  proposition,  and  yet,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, here  is  the  crux  of  the  whole  mat- 
ter: It  is  simply  because  woman  has 

become  something  more  than  a senti- 
ment, because  she  has  become  some- 
thing more  than  an  intuitionist,  be- 
cause she  has  become  a reason  and  an 
argument  that  the  women  of  Chicago 
come  here  with  a request,  not  to  say 
a demand,  that  she  shall  have  the  right 
of  suffrage  in  all  municipal  matters.  It 
is  because  woman  is  already  a force 
in  the  civic  affairs  of  this  city,  be- 
cause she  is  already  burdened  with  im- 
mense responsibility,  because  she  has 
become  an  argument  in  the  growth  of 
her  reason  and  her  situation  in  the 
civic  affairs  of  this  city,  that  we  must 
consider  this  matter,  Mr.  Chairman, 
with  great  care  and  decide  it  only 
after  due  deliberation. 

I think  we  should  remind  ourselves 
of  two  things  before  we  proceed  to 
any  minute  or  detailed  discussion  of 
this  proposition:  First,  we  must  rid 

ourselves  of  any  impression  that  the 
matter  of  municipal  suffrage  for  women 
is  an  innovation,  or  that,  if  this  con- 
vention should  pass  this  proposition, 
that  it  will  have  done  anything  that 
is  at  all  new.  In  fact,  municipal 
suffrage  for  women  is  now  so  wide- 
spread and  established  a fact  that  one 
might  almost  be  permitted  to  say  that 
it  has  become  one  of  the  permanent 
institutions  among  the  English  speak- 
ing people  of  the  world. 

I want  to  remind  the  gentlemen  of 
this  convention,  if  they  are  not  already 
aware  of  the  fact,  that  England,  Cana- 


December  27 


768 


1906 


da,  the  Province  of  Quebec,  Norway, 
Sweden,  New  Zealand,  Australia  and 
even  Iceland  have  already  granted  in 
one  form  or  another  municipal  suffrage 
to  women.;  and  that  here  in  oUr  own 
country  at  least  five  of  our  states  have 
already  granted  such  a privilege  to 
womanhood;  Colorado,  not  only  in  mu- 
nicipal, but  in  state  and  federal  mat- 
ters. 

And,  secondly,  I want  to  remind  this 
Convention  that  we  are  dealing  today 
with  a question  of  municipal  suffrage 
and  not  of  state  and  federal  suffrage. 
It  may  be  that  there  are  some  who 
might  be  opposed  to  the  suffrage  of 
women  in  federal  and  state  affairs  who 
might,  upon  a careful  consideration,  be 
quite  in  favor  of  the  right  of  women 
to  vote  in  matters  of  municipal  con- 
cern. The  question  of  federal  suffrage 
is  not  particularly  in  vogue;  that,  of 
course,  is  a great  question  in  which 
the  womanhood  of  Chicago  are  not  im- 
mediately interested.  Questions  of 
tariff,  questions  of  war,  questions  of 
international  law  and  international  dis- 
putes. I think  the  gentlemen  who  are 
preparing  to  vote  yes  or  no  on  this 
proposition  should  keep  carefully  in 
mind  that  distinction.  We  are  not  here 
today  asking  for  a state  or  federal 
suffrage  for  women,  in  which  there  is 
not  so  immediate  a necessity,  but  for 
the  right  of  franchise  in  all  municipal 
affairs,  in  which  she  is  most  vitally 
interested. 

I want  to  call  your  attention,  Mr. 
Chairman,  to  the  fact  that  the  women 
of  Chicago  are  as  vitally  interested  in 
all  matters  pertaining  to  the  civic  life 
of  Chicago  as  the  men  of  Chicago  by 
any  possibility  can  be.  None  of  the 
great  federal  issues  are  involved  in  our 
immediate  civic  necessities. 

But  the  things  we  are  struggling 
with  here  in  this  great  municipality  of 
our  are  propositions  of  great  impor- 
tance which  interest  the  women  of  Chi- 
cago quite  as  much  as  they  interest 


the  men.  Questions  of  sanitation,  ques- 
tions of  juvenile  reform  and  every 
moral  question  that  you  can  name  or 
think  of  are  things  which  the  women 
of  this  city  are  as  vitally  and  more 
immediately  interested  in  than  are  the 
men  of  this  city. 

All  questions  of  transportation,  ques- 
tions of  clean  streets,  questions  of 
proper  water  supply;  in  fact,  each  and 
every  question  that  touches  the  vital 
life  of  the  great  City  of  Chicago  are 
matters  in  which  the  motnerhood  and 
the  womanhood  of  this  city  are  more 
vitally,  if  that  is  possible,  interested 
in  than  are  the  men  of  this  city  in 
the  great  questions  of  education. 

And  secondly,  I would  remind  you 
not  only  are  the  women  of  Chicago 
deeply  and  vitally  interested  in  those 
questions,  but  all  of  womanhood  in 
Chicago  has  become  one  of  the  most 
vitalizing  directing  forces  in  the  solu- 
tion of  all  of  those  problems.  They 
are  simply  asking  now  that,  standing  in 
this  vital  relationship  in  the  interests 
of  this  great  city,  already  engaged  in 
almost  every  matter  of  practical  re- 
form, that  they  shall  have  added  to 
whatever  powers  they  now  possess, 
from  the  moral  and  social  standpoint, 
the  right  of  suffrage,  the  right  indi- 
cating that  they  may  stand  side  by 
side  with  man  at  the  ballot  box. 

Now,  I wish  to  call  your  attention 
to  one  other  thing,  because  while  one 
might  speak  at  great  length  and  sim- 
plify and  go  into  details  and  elaborate, 
I am  sure  in  the  presence  of  this  Con- 
vention that  is  not  at  all  necessary. 
I want  to  call  your  attention  to  the 
fact,  in  my  judgment,  that  in  just  the 
degree  you  disfranchise  from  suffrage 
the  women  of  Chicago  in  the  new  in- 
dustrial and  commercial  educations  you 
are  essentially,  though  you  may  not  see 
it  yet,  violating  one  of  the  chief  ele- 
ments of  our  American  law  and  our 
American  principles,  in  my  opinion,  the 
question  of  taxation  without  representa- 


December  27 


769 


1906 


tion.  Of  course,  at  once  the  answer 
comes  back  that  there  are  few  women 
in  this  city  who  pay  taxes;  they  will 
say  that  the  married  women  of  this 
city  are  represented  in  those  matters 
by  their  husbands.  If  a number  of 
women  own  property  in  their  own  right 
and  pay  taxes  thereon,  their  number  is 
comparatively  small,  and  the  great  mass 
of  the  present  disfranchised  women  of 
Chicago  are  not  taxpayers  at  all.  We 
are  continually  assured,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  this  economic  fallacy,  that  the 
owners  of  property  will  pay  the  taxes, 
that  the  people  who  own  the  property 
will  pay  the  taxes — that  the  man  who 
owns  the  house  and  lot  pays  the  taxes, 
that  the  man  who  conducts  a great 
business  is  the  man  that  pays  the  taxes. 
Now,  in  my  judgment,  there  never  was 
a greater  fallacy  perpetuated  in  the 
niinds  of  the  people  than  that.  The 
fact  is  that  the  only  taxes  paid  by  the 
people  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  or  any 
other  city,  is  by  the  consuming  public, 
and  in  the  majority  of  instances  the 
man  who  owns  the  property  in  reality 
pays  no  more  taxes  than  is  involved 
in  his  relationship  or  situation  in  the 
municipality  as  a consumer. 

We  all  know  well  enough  that  this 
whole  question  of  taxation  if  it  is  on 
property  adds  to  the  rent;  if  it  is  on 
the  things  people  consume  it  is  added 
to  the  things  the  people  consume,  and, 
after  all,  it  is  not  the  property  owner 
that  is  paying  the  taxes  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  today;  it  is  the  consumer;  and 
the  great  consuming  masses,  including 
these  women,  are  just  as  certainly  pay- 
ing the  taxes,  and  more  so,  in  my  judg- 
ment, than  the  man  who  pays  a thou- 
sand dollars  or  ten  thousand  dollars  or 
twenty  thousand  dollars  on  holdings  of 
real  estate  which  in  turn  he  takes  from 
the  man  from  whom  he  rents  and  from 
the  man  to  whom  he  sells;  and  I say  it 
is  absolutely  unfair,  it  is  against  the 
most  fundamental  principle  of  our 
American  government,  that  the  great 


consuming  masses,  and  especially  the 
consuming  masses  of  women  in  this  city 
who,  since  the  industrial  and  commer- 
cial changes,  have  been  thrown  upon 
their  resources,  that  they  shall  be  taxed 
indirectly,  covertly  and  secretly,  and 
yet  have  absolutely  nothing  to  say  at 
the  ballot  box  side  by  side  with  the 
men  as  to  what  disposition  shall  be 
made  of  the  taxes  which  are  wrung 
from  them  in  this  indirect  way. 

Now,  not  to  continue  this  argument, 
because  others  will  want  to  pursue  it, 
what  are  some  of  the  arguments  that 
are  made  against  the  granting  of  suf- 
frage to  the  womanhood  of  Chicago? 
It  is  urged,  of  course,  on  the  one 
hand 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  time  has 

expired. 

(Cries  of  “ Unanimous  consent.  ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Unanimous  con- 

sent. 

MR.  WHITE:  Thank  you,  gentle- 

men. It  is  urged  on  the  one  hand 
that  a woman  is  properly  and  suf- 
ficiently represented  by  her  husband, 
if  she  is  a married  woman.  Now,  Mr. 
Chairman,  there  are  very  many  things 
in  this  proposition  that  are  wholly  mat- 
ters of  taste  and  of  temperament  that 
do  not  involve  perhaps  any  mechanical 
consideration,  and  I want  to  submit  to 
you,  and  I think  the  married  gentle- 
men in  this  convention  will  entirely 
agree  with  me,  that  the  time  is  entirely 
past  when  the  average  intelligent 
woman  is  satisfied  to  have  the  head  of 
the  household,  namely,  her  husband, 
speaking  on  all  occasions  and  every- 
where for  her;  because  some  of  you 
gentlemen  here  who  are  engaged  in 
maintaining  homes  of  your  own  may 
have  already  foun,d,  somewhat,  per- 
haps, to  your  surprise,  that  the  women 
of  your  household  have  some  very  de- 
cided and  oftentimes  antagonistic  opin- 
ions to  yours  in  regard  to  matters  of 
public  interest. 

They  may  not  agree  with  you  entire- 


December  27 


770 


1905 


ly  on  the  question  of  the  solution  of  the 
traction  problem,  or  the  Juvenile  Court 
problem  for  the  reformation  of  juven- 
ile offenders.  They  may  not  agree 
with  their  husbands  in  a score  of 
things,  and  yet  in  the  vanity  of  an 
old  tradition,  which  ought  to  have  been 
exploded  long  ago,  it  is  urged,  and  se- 
riously urged,  or  else  I would  not  refer 
to  it,  that  the  woman  is  sufficiently 
represented  when  her  husband  acts  and 
speaks  for  her  at  the  ballot  box. 

And  you  ought  to  remember  further 
than  that  that  there  are  many  women 
in  this  city  that  are  not  married.  You 
ought  to  remember  that  the  class  I 
have  particularly  in  mind  is  the  great 
and  rapidly  increasing  class  of  laboring 
women  who  are  absolutely  thrown  on 
their  own  resources.  There  are  in  the 
factories  of  Chicago  alone  not  less  than 
400,000  women,  some  of  them,  to  be 
sure,  under  twenty-one  years  of  age, 
but  they  will  reach  the  voting  age  in 
a very  few  years.  One-twentieth  of 
the  population  of  Chicago  consists  of 
working  women.  That  does  not  in- 
clude the  women  who  are  engaged  in 
teaching;  that  does  not  include  the  do- 
mestic service  of  this  city;  that  does 
not  include  the  women  who  are  em- 
ployed in  the  retail  stores  of  this  city, 
and  where  the  number  would  mount  to, 
if  we  had  accurate  statistics  in  regard 
to  this,  no  man  can  say. 

And  yet  these  women,  thrown  upon 
their  own  resources,  facing  all  the  dif- 
ficulties of  earning  their  living  in  a 
great  city  like  this,  facing  in  the  fac- 
tories the  great  question  of  factory  san- 
itation and  the  great  question  of  the 
safety  in  the  manipulation  and  the 
handling  of  machinery,  that  very  vital 
thing  that  touches  no  man,  touches 
these  140,000  or  150,000  women,  over 
one-twentieth  of  the  entire  population 
of  Chicago,  in  a more  vital  way  than  it 
can  possibly  touch  you  or  me,  and  yet 
there  are  men  who  are  inclined  to  say 
that  these  women  shall  not  have  rep- 


resentatives. It  is  sufficient  that  the 
man  is  their  representative,  to  speak 
for  them. 

I say,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  an  injus- 
tice to  the  working  women  of  Chicago, 
it  is  wrong  and  it  is  absolutely  un- 
American. 

One  or  two  other  things,  and  I am 
done.  It  is  urged,  for  instance,  that 
if  you  grant  a woman  a franchise  that 
she  will  not  use  it.  Give  her  the  right 
of  suffrage  and  she  will  not  appear  at 
the  polling  place  on  election  day.  I 
want  to  say  that  that  may  be  so,  or 
that  it  may  not  be  so;  it  has  absolutely 
no  bearing  on  the  inherent  right  of 
women  to  vote  if  they  so  desire  to  vote, 
to  protect  their  interests  that  are  rapid- 
ly becoming  personal  in  our  new  indus- 
trial and  commercial  conditions,  if  they 
so  desire  to  do.  And  I might  remind 
the  voters  of  this  convention,  as  I 
have  sometimes  reminded  myself,  that 
if  that  be  true  that  womanhood  if 
granted  suffrage  will  not  exercise  it  in 
any  large  numbers,  I might  say  that  if 
it  is  an  argument  against  the  enfran- 
chisement of  womanhood  it  is  an  argu- 
ment also  against  the  enfranchisement 
of  the  men.  Look  at  the  registration 
vote  of  the  City  of  Chicago  today,  and 
there  on  any  given  municipal  election 
count  out  the  number  of  men  who  ac- 
tually go  to  the  polls  and  cast  their 
vote,  even  when  great  matters  of  in- 
terest are  involved. 

It  is  said,  for  instance,  if  you  let 
the  woman  vote,  the  good  women  of 
the  city  will  not  vote,  the  bad  women 
will  vote,  and  again  I say,  if  that  is 
an  argument  against  the  enfranchise- 
ment of  woman  it  is  an  argument 
against  the  enfranchisement  of  man. 

In  fact,  so  far  as  I can  see,  there  is 
not  one  single  argument  that  can  be 
made  against  the  right  of  woman  to 
I enjoy  suffrage  in  the  municipal  affairs 
j of  the  City  of  Chicago  that  would  not 
| be  just  as  powerful  an  argument 
I against  the  right  of  men  to  vote,  and, 


December  27 


771 


1906 


if  you  are  willing  to  take  the  position 
that  manhood  suffrage  ought  to  be  re- 
stricted to  the  educated  and  to  those 
who  will  exercise  it,  well  and  good; 
but  if  you  stand  by  the  general  propo- 
sition of  our  present  situation  that  men 
good  and  bad,  whether  they  choose  to 
vote,  or  whether  they  do  not  choose  to 
vote,  shall  be  enfranchised,  then  I con- 
tend that  the  women  of  Chicago  ought 
to  enjoy  a similar  right. 

And  I believe  that  while  there  are 
many  arguments,  many  more  than  I 
have  even  hinted  at,  in  favor  of  grant- 
ing woman  suffrage  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, I believe  there  is  absolutely  no 
sane  argument  against  it  except  the  ar- 
gument of  sentiment  which  we  have 
long  since  in  the  consideration  of  prac- 
tical affairs  eliminated. 

I expect,  Mr.  Chairman,  considering 
the  makeup  of  this  Convention,  that 
this  proposition  will  easily  carry  to  the 
credit  of  this  Convention  and  to  the 
advantage  of  the  womanhood  of  Chi- 
cago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  further  dis- 
cussion upon  this  proposition? 

(Cries  of  “Roll  call. ,J) 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

while  I was  very  much  impressed  with 
the  very  eloquent  argument  which  we 
have  just  listened  to  by  Dr.  White,  yet 
I believe  that  the  considerations  he 
advances,  why  we  should  extend  suf- 
frage to  women  in  the  City  of  Chicago, 
are  purely  sentimental  considerations 
and  are  not  based  on  a careful  survey 
of  what  the  circumstances  are  with 
which  we  have  to  deal  or  cope  in 
the  City  of  Chicago,  nor  does  it  take 
into  account  the  nature  of  the  woman 
herself. 

This  matter  was  very  fully  consid- 
ered in  our  Committee  on  Elections. 
We  listened  for  several  hours  to  the  ar- 
guments there,  and  those  arguments 


were  chiefly  in  favor  of  woman  suf- 
frage; before  our  committee  only  one 
woman  appeared  in  opposition.  It  is 
true  that  many  women  who  were  op- 
posed to  the  suffrage  were  represented 
by  a letter,  which  was  read,  but  there 
was  nothing  said  on  the  other  side  of 
the  proposition. 

After  the  consideration  of  this  mat- 
ter for  several  hours  in  that  way  we 
had  a further  meeting  of  our  commit- 
tee, and  at  that  meeting  the  matter 
was  rather  fully  discussed  by  all  the 
members  of  the  committee,  with  the 
possible  exception  of  Mr.  Post,  who 
said  he  would  have  something  further 
to  say  on  the  floor  of  this  convention, 
and  from  the  notes  he  is  making  I sup- 
pose he  is  getting  ready  to  say  that 
at  the  present  time.  But  after  that 
rather  full  consideration,  our  commit- 
tee, with  a vote  of  6 to  4,  voted  against 
woman  suffrage. 

I think  we  want  to  state  at  this  time 
a few  of  the  reasons  that  influenced 
some  of  the  committee  who  voted 
against  this  proposition,  and  while  I 
can ’t  speak  for  anybody  but  myself 
in  this  regard,  perhaps  the  same  that 
moved  me  moved  somebody  else. 

The  first  thing  that  we  want  to  take 
into  account  is  that  we  are  drafting  a 
new  charter  for  the  City  of  Chicago  in 
order  to  incorporate  into  that  charter 
things  that  we  know  will  be  positive 
improvements  upon  the  present  method 
of  administration. 

Now,  what  do  we  know  here  about 
woman  suffrage?  It  is  merely  an  ex- 
periment. It  may  have  succeeded  very 
well  in  Iceland  or  in  other  frigid  climes 
that  the  doctor  has  mentioned,  but 
that  is  no  reason  why  it  will  succeed 
well  in  Chicago  with  a cosmopolitan 
population  such  as  we  have  here. 

T am  opposed  until  T am  absolutely 
convinced  that  the  experiment  that  we 
are  going  to  make,  or  that  the  pro- 
vision which  we  are  going  to  incorpo- 
rate in  our  charter,  is  a decided  advan- 


December  27 


772 


1906 


tage  to  the  City  of  Chicago.  I am  op- 
posed to  introducing  in  the  charter  of 
the  City  of  Chicago,  into  the  docu- 
ment with  which  we  are  to  appear  be- 
fore the  legislature,  anything  which  is 
purely  experimental  in  its  character.  I 
think  we  are  doing  the  City  of  Chicago 
a positive  harm  by  going  before  the 
legislature  and  asking  for  anything  of 
the  sort. 

Now,  if  as  a matter  of  fact,  Mr. 
Chairman,  woman  suffrage  is  a good 
thing  for  the  City  of  Chicago,  it  un- 
questionably is  a good  thing  for  the 
State  of  Illinois;  and  this  is  a mat- 
ter in  which  the  policy  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  ought  to  be  no  different  from 
the  policy  of  any  other  city  in  the 
state.  We  have  had  a constitutional 
amendment  in  order  to  legislate  spe- 
cially for  the  City  of  Chicago.  That 
was  granted  on  the  assumption  that 
the  City  of  Chicago  required  things 
which  other  cities  in  the  state  did  not 
require.  Does  that  hold  good  with  ref- 
erence to  woman  suffrage?  I claim  no. 
If  woman  suffrage  is  a good  thing  for 
the  City  of  Chicago,  it  is  a good  thing 
for  every  other  city  in  the  State  of 
Illinois,  and  there  is  no  necessity  for 
having  special  legislation  with  refer- 
ence to  it  for  the  City  of  Chicago.  In 
other  words,  I say  this  is  a matter  of 
state  policy  and  not  of  the  policy  of 
local  municipal  government,  and  ought 
properly  to  be  left  for  the  purpose  of 
legislation  for  the  whole  state  to  the 
legislature  of  the  state. 

We  cannot  grant  absolute  municipal 
suffrage  here  anyway.  The  women,  if 
they  were  given  the  right  to  vote  by 
the  charter,  would  only  have  the  right 
to  vote  for  municipal  offices;  they  could 
not,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  instance,  vote 
on  the  validity  or  on  the  passage  of  any 
amendment  of  the  charter,  because  the  J 
constitutional  amendment  does  not  give  ! 
them  the  right;  so  it  would  be  only  a ! 
partial  suffrage  from  any  point  of  ! 
view,  and  irrespective  of  the  consider-  | 


ation  that  in  all  elections,  all  purely 
municipal  elections,  they  cannot , vote. 
We  have  at  the  present  time  the  right 
granted  to  women  to  vote  for  school 
trustees,  and  to  what  extent  do  they 
exercise  it?  Only  a very  small  fraction 
of  the  women  vote.  They  say  it  is 
because  the  subject  is  not  important 
enough.  But  I say  that  if  the  women 
really  wanted  the  right  to  vote,  if 
they  really  wanted  to  exercise  the  fran- 
chise, they  would  appear  in  greater 
number  at  the  polls  than  they  have 
done  up  to  this  day.  And  that  brings 
me  to  the  next  thought,  which  is,  that 
the  majority  of  the  women  are  not  here 
appealing  to  them  the  right  to  vote. 
It  is,  after  all,  but  a small  minority  of 
the  women  that  want  to  exercise  the 
franchise  and  want  to  be  put  in  a dif- 
ferent position  from  that  which  they 
are  in  today. 

I have  talked  with  great  women,  in- 
tellectual women,  with  some  of  the 
most  cultured  women,  some  of  the  most 
intelligent  women  that  can  be  found 
in  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  I find  a 
very  large  number  of  them,  and  a ma- 
jority of  them,  I am  frank  to  say,  I 
make  bold  to  say,  do  not  want  the 
right  to  vote.  I think  woman  is  not 
suited  constitutionally  for  mingling  in 
political  matters  as  political  matters 
are  conducted  and  are  carried  on  at 
this  date. 

I yield  to  no  one  in  my  admiration 
for  woman,  but  I am  more  anxious  pos- 
sibly than  others  are  to  preserve  her 
tenderness,  to  preserve  her  goodness,  to 
preserve  her  purity,  to  preserve  with 
woman  those  feminine  qualities  which 
particularly  appeal  to  men.  I do  not 
believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  a denatured 
woman,  and  I say  that  for  some  em- 
ployments woman  is  fitted,  for  some 
activities  that  woman  at  the  present 
time  is  engaged  in,  tend  more  than 
! anything  else  to  denature  a woman, 

! make  woman  more  mannish  in  her  ways, 
| and  to  me  they  are  different  from  the 


December  27 


773 


1906 


sort  of  woman  that  naturally  appeals 
to  man. 

Now,  Dr.  White  has  said  that  women 
are  vitally  interested  in  all  of  these 
questions.  Of  course,  they  are  vitally 
interested  in  them.  Our  children  are 
vitally  interested  in  these  questions, 
but  that  does  not  mean  that  the  chil- 
dren should  have  a right  to  vote.  There 
is  no  great  gulf  between  man  and 
woman.  Men  and  women  live  side  by 
side  in  the  family;  their  relations  are 
practically  a unit,  and  there  is  not 
that  separation  which  the  gentleman 
would  have  us  think  exists  between 
men  and  women.  Mr.  Chairman,  un- 
til a sufficient  argument  is  advanced  to 
show  us  that  this  would  be  a positive 
menace  or  injnry  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago— and  no  argument  other  than  a 
merely  sentimental  argument  based  up- 
on things  which  when  fully  considered 
are  very  easily  brushed  aside — I say  no 
other  argument  than  that  has  been  ad- 
vanced up  to  this  time,  and  therefore 
I rise  to  express  my  opposition  to 
this  motion. 

ME.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  I 

could  be  positive  that  the  politics  and 
politicians  would  be  reformed  by  put- 
ting that  in  this  charter,  then  I would 
vote  for  woman  suffrage;  but  because 
you  have  already  reformers  of  that 
kind  going  on,  some  of  them,  I would 
have  to  take  it  into  consideration  be- 
fore I vote  on  this  question.  You 
heard  me  here,  gentlemen,  say  that  the 
lady  should  receive  or  have  the  right 
to  vote  for  school  trustees;  I believe 
they  are  interested  more  in  the  suc- 
cess of  our  schools  than  we  are  inter- 
ested ourselves,  but  because  the  ques- 
tion was  eliminated  from  the  charter, 
because,  according  to  your  vote,  the 
trustees  should  be  appointed,  I believe 
it  would  be  better  if  the  ladies  were 
kept  out  of  politics  for  a while,  until 
the  time  will  come  when  politics  will 
be  fewer.  For  that  reason  I vote 
against  the  proposition. 


ME.  TAYLOE:  I have  an  amend- 

ment to  offer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  .Let  the  Secre- 
tary read  it,  please. 

ME.  TAYLOE:  I claim  the  right  to 

speak  a moment  on  it. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Dr.  Taylor’s  amendment. 

THE  SECEETAEY : “By  Mr.  Tay- 
lor: Eesolved,  That  a provision  grant- 

ing municipal  suffrage  to  women  be 
drafted  as  a separate  bill,  and  that  it 
recommend  to  the  legislature  to  sub- 
mit the  said  provision  separately  from 
the  other  provisions  of  the  charter  to 
the  vote  of  the  people.” 

ME.  TAYLOE:  I was  informed  by 

some  members  of  the  committee  pre- 
sided over  by  Mr.  Eosenthal,  and  of 
which  I was  also  a member,  that  had 
the  proposition  come  before  that  com- 
mittee in  this  form,  such  as  the  one 
spoken  of  here,  one  to  be  submitted 
separately  from  the  charter  and  there- 
fore not  to  imperil  the  passage  of  that 
instrument  through  the  legislature,  or 
as  proposed,  more  votes  might  have 
been  registered  in  that  committee  for 
the  granting  of  municipal  suffrage  to 
women.  At  any  rate,  it  may  separate 
the  question  sufficiently  to  allow  many 
on  this  floor  to  vote  for  it  who  would 
not  like  to  consider  it  as  an  integral 
part  of  the  charter  itself. 

I was  a very  attentive  listener  to 
the  arguments  presented  before  the 
Committee  on  Municipal  Elections,  and 
I must  confess  I failed  to  hear  any 
real  argument  answering  those  that 
were  submitted  to  that  committee  in 
favor  of  woman  suffrage.  The  gentle- 
man who  has  spoken  against  the  grant 
of  suffrage,  indeed,  spoke  to  this  ques- 
tion, but  I for  one  failed  to  see  that 
he  answered  a single  point  that  was 
urged  in  favor  of  this  proposition.  His 
whole  argument  seems  to  center  about 
the  kind  of  a woman  that  appeals  to 
man;  but  really  that  is  not  the  question 
that  is  before  this  Convention.  It  is 


December  27 


774 


190j 


a question  of  justice,  it  is  a question 
of  the  reputation  of  those  who  are  near 
and  dear  to  us*  it  is  not  a question  of 
sentiment;  it  is  a question  of  common 
honesty  and  of  justice. 

Moreover,  I would  enter  a plea  in 
behalf  of  the  family.  The  time  was 
when  family  used  to  be  the  unit  of  the 
social  order;  but  now  families  do  not 
vote;  families  not  only  do  not  vote,  but 
apparently,  as  families,  have  practical- 
ly no  voice  in  the  American  institution, 
American  politics.  The  family  is  bet- 
ter represented  by  the  mother  and  the 
wife  than  by  the  man.  All  questions  of 
municipal  housekeeping  and  municipal 
administration  are  less  nowadays  a po- 
litical question  than  it  is  a question 
of  city  housekeeping.  Clean  streets, 
sanitation  in  homes,  improved  tene- 
ments fit  to  live  in;  giving  a better 
place  for  the  next  child  to  be  born  in; 
surroundings  which  are  to  make  for 
the  betterment  of  manhood  and  woman- 
hood, in  which  you  can  grow  up  to 
higher  manhood  and  womanhood.  These 
are  the  matters  in  which  a woman  can 
vote  not  only  as  intelligently,  but  more 
intelligently,  than  most  men. 

I lived  for  nearly  thirteen  years  in 
the  great  cosmopolitan  working  peo- 
ple’s ward  in  this  city,  a great  tene- 
ment house  ward,  and  I wish  to  give 
as  a witness  to  the  capacity  of  the  peo- 
ple of  brawn  and  brain  that  ought  to 
make  any  community  proud  of  its  in- 
dustrial army — I wish  to  give  my  wit- 
ness to  the  capacity  of  the  working 
women  of  that  ward,  the  housekeepers 
of  the  tenement  houses,  the  women  that 
have  to  grapple  with  the  question  of 
the  disposal  of  garbage,  of  the  clean- 
ing of  the  streets,  of  the  giving  of 
proper  school  accommodations,  and  all 
that  sort  of  thing  concerned  in  munic- 
ipal housekeeping,  I wish  to  say  they 
are  not  only  as  well  qualified,  but  I 
believe  most  of  them  are  better  quali- 
fied to  vote  than  are  the  husbands  upon 
these  subjects. 


If  it  were  a question  of  voting  that 
involved  the  bearing  of  arms,  as  it 
used  to  be,  or  as  in  many  national  is- 
sues—if  it  were  a question  of  whether 
a woman  must  come  to  the  defense  of 
the  nation,  there  might  be  a question 
upon  which  a fair  challenge  might  be 
issued  to  this  demand.  But  this  is  no 
such  question. 

A city  nowadays  ought  to  be  a feder- 
ation of  families,  of  families  with  com- 
mon interests,  living  near  each  other, 
having  great  common  concerns;  of 
families  mothers  of  which  are  the 
homekeepers  and  the  homebuilders,  and 
who  ought  to  have  something  to  say  in 
regard  to  the  surroundings  of  those 
homes  and  the  conditions  into  which 
they  are  to  bear  the  children  and  bring 
them  up.  I do  not  believe  that  we 
would  find  any  embarrassment  after  the 
first  two  or  three  elections  in  granting 
this  vote  to  women.  I think  they 
would  come  to  it  slowly;  that  they 
would  be  educated  to  it;  that  not  the 
bad  women  would  vote  in  any  prepon- 
derance, but  that  the  good  women  would 
cast  a preponderating  vote. 

And  I appeal  to  the  other  cities  and 
states  in  Great  Britain,  and  in  other 
foreign  countries,  and  to  many  states 
of  our  own  great  commonwealth  of 
states,  to  justify  the  hope,  not  only 
that  no  harm  would  come  to  this  great 
municipality,  but  a great  deal  of  good 
would  come  by  granting  women  munic- 
ipal suffrage. 

I do  not  know  whether  this  Conven- 
tion knows  it  or  not,  but  you  only  have 
to  travel,  especially  across  the  seas  and 
in  the  eastern  states — yes,  and  upon 
the  Pacific,  to  learn  that  the  first  citi- 
zen of  Chicago  is  a woman.  I chal- 
lenge the  disproof  of  that  statement. 
The  most  widely  known  and  the  most 
widely  respected  citizen  of  this  great 
city  is  not  a man;  it  is  a woman.  More- 
over, I wish  to  say  that  the  Chicago 
Woman ’s  Club  comes  as  near  being  the 
highest  court  of  common  council  as  any 


December  27 


190.1 


other  organization  that  meets  outside 
of  this  hall.  That  great  body  of  in- 
telligent citizens  of  this  city  has  grap- 
pled with  as  many  of  our  City  of  Chi- 
cago problems,  has  offered  as  many  sane 
and  far-reaching  and  rational  solutions 
of  those  problems  as  this  City  Council 
has  itself. 

I,  therefore,  plead  with  this  Conven- 
tion, at  least  to  give  the  people  per- 
mission to  vote  upon  this  subject  as  a 
separate  question  in  referendum  vote; 
and  respectfully  to  recommend  to  the 
legislature  that  they  submit  the  ques- 
tion of  granting  municipal  suffrage  to 
women  separately  upon  the  ballot  which 
will  he  taken  upon  the  other  provisions 
of  this  charter.  There  can  be  no  dan- 
ger in  that.  There  can  be  no  involve- 
ment on  our  own  part.  We  will  sim- 
ply give  the  people,  the  manhood  of 
this  city,  the  liberty  to  say  whether 
they  want  the  womanhood  of  Chicago 
to  vote  in  municipal  affairs.  I hope 
Mr.  Cole  will  accept  this  amendment. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I was 

just  about  to  rise  to  accept  that 
amendment  with  the  consent  of  my  sec- 
onder. 

MR.  POST:  I object  to  the  amend- 

ment being  accepted  and  the  matter 
being  disposed  of  in  that  way.  As  far 
as  T am  concerned,  I am  perfectly  will- 
ing to  adopt  that  amendment — I beg 
pardon,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  my  ob- 

jection is  to  the  acceptance  of  it,  and 
then  I wish  to  ask  Prof.  Taylor  if  he 
won ’t  offer  that  in  such  a manner  as 
we  can  vote  on  the  main  question,  and 
let  his  proposition  come  afterwards. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I wish  to  suggest 

to  I)r.  Taylor  that  he  withdraw  his 
amendment  for  the  time  being,  with  the 
understanding  that  it  be  submitted  im- 
mediately following  the  main  propo- 
sition. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

very  willing  indeed  to  accede  to  that 


request,  but  I wished  to  say  what  I 
have  said,  and  at  least  give  notice  that 
this  amendment  W'as  to  follow,  because 
I thought  another  vote  would  come  on 
the  main  proposition  if  the  members 
knew  they  would  have  a chance  to  vote 
on  the  amendment  immediately  after. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

feel  pleased  that  that  has  been  with- 
drawn. I believe  after  two  or  three 
weeks’  postponement  of  this  matter  it 
is  only  right  and  just  that  we  should 
vote  on  it,  and  have  a straight  vote  in 
this  Convention,  whatever  we  may  do 
with  it  as  a separate  proposition  after- 
wards. 

Now,  I am  not  an  advocate  of  mu- 
nicipal suffrage  for  women  on  univer- 
sal subjects;  that  is,  I do  not — it  is  not 
one  of  my  hobbies.  For  years  I have 
been  in  favor  of  it.  For  years  I was 
in  favor  of  the  Australian  ballot  before 
if  had  been  instituted  in  this  city,  and 
I had  the  honor  to  bring  the  first  Aus- 
tralian ballot  to  this  city  from  the 
city  of  Boston  in  1889,  and  being  pres- 
ent at  the  first  election  which  took 
place  for  mayor. 

I have  given  some  thought  to  the 
question  of  woman  suffrage,  and  did  not 
intend  to  speak  here  today.  But  I feel 
that  the  argument  as  brought  forward 
has  given  reasons  for  voting  in  the 
negative,  and  as  not  sufficient,  and 
should  not  be  given  any  consideration 
in  this  convention.  We  are  told  as  the 
three  principal  points:  That  this  ques- 

tion is  experimental,  that  is  one;  that 
we  know  nothing  of  woman  suffrage, 
that  it  is  experimental.  We  are  also 
told  that  only  a minority  of  the  women 
in  this  city  are  demanding  it,  and  we 
are  told  that  it  is  ruinous  to  that  pecu- 
liar tenderness  and  ladylike  appearance, 
etc.,  that  women  ought  to  have  all  the 
time.  Now,  T want  to  nay  this  on  these 
things,  and  T will  be  very  short;  I do 
not  mean  to  take  up  much  time. 

Minorities  have  made  the  mile  mark 
of  history,  not  majorities.  Progress  has 


December  27 


776 


1906 


taken  place  only  through  minorities; 
majorities  assuredly  hamper  them.  As 
far  as  the  experimental  phase  of  it  is 
concerned,  if  it  is  not  started  here,  or 
somewhere,  how  can  you  have  the  ex- 
periment? What  do  we  know  about 
woman  suffrage?  is  the  question  asked. 
What  did  we  know  about  manhood 
suffrage  when  we  threw  the  tea  in 
Boston  harbor? 

And  that  peculiar  tenderness  which 
we  want  to  preserve  to  womanhood, 
why  should  we  let  the  hoboes  in  the 
wards  legislate  for  us?  That  is  all  I 
have  to  say. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon — Mr.  Hoyne. 

MR.  HOYNE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I want 
to  say  just  one  word  in  this  connec- 
tion. I thought  that  we  were  an  Ameri- 
can city,  that  this  was  America.  Un- 
til the  last  few  years  we  thought  that 
we  were  the  best,  and  that  we  had  the 
best  government  on  earth.  I am  sur- 
prised to  hear  my  distinguished  friends, 
Dr.  White  and  Dr.  Taylor,  continuous- 
ly referring  to  foreign  countries  for 
examples  of  what  ours  should  be. 
Every  foreign  country  on  the  face  of 
the  earth  sends  it  scholars  to  this  coun- 
try to  learn  our  successful  ways,  and 
our  ways  of  doing  business;  and  for  us 
to  continually  quote  foreign  countries 
for  examples  certainly  does  not  suit 
me.  I was  born  of  a Virginia  mother. 
I was  taught,  as  all  good  mothers  teach 
their  sons,  to  bear  respect  for  woman — 
high  or  low,  Mr.  Linehan,  rich  or  poor; 
no  matter  what  walk  in  life  she  may 
pursue.  But  I am  opposed  to  taking 
woman  from  where  she  stands  today, 
upon  a high  pedestal,  above  any  woman 
on  the  face  of  this  globe,  and  drag- 
ging her  down  to  mix  in  the  common 
ward  politics  going  on  in  this  country. 
I am  opposed  to  bringing  her  to  take 
part  in  these  ward  politics,  and  for  that 
reason  I may  be  obliged  to  vote  against 
this  proposition. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Cole’s 

amendment  to — oh,  Mr.  Hill. 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is 

one  point,  it  seems  to  me,  that  has  not 
been  discussed  or  brought  out  at  the 
present  time,  and  I desire  very  much 
to  hear  something  said  about  it.  Be- 
fore I was  a voter  I had  been  in  favor 
of  woman  suffrage,  and  at  the  present 
moment  I do  not  see  any  theoretical 
reason,  or  any  reason  theoretically  why 
we  should  not  adopt  it  in  this  enact- 
ment in  reference  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  until  I came  to  the  City  of 
Chicago  and  mixed  up  more  or  less  with 
politics  I was  clearly  of  that  opinion. 
Now,  we  have  discussed  the  proposition 
here  at  considerable  length  that  it  is 
desirable  in  municipal  affairs  to  elim- 
inate as  far  as  possible  party  politics; 
at  least,  that  has  been  said  in  this  Con- 
vention, and  it  is  along  that  line  I 
wish  to  get  some  light  if  I can.  In 
the  politics  of  this  city  I have  found, 
and  others  of  you  have  found,  that  in 
certain  districts  along  the  lake  shore, 
for  example,  in  the  best  residence  dis- 
tricts, people  of  means,  professional 
people  and  that  class  of  people,  kome 
of  them  who  are  supposed  to  belong  to 
the  upper  classes — we  find  that  among 
that  class  of  people  it  is  frequently 
very  difficult  to  get  the  men  out  to 
vote.  I have  sent  as  many  as  five 
notes  to  get  one  man  out  to  vote  whose 
ancestors  go  away  back  to  somewhere. 
It  seems  to  me  that  these  gentlemen 
fail  to  appreciate  the  advantage  of  our 
form  of  government,  or  they  have  been 
becoming  so  accustomed  to  it  they  do 
not  appreciate  the  effort  and  sacrifice 
that  was  made  by  our  ancestors  to  se- 
cure those  advantages.  Now,  it  occurs 
to  me  that  if  that  is  true  of  the  men — 
and  those  of  you  who  have  had  any- 
thing to  do  with  politics  know  that  it 
is — it  may  be  true  of  their  wives  and 
sisters  and  mothers  that  they  will  not 
be  more  inclined  to  vote,  or  more  en- 


December  27 


777 


1906 


thusiastic  than  the  men  are.  So  far 
upon  that  proposition. 

On  the  other  hand,  you  take  the  ward 
politician  and  the  precinct  captain,  that 
class  of  men  who  are  holding  positions 
and  earning  their  daily  bread  by  rea- 
son of  that  political  position,  and  who 
hold  their  position  by  reason  of  the 
fact  that  they  control  a number  of 
votes  in  that  precinct,  and  that  as  soon 
as  they  fail  to  control  those  votes  that 
their  position  passes  from  them  to 
somebody  else  who  will  get  the  place. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  when  an  elec- 
tion comes  up  that  precinct  captain  or 
ward  politician  will  have  his  wife  and 
sister  and  mother,  and  everybody  else's 
wife  and  sister  and  mother  that  he  can 
influence,  and  all  his  friends  to  bring 
out  their  wives  in  large  numbers  and 
vote  at  that  election  for  his  man — for 
the  man  whose  party  he  represents  and 
who  he  is  working  for.  Now,  it  seems 
to  me  that  on  the  one  hand  the  higher 
class  of  women  that  we  hope  would 
vote,  and  which  there  is  no  reason  un- 
der the  sun  that  I can  conceive  of  that 
they  should  be  deprived  of  that  priv- 
ilege, would  be  indifferent  and  not 
vote,  while  the  other  class,  which  is 
influenced  by  purely  partisan  politics, 
would  come  out  in  great  numbers  and 
vote.  Now,  that  is  the  question  I would 
like  to  hear  discussed  to  some  extent, 
and  it  has  not  been  touched  on  today. 
I may  be  mistaken,  and  I hope  I am. 

Another  point  that  I am  desirous  of 
mentioning  is  along  the  line  of  Prof. 
Taylor's  suggestion.  In  going  down  be- 
fore the  legislature  we  want  as  far  as 
possible  to  present  a clean-cut  propo- 
sition, and  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture want  to  stand  firmly  for  the  rec- 
ommendations of  this  Convention.  If 
it  is  possible  to  get  what  we  want  with- 
out creating  any  unnecessary  oppo- 
sition, we  would  like  to  do  that.  After 
it  has  passed  the  legislature  and  comes 
before  the  people  on  a referendum 
vote  I think  we  are  all  quite  convinced 


that  there  are  quite  a number  of  men, 
quite  a large  class  of  possible  voters, 
who  might  oppose  this  charter,  just 
because  of  that  proposition.  And,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  women  cannot  bring 
us  any  votes  to  offset  that,  because 
they  are  not  voters  until  this  charter  is 
adopted.  There  again  is  a little  dan- 
ger that  I would  like  to  see  realized 
and  discussed  as  soon  as  possible. 

Now,  as  I look  upon  it,  the  danger  of 
party  politics  on  the  women  voting  in 
the  country  is  not  as  great  as  it  is  in 
the  city.  Even  if  it  obtains  at  all, 
the  safest  place  is  the  country,  where 
the  women  read  a great  deal,  and  where 
party  politics  are  not  strictly  to  the 
front  as  they  are  in  the  city,  where 
organization  is  not  so  great.  I believe 
if  we  can  pass  a measure  through  as 
part  of  this  charter,  it  can  be  passed 
through  the  legislature  into  a state  law, 
because  we  have  got  to  secure  some 
members  down  there,  the  same  as  if 
this  were  a state  law.  I would  like  to 
see  it,  as  has  been  suggested,  that  this 
should  be  put  up  to  the  people  on  a 
straight  vote. 

Now,  I do  not  wish  to  be  understood 
as  being  antagonistic  to  the  women,  be- 
cause I say  it  is  a plain  proposition 
and  I am  in  favor  of  it  theoretically. 
But  in  a great  city  like  this  I think 
it  is  a mistake.  There  are  two  or  three 
measures  put  into  the  charter  where  it 
has  been  said  that  it  is  desirable  to 
have  the  moral  force  of  the  Charter 
Convention  to  carry  it  through  the 
legislature.  Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  a 
mistake.  Don't  hitch  anything  onto 
this  charter  with  the  idea  that  its 
moral  force  will  carry  it,  because  every 
time  you  do  that  you  are  hitching  clogs 
onto  it,  and  we  shall  have  to  fight  it  in 
the  legislature.  If  there  are  any  such 
measures  of  difficult  reform,  for  pity's 
sake  put  them  separate,  and  put  them 
through  without  imperiling  the  charter. 
Take  away  as  far  as  possible  those 
things  which  are  going  to  create  oppo- 


December  27 


778 


1905 


sition  and  which  we  have  got  to  safe- 
guard down  there.  Let  us  put  up  a 
clean-cut  charter  to  the  legislature  and 
bring  it  down  to  the  people.  This  is 
a separate  measure  which  there  is  some 
question  about.  Let  us  put  this  through, 
if  you  desire,  and  let  us  do  what  we 
can  in  that  direction  and  put  it  through 
as  a separate  proposition  that  will  be 
voted  upon  by  the  people  without  im- 
periling the  main  fundamental  propo- 
sitions of  the  charter. 

Now,  I think  that  it  would  be  wise 
to  put  it  up  to  the  people  and  secure  a 
vote  upon  it.  I do  think,  however, 
we  stand  as  good  a chance  to  put  it 
through  the  State  Legislature  for  the 
whole  state  as  for  the  City  of  Chicago. 
I think  you  can  do  it  as  well  for  the 
whole  state  as  for  the  City  of  Chicago; 
and  I think  if  you  tack  it  onto  this 
charter  that  you  will  have  opposition 
against  its  adoption  and  it  would  create 
foes  to  the  charter,  and  votes  against 
,it;  with  no  votes  on  the  other  side  to 
offset  it.  I speak  sincerely  about  this 
and  against  my  convictions  to  a large 
extent.  Properly  I feel  the  ladies 
ought  to  have  a chance  to  vote. 

I honestly  feel  we  are  making  voters 
too  fast.  I think  that  is  where  our 
trouble  comes  in.  People  come  from 
foreign  countries  and  before  they  un- 
derstand our  methods  we  make  voters 
of  them  before  they  are  qualified;  and 
certainly  our  own  women,  born  and 
bred  and  educated  here,  with  all  the 
feelings  and  the  desires  and  the  educa- 
tion that  they  have  been  recipients  of 
are  better  qualified  to  vote  than  the 
large  number  of  those  foreigners. 
There  is  no  doubt  about  that  in  my 
mind,  and  I would  like  to  se  them  have 
the  franchise  in  a proper  way.  But 
if  we  want  to  divorce  municipal  affairs 
from  party  politics,  I do  not  believe 
you  would  accomplish  it  by  giving 
women  suffrage  in  municipal  affairs. 
T do  honestly  think  that  the  influence 
of  the  ladies  that  we  seek  to  obtain 


will  not  be  obtained;  that  they  will  not 
take  interest  in  these  affairs  and  come 
up  and  vote;  and  I do  sincerely  be- 
lieve, from  my  experience  in  ward  poli- 
tics, that  where  a man  holds  a position 
by  reason  of  his  ability  to  obtain  votes, 
that  every  one  of  the  women  he  can 
influence  will  come  out  and  vote. 

MR.  BLkRKE:  Roll  call,  please. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I have 

no  doubt  whatever  of  Mr.  Hill ’s  sincer- 
ity; it  is  perfectly  obvious.  But  I wish 
to  remind  him  and  other  members  of  this 
Convention  on  the  last  point  that  he 
raised,  that  the  perils  that  this  charter 
is  going  to  encounter  will  not  be  con- 
fined to  the  legislature.  If  you  separate 
these  measures  I am  willing  to  vote  for  a 
separate  bill  rather  than  for  no  provision 
made  for  the  suffrage  of  women  munici- 
pally, but  if  you  put  this  forward  in  a 
separate  bill  you  will  draw  the  interest 
of  the  women  who  take  an  interest  in 
public  affairs  to  that  separate  bill  and 
away  from  this  charter. 

Now,  if  you  will  consider  what  would 
have  become  of  your  constitutional 
amendment,  under  which  we  are  assum- 
ing to  act,  if  it  had  not  been  for  the 
activity  of  the  women  of  this  city  and  of 
the  rest  of  the  state,  you  may  draw  some 
inference  as  to  what  may  occur  to  your 
charter  when  you  come  before  the  people 
for  its  adoption  with  some  of  the  provi- 
sions in  it  already  and  some  which  you 
are  likely  to  put  in  it,  which  will  have 
a tendency  to  create  great  hostility  to 
it.  I can  conceive  of  no  other  thing 
that  will  give  greater  strength  to  your 
charter  as  you  have  drawn  it  and  as  you 
evidently  intend  to  complete  it,  than  to 
insert  in  the  charter  itself  and  not  in  a 
separate  bill,  a provision  that  your  wom- 
en shall  have  municipal  suffrage.  You 
will  get  the  full  force  of  their  support 
then.  You  will  not  get  it  if  you  sepa- 
rate the  proposition  from  the  charter. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  after  I listened 
to  Mr.  White,  who  properly  took  the  lead- 
ership in  this  debate,  I had  no  intention 


December  27 


779 


1906 


of  saying  a word  upon  the  merits  of  this 
question,  for  he  presented  the  matter 
so  ably  and  sanely  as  well  as  eloquently, 
that  at  that  time  certainly  there  was 
noihing  left  to  be  said,  and  if  this  Con- 
vention had  come  to  a vote  then  I should 
not  have  troubled  it  with  any  remarks  of 
my  own. 

But  Mr.  Bosenthal  has  so  graciously 
thrown  down  the  challenge  to  me  that 
I should  feel  that  I was  derelict  if  I 
did  not  accept  that  challenge  and  at 
least  say  a few  words  in  reply. 

We  did  have  this  matter  up  before 
the  committee,  Mr.  Chairman.  My  recol- 
h tion  differs  from  Mr.  Bosentlial ’s  in 
some  particulars,  not  vitally  however.  My 
recollection  for  one  thing  is  that  the 
vote  was  4 to  5.  My  recollection  also 
is  that  while  I did  say  I would  reserve 
what  I might  have  to  say  upon  this 
question  until  I came  to  the  floor  of  the 
Convention,  that  the  discussion  was  rath- 
er meek  except  on  the  part  of  the  Chair- 
man of  the  committee,  who  was  Mr. 
Bosenthal.  Professor  Taylor  did  make 
a very  interesting  confession  of  his  con- 
version, and  that  this  conversion  had 
been  accomplished  by  the  appearance  of 
the  women  who  spoke  before  that  com- 
mittee, and  I felt  that  it  would  be  un- 
necessary for  me  to  say  anything  further 
upon  this  after  the  women  who  had  ap- 
peared there  had  produced  such  splendid 
results; — results  sufficient  almost  to 
change  the  attitude  of  the  committee; 
results  that  I think  would  have  changed 
the  attitude  of  the  committee  but  for  the 
overwhelming  influence  of  the  chairman’s 
remarks. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  some  of  the  points 
that  have  been  made  have  been  answered 
bv  my  colleagues  here  and  T shall  not 
attempt  seriatim  to  answer  what  has 
been  said.  But  one  or  two  particular 
points  T will  refer  to. 

One  of  these  is  the  point  that  Mr. 
Bosenthal  makes,  that  we  would  only 
be  giving  the  women  partial  suffrage, 
anyhow.  Well,  T do  not  know  but  to  an 
extent  that  would  be  true;  we  would 


only  be  giving  them  municipal  suffrage, 
that  is  a fact,  but  half  a loaf  is  better 
than  no  bread  at  all  I think  they  would 
all  say;  and  moreover,  the  question  of 
municipal  suffrage  is,  as  Doctor  White 
said,  a distinct  question  from  the  ques- 
tion of  general  suffrage.  I think  a 
strong  argument  could  be  made  for  gen- 
eral suffrage  on  all  grounds,  but  there 
are  special  arguments  in  favor  of  munici- 
pal suffrage. 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  had  presented 
here,  if  I may  sum  them  up,  arguments 
that  may  be  summed  up  in  a general  way 
that  the  woman’s  place  is  in  the  home. 
We  hear  that  argument  phrased  in  that 
manner  very  often.  I do  not  know  that 
it  has  been  so  phrased  here,  but  the  sub- 
stance of  the  argument  is  present. 

Now  I am  perfectly  willing  to  agree 
to  the  proposition  that  the  place  of  the 
woman  is  the  home;  that  her  functions 
are  in  the  home;  that  she  should  attend 
to  the  work  of  the  home.  I believe  thor- 
oughly in  the  idea  that  there  are  mas- 
culine functions  in  this  life  and  that 
there  are  feminine  functions,  and  that 
the  idea  of  a home  tremendously  expresses 
the  feminine  function  and  that  the  wom- 
an ’s  place  is  there.  But  I do  not  agree 
to  the  narrow  construction  that  some  of 
our  friends  put  upon  that  word  home, 
and  if  they  will  reflect  a moment  I think 
they  may  come  to  agree  with  me  that 
there  is  a larger  home  than  the  four 
wralls  that  enclose  the  family,  and  that 
the  woman ’s  place  is  as  much  in  that 
larger  home  as  it  is  in  the  little  home. 

When  I leave  here  tonight,  if  I am 
talking  to  a friend,  I may  tell  him  that 
T am  going  home.  I will  mean,  and  he 
will  understand  me  to  mean  that  I am 
going  up  to  that  little  flat  on  the  North 
side  where  I monthly  pay  a rent  which 
includes  a tax,  and  my  landlord  taking 
that  tax  that  I pay  to  him  in  twelve 
instalments,  puts  it  away  in  his  bank, 
and  at  the  end  of  the  fiscal  year  or  at 
the  beginning  of  it,  he  draws  his  check 
for  a part  of  what  I have  paid  him  for 
taxes,  and  after  that  he  passes  in  the 


December  27 


780 


1906 


community  as  a tax  payer  and  says  that 
I am  not  a tax  payer. 

Now  when  I say  I am  going  home 
from  here  I mean  I am  going  up  there 
and  you  understand  me  so,  and  the  wom- 
an’s place  in  my  family  is  in  that  home. 
She  is  queen  of  that  home,  be  it  little 
or  be  it  big.  But,  suppose  I am  in  New 
York  and  I crowd  into  a friend  at  the 
station  and  he  says,  ‘ 1 Where  are  you 
going  ?”  I say,  ‘ 1 1 am  going  home.  ” 
Does  he  think  of  a little  flat  on  the 
North  side?  Do  I mean  a little  flat  up 
on  the  North  Side?  I mean  the  City  of 
Chicago  and  that  is  the  picture  that 
comes  to  his  mind.  I am  going  home  to 
Chicago,  and  in  that  home,  too,  the  wom- 
an should  be  a queen.  A woman's  func- 
tion is  there,  the  feminine  function  is  in 
the  City  of  Chicago  as  truly  as  it  is  in 
the  little  homes  that  are  scattered  every- 
where. One  is  the  housekeeping  home  in 
the  smaller  sense;  the  other  is  a house- 
keeping home  in  the  larger  sense. 

And  I might  carry  the  simile  further; 
if  I went  to  London  and  said,  “ I am 
going  home, ’ ’ my  friends  would  under- 
stand that  I did  not  mean  the  little  flat 
on  the  North  Side,  nor  should  I mean 
either  New  York  or  Chicago;  I should 
mean  the  United  States  and  he  would 
understand  me  to  mean  the  United 
States.  That  is  my  home,  and  in  that 
home,  too,  there  is  a feminine  as  well 
as  a masculine  function  to  perform  and 
the  woman  should  be  the  queen  of  that 
home  also.  But  of  that  we  need  not  dis- 
cuss?. 

The  question  here  is  whether  she  shall 
have  a voice  in  the  housekeeping  of  the 
larger  home  as  distinguished  from  the 
mere  household,  in  the  slums,  or  on  the 
Lake  Shore  Drive,  or  in  the  suburbs. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  not  time 
here  to  go  into  details,  but  I can  give 
you  an  instance  of  housekeeping  in  the 
municipality  that  came  with  great  force 
to  me  on  one  occasion,  when  I passed 
through  the  State  of  Colorado.  I stopped 
with  others  at  a little  city  called  Grand 
Junction.  It  is  not  a very  large  city, 


but  it  has  all  the  evils  of  a big  city, 
and  among  other  things  they  were  pro- 
vided with  a water  company,  which  was 
just  as  corrupt  and  just  as  pernicious 
as  could  ever  be  found  in  any  large 
city,  which  did  just  as  much  towards 
corrupting  politics,  had  just  as  much  in- 
fluence in  corrupting  the  politics  of  the 
City  of  Grand  Junction  as  does  the  great 
public  utilities  that  are  corrupting  poli- 
tics in  our  great  city.  They  had  woman 
suffrage  in  that  state  after  a while,  and 
the  women  of  Grand  Junction  voted  on 
public  questions,  and  this  is  the  result: 
That  city  had  had  its  water  furnished  by 
this  water  company,  and  the  water  com- 
pany had  been  giving  alkali  water  to  the 
people  to  drink,  and  the  men  knew  noth- 
ing about  housekeeping,  municipal  house- 
keeping or  any  other  kind,  and  it  was 
the  women  that  were  interested  on  that 
side  of  the  question.  The  women  found 
that  this  company  was  plundering  them 
and  they  urged  their  husbands  to  stop  it, 
that  they  should  vote  against  it,  but 
somehow  or  other  they  did  not  vote  for 
good  water.  Now  as  soon  as  the  women 
had  got  to  voting  in  that  state  they  went 
into  the  matter  with  a will;  they  were 
not  in  with  political  gangs,  as  Mr.  Hill 
imagines  would  be  the  case,  but  arm  in 
arm  with  their  husbands  they  went  to 
the  polls.  The  polls,  by  the  way,  were 
soon  changed  in  appearance,  too,  and 
they  went  arm  in  arm  with  their  hus- 
bands to  good  clean  polling  places,  to 
vote  there,  and  the  very  first  thing  they 
did  was  to  vote  that  corrupt  water  power 
out  of  existence,  and  they  had  a munic- 
ipal water  company  there  within  two 
years  with  good  clear  water,  coming  from 
the  mountain  tops.  That  is  a little  illus- 
tration of  what  I think  you  could  ex- 
pect throughout  the  municipalities.  I 
don’t  think  there  is  any  great  objection 
to  it  except  on  the  part  of  people  who 
own  stock  and  who  are  influenced  by  the 
stockholders  in  the  great  public  utility 
corporations. 

We  are  told,  Mr.  President,  that  the 
women  won’t  vote  if  we  give  them  the 


December  27 


781 


1906 


power.  Well,  that  is  none  of  our  busi- 
ness; and  it  is  none  of  the  business  of 
the  women  who  may  refrain  from  voting. 
The  question  is  whether  women  shall  have 
the  right  to  vote.  If  any  woman,  like  any 
man,  having  a right  to  vote  does  dis- 
franchise herself,  that  is  her  right  and 
privilege.  Every  man  and  every  woman 
ought  to  have  the  right  to  disfranchise 
himself  or  herself  if  he  or  she  chooses, 
and  that  is  the  only  basis  of  disfran- 
chisement there  should  be.  No  one  of 
mature  mind  has  any  right  to  disfranchise 
any  one  else  of  mature  mind,  but  every- 
one has  a right  to  disfranchise  himself 
if  he  chooses. 

We  are  given  as  an  illustration  the 
fact  that  women  do  not  vote  in  large 
numbers  at  our  school  elections.  Well, 
we  know  that  men  do  not  vote  in  large 
numbers  at  our  school  elections;  and  if 
you  had  nothing  to  vote  for  in  the  last 
election,  if  you  had  nothing  at  the  last 
election  to  vote  for  except  upon  the 
question  of  who  should  be  something  or 
other  down  in  the  university,  I don ’t 
believe  there  would  have  been  a very  big 
vote  anyhow.  People  vote  when  they  are 
interested,  and  when  they  are  intelli- 
gently interested  on  a subject.  That  is 
no  argument  whatever. 

But  we  get  down  to  the  argument  now, 
Mr.  President,  of  the  denatured  woman, 
the  denatured  wofnan.  The  men  who  have 
an  idea  that  women  would  be  denatured 
by  voting  are,  I expect,  the  men  who 
imagine  that  the  particular  relationship 
of  man  and  woman  may  be  illustrated  by 
the  tender  vine  clinging  to  the  sturdy 
oak,  and  the  man  always  imagines  that 
he  is  the  sturdy  oak — which  is  sometimes 
a great  stretch  of  imagination,  I should 
say. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Has  Mr.  Post 

the  unanimous  consent  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  continue? 

(Cries  of  “Yes,  yes. M) 

MR.  POST : That  is  an  old  argument ; 

it  is  a played  out  argument ; it  is  frayed 
all  along  the  edges;  it  has  not  any  good 
patches  even  on  the  holes ; it  is  an  old 


an  used-up  argument, — the  denatured 
woman.  I am  not  so  very  old,  not  per- 
haps so  old  as  I believe  I am,  although 
I may  be  a little  older  than  I look,  but 
yet  I can  remember  the  time  when  it 
was  believed  by  men  and  by  women — 
some  women  among  women,  perhaps — 
that  it  was  denaturing  to  a woman  to  go 
to  college,  that  it  was  denaturing  to  a 
woman  to  do  anything  except  to  go  to  a 
finishing  school,  a boarding  school,  where 
she  might  learn  a little  bit  about  the 
piano,  a little  bit  about  dancing,  a little 
bit  about  French,  and  some  other  little 
things;  but  for  a woman  to  take  up  and 
conduct  any  serious  study  that  would 
qualify  her  to  be  useful  in  life,  or 
for  any  other  purpose  than  to  act  as  a 
clinging  vine  to  the  sturdy  oak,  that 
was  regarded  as  denaturing.  Now  is  the 
time  to  let  those  arguments  drop,  as  we 
can  prove  they  are  not  well  founded. 
Experiment?  Why,  we  have  been  experi- 
menting all  along  the  line  of  suffrage  and 
everything  else,  as  far  as  we  have  gone, 
it  is  nothing  but  experimentation.  I will 
guarantee  that  no  man  who  wants  to 
limit  suffrage  will  consent  to  limit  it  at 
any  other  point  except  just  next  to  him- 
self on  the  downward  side.  I can  imag- 
ine some  men  who  are  opposed  to  suffrage 
drawing  the  line  at  education  and  draw- 
ing the  line  at  suffrage,  but  the  line  is 
one  that  will  leave  it  on  the  right  side 
of  him. 

We  have  found  by  experience  that  the 
extension  of  suffrage  has  been  benefi- 
cial to  civilization,  and  now  we  are  find- 
ing that  it  goes  further.  Of  course,  I 
have  to  cross  the  ocean  for  some  of  my 
illustrations,  just  as  Doctor  Taylor  had 
to  do.  I am  sorry,  and  I apologize  for 
having  to  do  that.  I apologize  to  Mr. 
Hovno  for  being  under  that  necessity; 
yet  I point  to  the  fact  that  Mr.  Hoyne 
uses  the  English  language  when  address- 
ing us,  notwithstanding  the  fact  he  is 
opposed  to  everything  that  is  not  strictly 
American.  On  the  other  side,  here  is 
the  point.  It  is  simply  this,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  we  have  been  bragging  so 


December  27 


782 


1906 


much  about  the  freedom  of  America  so 
long  that  we  have  stood  still  and  the 
people  on  the  other  side  have  been  going 
ahead  of  us  in  all  that  relates  to  the 
real  progress  of  democracy.  You  do 
not  even  have  to  go  to  the  other  side. 
Go  to  Canada,  go  to  the  Western  states, 
and  you  will  find  that  in  those  places. 
Are  we  going  to  lag  behind  until  it  is 
too  late  for  us  to  take  the  lead  in  real 
progress?  Experiment?  Why,  every- 
thing, almost,  in  this  charter,  is  experi- 
ment. If  we  don ’t  want  to  experiment, 
Mr.  Chairman,  simply  reconsider  all  that 
you  have  done  and  re-enact  the  existing 
laws.  Experiment  all  the  way  through, 
but  what  better  experiment  could  there 
be  than  this,  that  shall  turn  over  in  effect 
to  the  people  who  ought  to  do  the  house- 
keeping for  the  City  of  Chicago,  the 
power  to  do  the  housekeeping. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I apologize  for  taking 
so  long  a time,  but  I hope  I may  be  par- 
doned for  doing  so  after  hearing  the  very 
eloquent  speeches  made  here  by  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secretary 

call  the  roll  on  Mr.  Cole’s  amendment  to 
the  proposition  as  printed.  Mr.  Cole ’s 
amendment  is  to  strike  out  the  word 
* ‘ no  ’ ’ and  insert  the  letter  ‘ 1 a,  ’ ’ so  that 
the  section  will  read : ‘ 1 The  charter  shall 
contain  a provision  for  conferring  the 
right  of  suffrage  on  women,  ’ ’ and  upon 
that  the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Brown,  Cole,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Guerin,  Kittleman,  Line- 
han,  MacMillan,  McKinley,  Owens,  Pen- 
darvis,  Revell,  Ritter,  Taylor,  White, 
Wilkins. — 17. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Burke,  Carey,  Church,  Crilly,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Erickson, 
Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Oehne,  Post,  Pow- 
ers, Ravmer,  Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shan- 
ahan, Shepard,  Smulski,  Swift,  Yopicka, 
Zimmer.  — 26. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I wish  to 

explain  my  vote.  I am  in  favor  of 
Doctor  Taylor’s  substitute.  The  consti- 


tutional amendment  was  primarily  adopt- 
ed for  the  purpose  of  enabling  a consoli- 
dation, and  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
the  bonded  indebtedness  and  to  provide 
revenue,  and  to  adopt  such  measures  as 
might  be  found  necessary  in  order  to 
meet  the  growing  wants  of  the  city.  I 
am,  therefore,  constrained  to  vote  no 
upon  this  proposition,  but  with  the  hope 
that  I may  have  the  privilege  of  voting 
upon  Doctor  Taylor ’s  substitute,  so  as 
to  submit  the  question  to  the  legislature 
in  a separate  bill,  and  that  it  may  be 
voted  upon  as  a separate  measure,  by  the 
City  of  Chicago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  does  Mr. 

Eckhart  vote? 

MR.  ECKHART:  I vote  no. 

MR.  POST : I wish  to  change  my  vote 

to  no,  for  the  purpose  of  moving  a re- 
consideration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Post  changes 

his  vote  to  no. 

MR.  POST:  I vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion of  Mr.  Cole  to  substitute  the  letter 
<(a”  for  the  word  ‘ 1 no ” the  yeas  are 
17  and  the  nays  are  26,  and  the  motion 
is  lost. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I desire  to  in- 

troduce an  amendment  for  the  original 
proposition,  if  you  please. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  Mr.  Mac- 

Millan’s amendment  be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Mac- 
millan: That  all  women  taxpayers,  of 

good  moral  character,  citizens  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  who  possess  all  the  quali- 
fications required  of  men  to  vote  save 
that  of  sex,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  for 
municipal  officers  and  measures.  ’ ’ 

MR.  BURKE:  I move  to  lay  that  on 

the  table. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  It  will  reach  ex- 

actly the  point  suggested  by  Mr.  Burke, 
if  we  take  a direct  vote  on  the  matter ; 
let  us  have  a direct  vote  on  the  matter. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  In  view  of  the  vote 

which  has  just  been  taken,  a slightly 
different  form  for  my  amendment  would 
place  the  matter  more  definitely  before 


December  27 


783 


1906 


the  Convention  as  a distinct  proposition, 
and  I would  like  to  have  permission  to 
turn  in  this  revised  form  of  my  original 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  occurs  to  the 

Chair  that  Mr.  MacMillan’s  question  cov- 
ers the  exact  question  that  was  voted 
upon  just  now. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I think  not,  Mr. 

Chairman,  with  due  deference  to  the 
Chair;  the  proposition  which  has  just 
been  voted  upon  is  a proposition  which 
involves  the  question  of  women  voting 
who  would  otherwise  be  qualified  to  under 
the  law ; this  proposition  suggests,  or 
is  with  particular  reference  to  women  who 
pay  taxes,  it  does  not  cover  the  other 
proposition  at  all.  It  is  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent proposition.  I don ’t  care  to  dis- 
cuss it,  but  I would  like  to  have  a vote 
on  the  matter. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I would  like  to  have 

a vote  taken  on  the  amendment  offered 
by  Doctor  Taylor.  I think  that  the  vote 
of  some  members  on  this  matter  just 
taken  is  not  indicative  of  their  position 
upon  the  proposition,  not  so  much  as  it 
did  show  their  belief  that  it  should  not 
be  put  into  this  charter.  I do  not  believe 
that  it  is  within  the  scope  of  this  Con- 
vention, or  the  legislature  acting  upon 
the  recommendation  of  this  Convention, 
as  far  as  the  charter  legislature  is  con- 
cerned, to  embody  a provision  of  this 
kind  in  our  charter;  and  I do  not  think 
it  is  contained  is  this  scheme  for  local 
municipal  government  which  is  granted 
to  us  under  the  amendment  to  the  con- 
stitution. I believe  it  should  be  a sep- 
arate proposition.  I think  that  the  women 
should  have  the  right  to  present  their 
case  to  the  legislature,  but  I believe  it 
should  come  in  a separate  bill.  I do  not 
believe  that  the  legislature  can  enact 
special  legislation  under  this  charter 
amendment  to  the  City  of  Chicago  grant- 
ing the  privilege  of  franchise  to  a cer- 
tain class  that  is  not  general  throughout 
the  state.  I think  the  constitution  of 


the  state  prohibits  that.  I think  that 
should  be  taken  up  in  a separate  bill. 

MR.  COLE:  A point  of  order:  I 

made  a motion  there  to  change  the  origi- 
nal motion,  and  I afterwards  offered  to 
accept  Doctor  Taylor ’s  motion,  and  then 
the  matter  was  yielded  with  the  under- 
standing that  this  would  be  taken  up 
after  Professor  Taylor’s  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Everybody’s  mo- 

tion will  get  a chance. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  That  is  what  we 

want;  what  we  want  to  get. 

MR.  SWIFT:  I have  listened  with 

careful  attention  to  all  that  has  been 
said  pro  and  con,  and  after  giving  all 
that  has  been  said  pro  and  con  due  con- 
sideration, it  still  is  in  my  mind  that 
this  is  a subject  matter  that  ought  not 
to  have  been  brought  before  this  Charter 
Convention.  The  fundamental  idea  in 
the  calling  together  of  this  Convention 
was  to  prepare  measures  that  might  rem- 
edy the  prime  evils  existing  in  the  City 
of.  Chicago.  I doubt  that  anyone  had  in 
mind  the  subject  of  woman  suffrage 
when  this  initial  movement  was  taken  up. 
I believe,  sir,  that  if  there  is  a crying 
demand  for  woman  suffrage  the  initia- 
tive should  be  taken  by  the  legislature, 
and  that  is  where  the  application  of 
the  woman  suffragists  should  go.  I am 
one  of  those  who  do  believe  there  is  a 
home,  not  as  the  gentleman  has  eloquently 
said,  the  four  walls  that  contain  us  and 
our  families,  but  the  environments  of 
that  home,  the  mother’s  love,  the  sister’s 
love,  the  father’s  love,  and  the  re- 
spect and  love  of  the  children  of  that 
father  and  mother.  That  is  what 

makes  good  citizenship.  Now,  then, 

it  has  been  stated  here  repeatedly 

that  this  is  not  a sympathetic  nor  a 
sentimental  question.  Very  well.  Let 

us  take  it  as  a practical  measure.  If  a 
mother  cannot  influence  the  son  at  home, 
if  the  wife  cannot  influence  the  husband 
at  home,  the  father  at  home,  if  the  sister 
cannot ’ influence  the  brother  at  home  on 
the  great  questions  that  come  up  for  the 


December  27 


784 


good  or  for  the  bad  of  this  city,  without 
the  suffrage  on  the  part  of  that  sister 
or  the  wife  or  the  mother,  will  the  right 
of  suffrage  give  them  greater  influence? 
Now,  then,  be  practical.  If  the  wife  and 
the  mother  and  the  sister  have  this  right 
of  suffrage,  and  the  same  amount  of  in- 
fluence, none  greater  will  be  conferred 
upon  them  by  the  right  of  suffrage;  the 
same  amount  of  influence  existing,  what 
is  the  status  of  affairs?  The  question 
comes  up  and  the  father  says  this  and 
mother  says  that,  brother  says  this  and 
sister  takes  that  stand;  wife  says  this 
and  husband  says  that.  Then,  if  you  go 
on  further,  if  there  is  no  rupture  in  the 
household — and  those  who  have  dealt  in 
politics  know  there  very  often  are  rup- 
tures— if  there  is  no  rupture  in  the 
household,  what  is  the  state  of  affairs? 
Father  nullifies  mother’s  vote  when  they 
go  to  the  polls;  brother  nullifies  sister’s 
vote  when  they  go  to  the  polls.  None  of 
the  votes  are  effective,  and  what  do  they 
gain? 

I certainly  yield  in  respect  to  woman- 
hood to  no  man  in  this  Convention,  or 
outside  of  it,  and  when  I vote  no  on  this 
proposition,  or  did  vote  no  on  this  prop- 
osition, I did  it  in  the  thorough  belief 
in  my  heart  that  I was  doing  that  which 
was  for  the  best  interests  of  womanhood ; 
and  I believe  that  now  is  not  the  time — 
we  may  not  be  as  progressive  as  they 
are  in  Europe,  we  may  not  have  such 
progressive  democracy  in  America  as  Pro- 
fessor Post  has  so  eloquently  depicted. 
Ah,  I doubt  it.  "What  brings  the  millions 
of  emigrants  to  America  every  year?  Be- 
cause of  the  progressiveness  in  democracy 
in  America.  Tell  me  that  there  is  more 
progressiveness  in  Europe  than  in  this 
country,  and  I repudiate  the  idea.  Pau- 
perism, Czarism,  abuse  on  every  hand, 
and  every  person  that  comes  here  from 
a foreign  country  feels  and  knows  of 
the  abuse  that  is  inflicted  upon  people 
in  those  countries,  and  they  are  the  abused 
ones  that  flock  to  this  country. 

It  may  be  in  time  that  our  wives  and 
our  sisters  and  our  mothers  will  be  ready  | 


190CI 

to  vote,  but  I do  not  believe  that  time 
has  arrived.  And  it  is  with  all  due  re- 
spect to  the  remarks  that  have  been  made 
here — I do  not  believe  there  should  be 
any  sort  of  criticism  upon  any  state- 
ment made  by  any  member  of  this  Con- 
vention. We  all  stand  equal.  I respect 
and  honor  the  position  taken  by  any 
man  if  he  believes  in  his  heart  that  that 
position  is  true. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  vote 

will  be  taken  upon  Professor  Taylor ’s 
motion,  after  which  Mr.  MacMillan ’s  mo- 
tion will  be  read. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I beg  to  suggest 

to  the  Chair  that  neither  Mr.  Cole  nor 
Professor  Taylor  had  any  right  to  give 
way  to  the  one  or  the  other  respecting 
the  taking  up  of  Professor  Taylor ’s 
proposition ; Professor  Taylor ’s  proposi- 
tion was  withdrawn  without  reference  to 
its  being  immediately  taken  up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  has  no 

desire  to  force  one  ahead  of  the  other; 
all  of  them  will  be  heard. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  That  is  correct. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I think  Pro- 

fessor Taylor ’s  proposition  was  tempo- 
rarily withdrawn  until  a direct  vote 
should  be  had  upon  the  other  matter 
which  is  now  before  the  house.  I think 
Mr.  MacMillan  is  in  error  in  assuming 
it  was  withdrawn  and  that  he  has  the 
right  of  way. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I do  not  pretend 

to  have  the  right  of  way  here  at  all,  but 
I am  simply  saying  this,  that  Professor 
Taylor’s  proposition  was  withdrawn.  In 
presenting  my  amendment,  I believe  my 
amendment  is  germane  to  the  original 
proposition,  and  without  any  desire  to 
push  it  to  the  front  at  all  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  is  so  distinct  from  either  Pro- 
fessor Taylor’s  proposition  of  Mr.  Cole’s 
original  motion  that  it  ought  to  be  taken 
up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  therefore, 

let  us  take  them  up  separately. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I would  like  to 

know  what  Professor  Taylor’s  proposi- 


December  27 


785 


tion  is  then,  so  that  I may  make  an 
amendment  to  it. 

ME.  TAYLOR:  I do  not  object  to 

having  a vote  taken  on  Mr.  MacMillan ’s 
proposition  now,  I have  no  objection  to 
thai. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Well,  in  order  to 

secure  perfect  harmony  we  will  take  a 
vote  on  Mr.  MacMillan’s  proposition. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  No,  I will  not 

press  the  matter  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  vote  will  be 

taken  upon  Mr.  MacMillan ’s  proposition, 
and  the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  SWIFT : I believe  a motion  to 

lay  upon  the  table  is  always  in  order; 
I move  that  that  section  with  all  the 
amendments  thereto  be  laid  upon  the 
table. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  As  a matter  of 

information,  does  that  include  Professor 
Taylor’s  proposition? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir,  and 

your  proposition. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I don’t  care  so 

much  about  my  own,  as  abojit  his. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Swift’s  motion 
that  the  entire  matter  be  laid  upon  the 
table. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Burke,  Carey,  Crilly,  Erickson,  Hoyne, 
Hunter,  Oehne,  Powers,  Raymer,  Ritter, 
Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shepard, 
Smulski,  Swift,  Yopicka,  Zimmer — 22. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Brown,  Church,  Cole, 
Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart,  B.  A.; 
Ec.khart,  J.  W. ; Guerin,  Hill,  Kittleman, 
Linehan,  MacMillan,  McKinley,  Owens, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Revell,  Taylor,  White, 
Wilkins— 21. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  WILKINS:  Mr.  President,  I be- 

lieve that  this  question  should  be  settled 
here  and  now  by  this  Convention  and  that 
the  matter  should  not  be  thrown  off  to 
the  legislature  and  that  we  should  settle 
it  and  settle  it  so  as  to  take  care  of  Chi 
cago,  allowing  the  good  women  to  vote. 
It  strikes  me  that  if  we  will  go  to  the 
saloons  and  the  slums  and  take  men  out 


1905 

of  there  that  do  not  work,  who  are  al- 
ways engaged  in  holding  up  and  robbing 
the  country,  and  give  them  the  right  to 
vote,  that  we  ought  to  give  the  Christian 
women  the  same  power  to  vote  and  to 
have  a voice  in  governing  this  grand 
city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : How  do  you  vote, 
Mr.  Wilkins? 

MR.  WILKINS:  I vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Swift’s 
motion  that  the  entire  subject  matter 
lie  upon  the  table,  the  yeas  are  22  and 
the  nays  are  21,  and  the  motion  is  car- 
ried. The  Secretary  will  read  the  next 
special  order. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  President,  I give 

notice  now'  that  I will  move  to  take  that 
motion  from  the  table  at  the  proper  time. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  in- 
troduced by  Messrs.  Werno  and  Rosen- 
thal, appearing  on  page  755  of  the  print- 
ed proceedings. 

MR.  BENNETT : Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 
sire to  offer  this  amendment. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman,  may  I ask 

exactly  where  that  is?  My  attention  was 
distracted. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  755,  up- 

per right  Mind  resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Bennett ’s 
amendment  as  hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  BENNETT : That  portion  of  the 

amendment  wdiich  strikes  out  from  the 
present  resolution  is  put  in  for  the  rea- 
son that  we  have  already  decided  to  retain 
all  the  general  laws  except  as  specifically 
modified  by  this  charter.  The  language 
stricken  out  would  open  up  the  entire 
question  of  home  rule,  and  would  wipe 
off  all  restrictions  contained  in  all  gen- 
eral laws.  Therefore,  I,  in  my  amend- 
ment, seek  to  strike  out  that  language. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  I 

hope  you  will  not  go  until  these  questions 
are  disposed  of;  we  have  only  a short 
time  to  complete  our  wrork. 

MR.  BENNETT : The  second  proposi- 
tion is  that  of  the  manner  of  taking  the 
vote.  The  purpose  of  that  amendment 


December  27 


786 


1906 


is  to  give  direct  expression  by  the  vote 
of  the  people  on  this  question  untram- 
meled by  any  provisions  of  the  charter, 
and  a separate  vote  upon  the  charter  un- 
trammeled by  any  provisions  of  this  sec- 
tion. Unless  this  amendment  is  adopted 
the  charter  will  be  jeopardized  as  well 
as  the  other  questions,  and  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  two  propositions  should,  as 
stated  in  the  amendment,  be  voted  upon 
separately,  and  I move  the  adoption  of 
that  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Bennett ’s 
amendment. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

. be  able  to  find  some  place  where  the 
whole  section  appears  so  »that  we  can 
have  the  whole  section  read  as  amended 
by  Alderman  Bennett.  I feel  that  Al- 
derman Bennett ’s  amendment  ought  to 
be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  . Have  you  got  it 
there,  Mr.  Chamberlin  ? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Just  a moment. 
Powers  of  the  City  Council  in  General, 
page  52. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  from  page  52. 

THE  SECRETARY;  Jus*t  a moment 
and  I will  read  from  the  printed  proceed- 
ings where  they  can  all  find  it,  page  746, 
Powers  of  the  City  Council. 

The  Secretary  read  the  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  ob- 

ject of  having  all  this  read? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I believe  Mr. 

Rosenthal  called  for  the  reading  of  the 
entire  section,  and  by  that  he  meant  the 
section  as  it  appears  on  page  755. 

MR.  HUNTER:  That  has  already  been 
read. 

MR.  REVELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  if  you 

are  through  with  that,  I would  like  to 
ask  Alderman  Bennett  a question : I 

want  to  ask  if  the  effect  of  that  amend- 
ment is  to  take  this  matter  out  of  the 
charter  entirely? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Let  me  say— 

MR.  REVELL:  And  also,  if  it  is 


passed  upon  favorably  at  the  election, 
will  it  find  a place  in  the  charter? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question  on  this  amendment? 

MR.  BENNETT : May  I answer  the 

question  ? 

MR.  REVELL:  I wrould  like  to  have 

an  answer  to  that  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I beg  pardon,  I 

thought  you  had  answered  it. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I did  not  answer  the 
question.  The  question  of  whether  this 
will  be  in  the  charter  or  in  an  independ- 
ent bill  depends  entirely  on  the  form 
which  the  charter  shall  finally  take  when 
it  leaves  this  Convention.  If  the  charter 
is  drawn  as  one  complete  bill,  then  this 
would  be  incorporated  in  the  charter,  but 
it  would  not  be  adopted  except  on  the 
affirmative  vote  of  the  people  of  Chicago. 
In  other  words,  the  adoption  of  this 
provision,  whether  in  the  form  of  a com- 
plete charter,  or  as  a bill,  would  depend 
on  the  referendum  vote.  That  vote  would 
be  separate  from  the  vote  on  the  charter, 
but  taken  at  the  time  the  charter  vote 
is  taken. 

MR.  REVELL:  Well,  Mr.  Chairman, 

I believe  that  is  a matter  that  will  ef- 
fect— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Revell. 

MR.  REVELL:  I believe  that  this 

amendment  of  Alderman  Bennett  will  ef- 
fect the  proposition  so  that  it  will  not 
find  a place  in  the  charter,  and  I,  there- 
fore, feel  that  this  is  the  time  when,  if 
there  is  to  be  any  discussion  on  this 
matter,  it  should  be  had  in  order  that 
the  Convention  may  shape  its  course  from 
start  to  finish.  And  wTith  that  duty  in 
mind,  I desire  to  ask  the  indulgence  of 
this  Convention  if  I shall  read  some  notes 
I have  on  this  matter — this  matter  and 
the  one  other  matter  which  is  to  come  up 
later  in  the  week  I consider  more  im- 
portant for  the  work  of  this  Convention 
and  for  the  people  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
than  any  other.  I do  not  wish  to  be  mis- 
understood. I wish  to  say  what  I intend 
to  say,  but  I do  not  wish  to  trust  myself 


December  27 


787 


1906 


to  extemporizing  or  to  memorizing.  I, 
therefore,  ask  the  indulgence  of  this  Con- 
vention while  I read  what  I have  to  say. 

MR.  REVELL:  Ever  since  the  foun- 

dations of  the  city  were  laid  the  more 
drastic  laws — laws  which  seek  to  con- 
trol the  individual  in  his  personal  hab- 
its— have  not  been  effectively  enforced. 
Some  of  them  have  not  been  enforced 
at  all.  That  they  have  not  been  en- 
forced has  been  due  to  the  character  of 
the  law,  for  legislation  may  exceed  the 
reasonable  possibilities  of  regulation  by 
law.  But,  I do  not  wish  to  be  under- 
stood as  saying  that  any  law,  once  en- 
acted and  being  upon  the  statute  books, 
should  not  be  enforced.  I am  simply 
expressing  the  belief  that  any  law 
which  is  not  acceptable  to  a majority 
of  the  community,  upon  which  it  is  de- 
signed to  act,  is  not  likely  to  be  en- 
forced. The  reason  for  such  non-en- 
forcement is  plain  and  simple.  It  is 
due  to  the  fact  that  a majority  of 
voters  will  not  elect  men  to  office  who 
will  enforce  laws  which  are  objection- 
able to  such  majority.  I am  speaking 
now  more  especially  of  large  cities — 
not  small  ones. 

The  personal  habits  of  many  are 
nearer  and  dearer  to  them  than  really 
far-reaching  questions  of  statecraft. 
Even  with  voting  majorities  it  will  be 
difficult  to  change  the  individual  hab- 
its of  men.  And,  I am  not,  and  never 
will  be,  convinced  that  the  iron  hand 
of  the  law  should  be  laid  upon  the  in- 
dividual to  regulate  him.  Law  is  not 
designed  to  protect  a man  against  him- 
self. Its  purpose  is  to  protect  the 
weak  against  the  strong;  to  establish 
and  maintain  justice;  to  preserve  or- 
der. Government  overreaches  itself 
when  it  undertakes  to  establish  what 
men  shall,  or  shall  not  eat  and  drink, 
and  when  they  shall  eat  and  drink,  or 
what  they  shall  wear,  or  in  what  fash- 
ion. The  only  extent  to  which  law 
may  properly  go  in  regulating  such 
things  is  to  prescribe  that  in  doing 


them  the  individual  must  be  orderly, 
and  to  punish  him  if  he  is  disorderly. 

Sunday  was  not  designed  to  be  a 
fast  day  any  more  in  drinking  than  in 
eating.  Primarily,  it  was  designed  as 
a day  of  rest.  And  “rest’ ’ means  ab- 
stinence from  customary  labors. 

For  the  closely  housed  clerk  or  me- 
chanic, rest  means  outdoor  diversion  in 
the  sun  and  air.  For  the  man  who 
works  outdoors  all  week,  rest  means  the 
quietude  of  home,  the  church,  reading, 
and  intellectual  occupation.  Sunday 
should  permit'  a man  to  avoid  becom- 
ing all  one  thing  or  another.  It  should 
amplify  and  round  out  his  existence 
and  character.  He  should  use  it  to  the 
best  advantage  to  restore  and  main- 
tain his  proper  physical  and  intellectual 
equilibrium. 

It  goes  without  saying  that  Sunday 
should  not  be  abused.  The  rest  and  di- 
version should  be  real  and  beneficial. 
A Sunday  spent  in  weakening  de- 
bauchery, in  over-exertion,  or  other  per- 
version, is  worse  than  no  Sunday  at  all 
for  the  man  who  thus  misuses  it.  And, 
too,  in  availing  hijnself  of  Sunday  the 
man  should  see  to  it  that  his  method  of 
recreation  is  reasonable,  and  not  such 
that  it  interferes  with  some  other  man ’s 
peace  and  comfort.  It  would  not  be 
right  to'  maintain  a noisy  diversion 
about  a church,  especially  as  the  church 
cannot  be  moved  and  the  diversion  can 
be  carried  on  somewhere  else.  Need 
I call  attention  to  the  fact  that  if  this 
reasonable  rule  be  applied  in  one  way,  it 
is  also  worthy  of  application  when  con- 
ditions are  reversed.  The  church  can- 
not go  too  far  beyond  its  own  jurisdic- 
tion to  regulate  the  acts  of  others. 

Another  thing:  As  I have  already 

said,  Sunday  is  designedly  a day  of 
rest.  This  is  something  more  than  a 
moral  provision.  It  is  wisely  hygienic. 
There  is  no  need  for  general  industry 
on  Sunday.  It  is  desirable  that  men 
should  rest.  It  is  fortunate  for  the 
world  that  the  wisdom  of  the  past 


December  27 


788 


1906 


stamped  upon  the  conventions  of  the 
world  the  practice  of  keeping  the 
seventh  day  free  from  all  unnecessary 
labor.  I approve  earnestly  of  all  laws 
which  tend  to  establish  the  restfulness 
of  Sunday. 

Sunday  as  a day  of  rest  is  fixed  firm 
and  fast;  it  is  a part  of  our  system  of 
living.  No  one  that  I ever  heard  of 
proposed  to  abolish  Sunday;  no  one  de- 
sired to  pervert  it  to  a working  day. 
The  only  difference  which  exists  is  to 
how  it  shall  be  enjoyed.  Shall  it  be 
left  to  the  individual  to  devise  his  own 
methods  of  enjoyment  in  diversion? 
Shall  the  majority  of  a community  de- 
cide how  that  community  will  regulate 
its  Sunday?  Is  it  reasonable  to  propose 
that  remote  portions  of  the  state,  with  a 
scattered  agricultural  population  shall 
enact  laws  and  compel  city  populations 
to  observe  them?  The  cities  of  Illinois 
will  soon  have  a majority  of  the  State 
Legislature.  Are  the  rural  communi- 
ties of  the  state  ready  to  accept  that 
the  majority  of  the  state  shall  dictate 
to  the  inhabitants  of  all  portions  of  the 
state  how  Sunday  shall  be  regulated, 
or  what  shall  be  the  method  of  living 
on  week  days?  Is  the  country  ready 
to  have  the  cities  say  that  it — the  coun- 
try— must  keep  open  saloons  on  Sun- 
day? That  the  farmer  boy  may  not 
hunt?  Or,  that  they  must  not  work  on 
Saturday  afternoons,  or  otherwise  in- 
terfere with  their  domestic  practices? 

Freedom  of  conscience  is  one  of  the 
principles  of  our  government;  and 
“freedom  of  conscience”  means  noth- 
ing more  than  do  as  one  pleases.  As  I 
have  already  said,  the  only  restraint 
upon  such  freedom  of  action  is  that  the 
citizen  must  not  do  anything  which  in- 
terferes with  the  rights  of  others.  If 
he  is  disorderly,  he  should  be  dealt  with 
as  an  individual.  It  would  be  contrary 
to  reason  to  say  that  because  some  men 
abuse  the  use  of  horses,  or  automobiles, 
or  the  streets,  or  the  bathing  places, 
that  these  things  should  be  abolished  in 


toto.  Nobody  talks  about  abolishing 
the  railroads,  because  in  some  respects 
they  have  not  been  properly  con- 
ducted. 

We  now  come  to  the  enforcement  of 
Sunday  closing  laws  which  are  already 
on  the  statute  books.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary for  me  to  proffer  proof  to  show 
that  the  enforcement  of  Sunday  closing 
laws  in  crowded  cities  is  all  but  im- 
practicable. As  I have  indicated,  of 
course,  I will  admit  that  any  law  can 
be  enforced  if  outside  power  is  invoked 
to  do  it. 

Let  me  diverge  for  just  a moment 
and  say  that  a week  or  two  ago  I was 
in  New  York.  It  was  said  in  opposi- 
tion to  my  idea  that  the  law  was  en- 
forced in  New  York.  I was  in  New 
York  about  two  weeks  ago  and  on  a 
Sunday  afternoon,  about  5 o’clock,  I 
went  into  a saloon  there  and  called  for 
a drink.  I was  told  to  go  through  a 
certain  room  where  others  were  eating 
and  drinking;  where  there  were  little 
sandwiches;  I ordered  a drink  and  I 
was  requested  to  sit  down  at  a table 
and  the  drink  came  to  me  and  with  it 
a little  sandwich,  as  large  as  my  thumb. 
I looked  at  it,  and  that  was  as  much  as 
I desired  to  do  with  it,  for  it  looked 
as  though  it  had  been  doing  duty  all 
day  long;  or,  probably  all  the  week 
long. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

assume  that  Mr.  Revell  has  the  unani- 
mous consent  of  this  Convention  to  pro- 
ceed. 

(Cries  of  “Agreed.”) 

MR.  REYELL:  I got  the  drink  and 

left  the  sandwich  alone.  I did  not 
leave  the  drink  entirely  alone.  I found 
that  pretty  fairly  good;  but  the  same 
price  was  charged  me  for  that  drink 
I had  obtained  as  would  have  been  on 
any  day  of  the  week. 

I was  telling  a barber  of  this  the 
next  day,  and  he  said:  “Well,  I can 
tell  you  a story  of  what  goes  on  where 
1 usually  go  on  Sunday.”  I said: 


December  27 


789 


“Go  ahead.”  He  said:  “Only  a few 

weeks  ago  I went  into  my  place  and 
ordered  a drink  and  they  brought  me 
a little  sandwich;  and  upon  examining 
the  sandwich — because  we  never 
thought  of  eating  one — 1 found  that  the 
Swiss  cheese  was  celluloid.”  He  said: 
“It  is  a very  common  thing  when  the 
barkeeper  asks  what  kind  of  a sand- 
wich is  wanted  to  say,  ‘I  want  a can- 
vas back,’  and  to  put  the  whole  thing 
back  again.” 

Now,  I maintain  that  laws  which  are 
enforced  in  that  way  are  far  worse 
than  meeting  this  question  and  of 
knowing  where  we  stand — of  the  citi- 
zens of  the  city  knowing  where  they 
stand  on  the  question  in  an  open  way. 
So  much  for  the  enforcement  in  New 
York,  and  I understand  it  is  exactly 
the  same  way  in  St.  Louis. 

Much  is  said  about  Sunday  closing 
in  St.  Louis,  but  it  should  not  be  lost 
sight  of  that  the  whole  power  of  the 
state  is  thereby  invoked  to  close  the  sa- 
loons. Left  to  itself,  St.  Louis  would 
not  enforce  the  state  law  upon  itself. 
The  reason  for  this  is  obvious.  The 
law-making  power  would  not  be  the 
same  as  the  law-enforcing  power.  I 
do  not  understand  that  Chicago  desires 
the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  Illinois 
to  put  the  police  force  of  Chicago  un- 
der the  governor  to  enforce  Sunday 
closing  laws,  as  is  the  case  in  Missouri. 
We  are  striving  for  home  rule,  and  not 
for  metropolitan  systems.  The  Sun- 
day closed  saloons  in  many  cities,  es- 
pecially New  York,  is  a farce. 

It  may  be  that  the  attempt  to  main- 
tain laws  which  interfere  with  the  so- 
cial customs  of  voters  in  large  cities 
will  invite  conditions  which  are  far 
worse  than  those  which  they  undertake 
to  remedy.  Voters  who  oppose  the  en- 
forcement of  Sunday  laws  are  likely  : 
to  unite  and  elect  men  who  will  refrain 
from  enforcing,  not  only  the  Sunday 
laws,  but  other  unpopular  laws.  The 
net  result  will  be  a mayor  and  other 


1905 

| officials  who  will  loosely  turn  the  city 
over  to  crime  and  disorder.  Unpopu- 
lar sumptuary  laws  tend  to  invite  the 
non-enforcement  of  unquestionably 
proper  laws.  Too  much  law  breaks 
down  the  rule  of  law. 

I am  in  favor  of  enforcing  every  law 
which  exists  upon  the  statute  books  of 
the  State  of  Illinois.  No  one  who  is  a 
law-abiding  citizen  can  feel  otherwise 
about  this  proposition.  If  it  became 
necessary  for  me  to  vote  upon  the  ques- 
tion whether  all  laws  should  be  en- 
forced or  not  enforced,  I would  certain- 
ly feel  compelled  to  vote  for  enforce- 
ment. But  in  doing  this  I would  be 
actuated  by  the  general  desire  to  dig- 
nify the  law— as  matter  of  consistent 
government  administration.  My  vot- 
ing in  that  way  would  not  signify  that 
every  law  on  the  statute  books  met  with 
my  hearty  approval.  For  the  very  rea- 
son that  I would  vote  for  the  enforce- 
ment of  all  laws  I would  be  reluctant 
to'  witness  an  attempt  at  a rigid  en- 
forcement of  the  Sunday  closing  law. 
My  reluctance  would  grow  out  of  the 
fact  that  I know  that  an  attempt  to 
enforce  the  Sunday  closing  law  would 
be  more  or  less  unsuccessful.  The  net 
result  would  be  the  spectacle  of  an  un- 
enforcible  law— a failure  of  law. 

If  the  people  of  this  city  be  given  a 
chance  to  vote  upon  this  question,  they 
will  vote  overwhelmingly  in  favor  of 
Sunday  saloons,  but  this  does  not  mean 
that  they  would  vote  for  disorderly 
Sunday  saloons,  or  disorderly  week  day 
saloons.  They  would  say  that  a saloon 
which  is  not  fit  to  open  on  Sunday 
should  not  be  open  on  that  day  nor 
any  other  day.  The  effect  of  this 
would  be  to  eliminate  saloons  which 
harbor  criminals  and  which  are  disre- 
gardful of  proprieties  in  allowing  wom- 
en and  children  to  frequent  them  in  a 
manner  which  is  not  respectable. 

The  state  law,  as  I have  indicated, 
requires  that  saloons  must  be  closed 
everywhere  in  the  state  on  Sunday. 


December  27 


790 


1906 


But,  the  people  of  Illinois,  by  adopting 
the  charter  amendment,  voted  to  amend 
the  state  constitution,  so  that  it  could 
have  home  rule,  if  it  wished  it.  The 
people  have  thus  recognized  that  re- 
quirements are  different  in  the  rural 
and  urban  portions  of  the  state,  and 
that  this  difference  should  find  expres- 
sion in  different  laws.  They  have  in- 
dicated that  a peaceful  and  quiet  rural 
community  on  Rock  River  shall  not 
compel  the  people  of  Chicago  to  live 
according  to  country  methods,  no  mat- 
ter how  good  such  methods  may  be 
when  applied  to  country  life.  But  this 
should  not  be  taken  to  mean  that  the 
test  of  crime  should  not  be  the  same 
everywhere  in  the  state. 

We  are  now  preparing  a new  home 
rule  city  charter  to  be  voted  on  by 
the  people.  This  ought  to  embrace  the 
problem  of  saloon  regulation.  If  this 
be  done,  then  the  people  of  Chicago  can 
decide  whether  they  want  Sunday  sa- 
loons or  not.  And,  it  is  the  people’s 
right,  in  a land  of  popular  government, 
to  have  such  laws  as  they  desire. 

The  whole  Sunday  closing  question 
should  be  settled  in  the  new  charter. 
Reasonable  people,  among  them  those 
who  oppose  Sunday  saloons,  undoubt- 
edly see  that  the  elimination  of  the  sa- 
loon issue  will  make  it  more  easily  pos- 
sible to  contest  'city  elections  upon 
material  issues  and  not  upon  issues  of 
sentiment  and  religious  discipline. 

So  far  as  the  general  public  welfare 
is  concerned,  there  has  been  no  advan- 
tage gained  in  the  past  two  generations 
from  the  Sunday  closing  law.  Let  us 
see  if  we  cannot  obtain  more  benefi- 
cent results  for  all  the  people  under  a 
new  plan.  It  must  be  accepted  that 
we  can  trust  the  people  of  Chicago 
in  this  as  well  as  in  other  things.  We 
cannot  go  before  the  world  with  the 
announcement  that  the  people  of  Chi- 
cago cannot  be  trusted  to  govern  them- 
selves. Such  a policy  and  such  a dec- 
laration would  invite  disaster  and  con- 


tempt. Restrictions  by  law  wherein  no 
crime  is  intended  and  wherein  the  peo- 
ple will  not  be  confined,  will  serve  to 
injure  Chicago,  not  in  one  way,  but  in 
many. 

And  now,  I hold,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
if  Mr.  Bennett ’s  amendment  is  in- 
tended to  take  this  matter  out  of  the 
charter  and  if  it  shall  not  find  a place 
in  the  charter  then  it  ought  to  be  de- 
feated. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
am  heartily  in  favor  of  the  amendment 
as  offered  by  Alderman  Bennett  for  this 
reason,  that  if  Alderman  Bennett’s  mo- 
tion prevails  it  will  mean  that  this 
question  will  be  submitted  as  a sep- 
arate question  to  the  citizens  and  to 
the  voters  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  to 
decide  whether  they  want  an  open  Sun- 
day or  a closed  Sunday.  I think  it  is 
a great  mistake  to  have  this  question 
put  in  the  general  charter.  It  will 
bring  on  a great  fight  in  the  City  of 
Chicago,  and  if  put  in  the  general  char- 
ter it  will  mean  that  every  person  who 
is  opposed  to  an  open  Sunday  will  op- 
pose the  entire  charter.  It  will  mean 
that  every  person  who  wants  an  open 
Sunday  will  oppose  the  entire  charter, 
whereas,  if  it  is  submitted  as  a sep- 
arate proposition  as  the  municipal  court 
proposition  was  submitted,  the  people 
can  vote  direct  upon  it.  The  man  who 
wants  an  open  Sunday  will  vote  for  it. 
The  man  who  wants  a closed  Sunday 
can  vote  against  it  and  both  of  those 
men  can  vote  for  the  general  charter 
proposition.  I hope  that  Mr.  Bennett’s 
amendment  will  prevail. 

MR.  DEVER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

not  very  clear  just  at  this  time  as  to 
what  the  status  of  the  whole  subject 
is.  For  instance,  I would  like  to  in- 
quire whether,  if  the  paragraph  is 
adopted  with  the  amendment  proposed 
by  Alderman  Bennett,  whether  the  mat- 
ter involved  in  the  amendment  and  in 
the  paragraph  will  become  a part  of 
the  charter  itself,  will  be  written  in 


December  27 


791 


1906 


the  body  of  the  charter  and  then  be 
voted  on  as  a separate  proposition,  and 
whether  the  legislature  will  be  in- 
structed or  asked  to  frame  a separate 
bill  dealing  with  that  subject  matter 
and  asking  the  people  of  this  city  to 
vote  upon  it  as  a separate  matter  to  be 
afterwards  enacted  into  law? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Ben- 

net  will  answer  the  question. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

ask  to  have  the  amendment  read  again. 

MR.  DEYER:  It  is  highly  confusing 

here  to  understand  just  what  it  means 
by  reading  it  and  I would  like  to  have 
the  sponsors  for  it  explain  to  us  what 
they  believe  it  means. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  amendment  and  then  Al- 
derman Bennett  can  explain  it. 

The  Secretary  re-read  Mr.  Bennett’s 
amendment. 

MR.  DEVER:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  a 

matter  of  information  I would  like  to 
make  the  inquiry,  and  while  I think 
the  reading  of  it  clears  it  up  a little,  I 
am  still  somewhat  in  doubt  as  to  an- 
other matter  and  that  is  this:  Whether 
it  is  legally  possible  to  submit  a char- 
ter as  one  general  law  to  the  people  of 
Chicago,  and  then  give  the  people  of 
Chicago  the  power  to  adopt  one  por- 
tion of  that  charter  and  then  reject  an- 
other, so  that  the.  people  themselves 
may  have  the  right  to  take  such  part 
of  the  charter  as  may  please  them  and 
reject  the  rest. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  moment, 

Alderman  Dever  has  the  floor. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

believe  I can  answer  that.  At  the  elec- 
tion in  1905,  the  fall  of  1905,  two  char- 
ter questions  were  submitted  to  the 
voters  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  one  being 
the  Municipal  Court  Act,  the  other 
changing  the  term  of  mayor  from  two 
years  to  four  years. 

MR.  DEVER:  Were  they  not  sep- 

arate laws,  separate  enactments? 


MR.  SHANAHAN:  The  same  as 

this  will  be  a separate  enactment. 

MR.  DEVER:  That  is  exactly  what 

I want  to  get  at.  Are  we  going  to 
have  them  separate  enactments  or  are 
the  people  to  have  the  right  to  take 
a part  of  the  charter  and  then  reject 
the  rest? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I take  it  they 

will  be  separate  propositions.  We  can 
divide  this  charter  into  one,  two,  five 
or  ten  separate  parts  I think  for  sub- 
mission so  that  they  can  be  voted  upon 
as  a whole  or  separate,*  and  I take  it 
that  Alderman  Bennett’s  proposition 
that  this  question  of  an  open  or  a 
closed  Sunday  would  be  submitted  as 
a separate  proposition. 

MR.  DEVER:  Separate  in  writing 

to  the  legislature? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Separate  in 

writing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

at  the  time  this  resolution  was  intro- 
duced bv  me  I was  not  particularly 
familiar  with  it,  because  it  was  intro- 
duced by  me  on  request.  I have  since 
that  time  examined  it  with  some  care 
and  I think  it  is  a resolution  that  ought 
to  be  adopted  by  this  Convention,  and 
for  this  reason:  because  if  there  is  any 
question  about  local  self-government, 
or  if  there  is  any  question  which  prop- 
erly comes  within  the  question  of  local 
self-government,  this  is  certainly  one, 
and  it  ought  to  be  carried  to  that  ex- 
tent that  if  we  are  to'  have  prohibition 
districts  in  a particular  territory,  even 
in  the  City  of  Chicago,  we  can  have 
such  prohibition  districts. 

In  other  words,  this  is  distinctly  and 
essentially  upon  which  the  neighbor- 
hood ought  to  control  and  which  the 
neighborhood  ought  to  dictate  what 
should  be  done  in  a particular  locality, 
even  in  the  City  of  Chicago. 

As  far  as  the  amendment  of  Ahler- 
| man  Bennett  is  concerned,  it  seems  to 


December  27 


792 


1906 


me  it  ought  to  be  adopted,  and  I do  not 
think  it  will  be  necessary  to  have  a 
separate  vote  on  that  amendment.  So 
far  as  I am  concerned  I would  be  per- 
fectly willing  to  have  introduced  this 
resolution,  to  accept  the  amendment  of 
Alderman  Bennett. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  this 
Convention  to  another  matter 

MR.  REYELL:  Right  here,  Mr. 

Chairman,  may  I ask  the  gentleman  a 
question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  up  to  the 

gentleman  if  he  will  yield  to  a ques- 
tion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I will  yield  to 

Mr.  Revell. 

MR.  REYELL:  I would  like  to  have 

you  state,  Mr.  Rosenthal,  if  this  is 
passed  unfavorably  by  the  people,  un- 
der the  amendment  of  Alderman  Ben- 
nett, will  it  then  find  a place  in  the 
charter?  If  so,  I am  willing  to  accept 
it. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understand 

Alderman  Bennett’s  proposition  to  be 
this,  that  either  in  one  general  act  or 
in  separate  acts  we  can  provide  for  the 
submission  of  this  matter  to  the  people; 
and  I go  even  farther  than  Mr.  Shan- 
ahan, who  spoke  before,  I believe,  that 
an  act  itself  can  make  provision  for  the 
submission  of  a particular  section  of 
that  act  separately  to  the  vote  of  the 
people,  and  so  it  might  be  incorporated 
in  the  general  charter. 

I think  another  thing  ought  to  be 
made  clear  if  we  carry  this  particular 
resolution  as  introduced.  We  are  not 
voting  here  in  favor  of  an  open  Sun- 
day or  a closed  Sunday;  all  we  are 
voting  for  is  that  the  matter  is  to  be 
left  to  this  community  and  left  to  this 
community  through  its  council  or 
through  the  people  in  general,  and  that 
is  a thing  that  is  distinctly  desirable. 

There  is,  however,  and  I want  to  re- 
fer to  it  now,  because  it  is  pertinent  to 
this  matter,  one  section  of  this  that  we 
ought  to  amend.  I am  referring  now 


to  page  746.  I understand  that  we 
have  adopted  the  first  section  of  chap- 
ter 7,  on  the -powers  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. I understand  that  this  particular 
resolution  in  the  form  in  which  it  is 
drafted  is  an  addition  to  this  section, 
that  is,  it  would  properly  find  its  place 
after  Section  1.  That  is  correct,  is 
it  not?  I want  to  know  whether  I am 
correct. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  dispose 
of  this  question  first. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  makes  a dif- 

ference in  voting  on  this.  Well,  I will 
follow  the  Chairman ’s  suggestion  and 
bring  it  up  later. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  us  dispose 
of  the  pending  question. 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I want 

to  emphasize  the  remarks  made  by  Mr. 
Shanahan.  It  seems  to  me  clear  that 
by  putting  this  into  this  charter  with- 
out an  opportunity  of  a separate  vote 
upon  it,  we  are  imperiling  the  adoption 
of  the  charter  on  the  referendum  vote 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  more  than  we 
are  by  any  other  provision  in  it.  Now, 
it  is  better  understood,  I think,  not- 
withstanding Mr.  Rosenthal’s  remarks 
that  it  has  come  down  practically  on 
this  question  to  an  open  Sunday  or  a 
closed  Sunday.  We  have  in  the  City  of 
Chicago,  at  the  present  time,  I think, 
a great  cosmopolitan  community  that 
would  not  favor  the  extreme  in  either 
case;  either  blue  laws  or  the  wide  open 
city  of  the  mining  camps. 

I think  the  majority  of  the  people 
probably  favor  a middle  course,  a con- 
servative course,  and  if  we  put  this  in 
and  it  is  understood  that  it  is  a direct 
question  upon  that  question  of  an  open 
Sunday,  whichever  way  we  go,  we  are 
going  to  array  a great  mass  of  people 
who  are  sincere  in  their  views  upon 
this  question,  who  may  vote  against  the 
charter  simply  for  that  reason. 

Now,  I do  not  think  we  ought  to  go 
to  all  the  labor  that  we  have  gone  to  in 
this  Convention,  to  all  the  work  we 


December  27 


793 


1905 


must  necessarily  put  upon  this  in  the 
legislature,  to  all  the  work  we  must 
put  upon  it  when  it  comes  to  the  refer- 
endum vote  and  have  it  practically  de- 
pending on  this  one  question.  I think 
Alderman  Bennett’s  motion  ought  to 
prevail  and  give  the  people  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  a chance  to  vote  upon  this 
question  alone,  by  itself. 

I do  not  understand  that  this  is  the 
final  act  of  the  charter.  My  under- 
standing is  that  in  this  session  of  the 
legislature,  or  at  any  future  one, 
should  it  become  necessary  to  amend 
the  charter,  it  may  be  done  by  being 
passed  by  the  legislature  and  sub- 
mitted to  a referendum  vote  of  the 
City  of  Chicago;  and  I think  we  are 
bound  up  to  the  crucial  point  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  referendum  vote  in 
the  City  of  Chicago  will  adopt  this  char- 
ter as  we  pass  it  up,  or  whether  our 
work  shall  all  be  wasted  and  go  for 
nothing,  and  I do  think  that  it  ought 
to  be  put  into  a separate  amendment 
and  give  the  people  a chance  to  vote 
on  it  directly  that  we  may  get  the  pub- 
lic sentiment.  On  any  question  of  this 
kind  public  sentiment  is  necessary  for 
its  enforcement,  and  I think  we  can 
test  public  sentiment  in  that  way  with- 
out imperiling  all  the  rest  of  the  work 
that  is  done.  I sincerely  trust  that  Al- 
derman Bennett’s  motion  will  prevail. 

MR.  REYELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

rise  to  a question  of  personal  privilege. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  REVELL:  I desire  to  say  in 

view  of  the  statements  of  Alderman 
Bennett,  Mr.  Rosenthal  and  Mr.  Shan- 
ahan, I will  vote  in  favor  of  the  amend- 
ment. 

MR.  DEVER:  Mr.  Chairman,  before 

this  question  is  put  that  we  are  to  de- 
cide upon,  and  for  the  purpose  of  avoid- 
ing confusion  upon  this  subject,  and 
making  it  as  clear  as  the  subject  will 
permit  it  to  be,  I would  like  to  make 
some  inquiry  as  to  the  legal  effect  of 
the  last  sentence  in  a paragraph  that 


was  adopted  by  the  Convention  some 
two  weeks  ago,  I think  on  motion  of 
Alderman  Bennett,  but  I am  not  cer- 
tain as  to  that.  I will  read  the  para- 
graph: “The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 
limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the  legis- 
lature, and  which  are  not  expressly  pro- 
hibited to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by  the 
constitution  of  the  state;  and  are  not 
in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of  the 
state.  ’ ’ 

It  has  been  said,  although  I am 
not  prepared  to  say  that  it  is  the  law, 
that  the  law  is  in  this  city  that  the 
saloons  ought  to  be  closed  on  Sunday; 
that  that  is  the  general  law  of  the 
state.  Now,  then,  the  question  very 
naturally  arises  whether  this  provision 
would  save  that  old  law  and  nullify  the 
paragraph  of  the  Bennett  amendment 
we  are  about  to  vote  upon  now. 
Whether  or  not  this  provision  would 
not  nullify  the  provision  we  are  about 
to  vote  upon  today,  1 ‘ and  are  not  in 
conflict  with  any  general  law  of  the 
state,”  nor  in  existence,  at  least  it  is 
so  said,  that  prevents  the  sale  of  liquor 
on  Sunday.  Clearly  the  passage  of  this 
amendment  and  that  paragraph  con- 
flicts with  the  general  law  of  the  state. 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  adoption  of 

this  amendment  will  not  nullify  the 
provisions  of  this  section.  As  the  char- 
ter stands  now  we  have  adopted  and 
seek  to  maintain  the  present  powers  of 
the  City  and  Village  Act  and  to  retain 
all  general  laws  except  as  specifically 
modified  by  this  charter.  We  are  now 
by  this  section  modifying  this  general 
law  specifically.  Therefore,  this  pro- 
vision to  which  Alderman  Dever  re- 
ferred does  not  in  any  way  affect  the 
matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 


December  27 


794 


1906 


tary  call  the  roll  upon  Alderman  Ben- 
nett ’s  motion. 

MR.  DEVER:  Mr.  Chairman,  par- 

don me  again,  but  it  seems  to  me  this 
question  has  just  been  called  to  my 
attention  and  I am  not  prepared  to 
take  it  up  fully,  but  it  seems  to  me 
that  the  Convention  ought  to  be  pre- 
pared at  the  proper  time  to  take  it  up 
and  correct  any  conflict  between  the 
provisions  adopted  and  those  that  are 
now  being  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  When  the  en- 

tire charter  comes  back  from  the  Draft- 
ing Committee  every  member  will  be 
able  to  see  how  each  section  stands 
with  relation  to  the  other  section,  and 
that  will  be  the  proper  time  to  raise 
that  point. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Having  intro- 

duced this  resolution  and  accepting  Al- 
derman Bennett’s  amendment,  I do  not 
see  why  we  need  to  have  a separate 
vote. 

I think  the  word  “only”  ought  to 
come  out  of  the  resolution.  It  is  con- 
fusing and  misleading  and  I ask  that 
that  be  stricken  out  of  the  resolution. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe,  Beil- 
fuss,  Bennett,  Brown,  Carey,  Church,  Cole, 
Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W. ; Eckhart, 
J.  W. ; Erickson,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne, 
Hunter,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McKin- 
ley, O’Donnell,  Oehne,  Owens,  Pendar- 
vis,  Powers,  Raymer,  Revell,  Ritter, 
Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shep- 
ard, Smulski,  Swift,  Taylor,  Thompson, 
Yopicka,  White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 41. 

Nays — None. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  CAREY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

not  very  well  versed  on  this  question, 
but  I notice  this  now  that  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal asked  a certain  word  to  be  left 
out  of  that  resolution.  Immediately 
the  Secretary  starts  to  call  the  roll.  I 
would  like  to  get  a little  further  infor- 
mation and  see  what  Mr.  Rosenthal 
means. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  was  the 

word,  Mr.  Rosenthal? 

MR.  CAREY : I think  that  should 

be  considered  before  this  matter  is 
voted  on. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I asked  to  have 
the  word  “only”  stricken  out  of  the 
resolution,  and  to  have  the  resolution 
put  as  amended  by  Alderman  Bennett. 
I see  no  necessity  for  any  separate  roll 
call  upon  Alderman  Bennett’s  amend- 
ment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Ben- 

nett’s resolution  is  a substitute  for  the 
pending  matter.  Will  you  read  the  sub- 
stitute with  the  word  “only”  stricken 
out,  for  Mr.  Carey’s  benefit? 

The  Secretary  re-read  the  substitute, 
as  requested. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal, 

this  word  is  not  stricken  out  of  the 
Bennett  resolution. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Then  it  is  not 
pertinent  to  this  question. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Alderman  Ben- 

nett’s resolution  is  not  a substitute;  it 
is  something  to  be  tacked  onto  the  end 
of  this  resolution.  It  is  simply  a pro- 
vision for  submitting  it  separately.  It 
is  not  a substitute  at  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  un- 
derstood it  to  be  a substitute. 

MR.  HUNTER:  It  is  an  amendment 

to  that  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  me  see  it, 

if  you  please. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

do  not  see  that  there  is  any  objection 
to  striking  out  the  word  “only.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  not  in 

this  resolution. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  it  is. 

MR,  ZIMMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  be  clear  on  this  matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is 

trying  to  clear  up  everything.  Mr. 
Rosenthal  seeks  to  strike  out  a word 
from  a resolution  that  is  not  before  the 
house  for  its  consideration. 


December  27 


795 


1906 


ME,  HUNTER:  Yes,  it  is;  we  are 

•considering  it  now. 

MR.  ZIMMER : Then  I am  entirely 

misinformed  on  what  we  are  acting  on. 
I am  of  the  opinion  that  this  resolution 
of  Alderman  Bennett ’s  is  an  amendment 
to  the  matter  presented  by  Mr.  Werno 
and  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  HUNTER : That  is  what  it  is. 

That  is  what  we  are  considering  now: 
Mr.  Werno  and  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  resolu- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  order  that  the 

matter  may  be  cleared  up,  let  the  Sec- 
retary read  the  resolution  as  amended  by 
Mr.  Rosenthal  with  the  word  ‘ 1 only  ’ ’ 
stricken  out.  That  will  give  us  just  ex- 
actly what  you  are  voting  on. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Bennett’s 

amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  original  reso- 
lution amended  by  Mr.  Bennett  with  the 
word  ‘ 1 only  ’ ’ left  out. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
amended. 

Mr.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Has  everybody  a 

clear  idea  of  it  now? 

MR.  CAREY:  I want  to  vote  aye  on 

the  proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN: 

MR.  DEVER:  May  I be  permitted? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  a moment, 

Mr.  Hill.  This  is  pending  the  roll  call, 
Mr.  Hill. 

MR.  HILL:  This  was  not  right  before 
and  it  may  be  in  the  same  shape  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  HILL:  It  seems  to  me  that  this 

word  “only”  has  a definite  meaning,  and 
the  question  ought  to  be  divided  upon 
that.  The  word  “only”  limits  the  sale 
of  liquors  on  Sunday  at  these — under 
these  particular  circumstances.  With  the 
word  “only”  stricken  out,  it  permits 
the  sale  of  liquors  anywhere  you  please. 

MR.  HUNTER:  No,  no. 

MR.  HILL:  Now,  that  is  the  way  it 

looks  to  me,  and  I don’t  want  to  be  tied 


up  on  that  proposition.  I think  we  should 
vote  on  the  word  1 1 only  ’ ’ separately. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Roll  call. 

MR.  DEYER : Mr.  Chairman,  I just 

want  to  say  in  voting  that  it  seems  to 
me  that  that  resolution  requires  us  to 
vote  on  these  two  questions,  and  rather 
than  taking  up  time  discussing  what 
might  be  a mere  technicality,  I want  to 
vote  aye,  w7ith  the  right  to  ask  for  an 
amendment  on  that  particular  point  later 
or. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I wish 

to  reserve  my  vote  on  this  question  until 
it  comes  before  the  Convention  in  tech- 
nical form. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  be  recorded  as  voting  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  G.  W.  Dixon 

votes  aye. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Dixon,  G.  W., 

votes  aye. 

MR.  OEHNE : Mr.  Chairman,  I want 

to  change  my  vote  from  no  to  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Oehne 

changes  his  vote  from  no  to  aye. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Oehne,  aye. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard 

votes  aye. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Shepard,  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  reso- 

lution to  amend,  the  ayes  are  41  and  the 
nays  are  none,  and  the  resolution  is  car- 
ried. The  remaining  matters  before  the 
Convention,  gentlemen,  are  the  resolutions 
and  reports  that  were  hitherto  not  dis- 
posed of.  The  Chair  desires  to  know 
what  the  Convention  wishes  to  have  done. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  call  up — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  gentle- 

men come  to  order?  Let  us  have  one 
Convention  at  a time. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  1 desire  to  call  up 

the  resolution  reported  by  Mr.  Eckhart ’s 
committee — referred  to  his  committee  for 
the  purpose  of  putting  into  proper  lan- 


December  27 


796 


1906- 


guage,  found  on  page  757,  namely,  “The 
city  may  acquire  property  outside  as  well 
as  within  the  city  limits,  either  by  pur- 
chase or  condemnation,  for  park  and  boul- 
evard purposes.  ” 

I do  not  think  there  is  any  opposition 
to  that. 

ME.  POST : To  a point  of  order, 

temporarily,  to  a point  of  order.  It  was 
agreed  that  a special  order  regarding 
the  water  front  should  follow  this.  I 
do  not  desire  to  interpose  that  if  it  is 
understood — 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Do  you  desire 

to  take  that  up  now? 

ME.  POST : I do  if  there  is  any  danger 
of  getting  it  lost  somewhere  if  I do  not. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  It  will  not  be 

necessary ; it  will  hold  its  right  of  way. 

ME.  POST:  I have  no  objection  to 

Mr.  Shepard’s  motion  being  disposed  of 
if  the  other  matter  stands  in  its  place. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes,  Mr.  Shep- 
ard’s motion  is  before  the  house.  All 
those  in  favor  say  aye;  opposed  no.  It 
is  carried. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I have  a few  amendments  here  which  I 
would  like  to  have  in  the  proceedings, 
and,  therefore,  would  like  to  have  them 
read.  These  are  with  reference  to  the 
matter  of  the  submerged  land,  and  the 
other  is  in  reference  to  Section  2,  Chap- 
ter 7. 

ME.  SHEPAED:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire,  also,  to  call  up  the  resolution  of- 
fered by  Mr.  McCormick  on  page  758, 
put  over  last  night  on  account  of  a special 
order,  as  to  auditing  the  books  of  the 
Board  of  Education. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  That  was  passed 

— the  part  that  referred  to  the  books  of 
the  Board  of  Education.  This  relates 
to  the  books  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  and 
it  is  identical  with  the  provision  relat- 
ing to  the  Board  of  Education. 

ME.  SHEPAED:  I withdraw  that 

then. 

ME.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

was  engaged  in  court  all  day  and  got 


to  the  Convention  just  as  fast  as  I could. 
I intended  to  call  up  that  notice  of  mine 
of  reconsidering  the  vote  by  which  the 
term  of  alderman  was  fixed  at  four  years. 
I would  like  to  do  that  tomorrow  after- 
noon, if  I possibly  can. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Your  rights  will 

be  preserved. 

ME.  O ’DONNELL:  All  right. 

ME.  EITTEE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I would 
like  to  call  up  the  resolution  offered  by 
me,  which  was  referred  yesterday  in  my 
absence,  that  the  charter  shall  provide- 
that  no  police  station,  or  fire  engine  or 
patrol  barn  shall  hereafter  be  built  within 
400  feet  of  any  school  building.  In  the 
haste  to  write  that  before  introducing  it, 
the  words:  “Without  the  consent  of  the 

Education  Board,”  were  omitted.  I 
understand  that  it  will  be  the  opinion  of 
the  Convention  that  that  right  should  be 
a matter  for  the  city  ordinance,  but  I 
would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  this  was  brought  before  the  Con- 
vention because  of  protests  which  have 
come  to  me  on  three  different  occasions 
where  the  city  had  deliberately  built — 
bought  property,  and  built  fire  engine 
houses  and  police  stations  adjoining 
school  property,  and  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  Board  of  Education,  the 
matter  coming  to  our  notice  after  the- 
building  was  started.  It  seems  to  me  that 
in  order  to  protect  these  school  children, 
you  should  at  least  provide  that  the  city 
cannot  exercise  that  power  without  the 
consent  of  the  School  Board.  I can  see- 
no  real  objection  to  it,  and  for  that  rea- 
son I move  that  it  should  go  in. 

ME.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

purpose  of  this  amendment  is  a proper 
one,  but  it  appears  to  me  that  it  is  a 
question  of  regulation  by  the  City  Coun- 
cil. It  is  true,  as  stated  by  Mr.  Eitter, 
that  inadvertently,  the  attention  of  the 
council  not  having  been  called  to  the  fact, 
some  police  station  sites  have  been  pur- 
chased near  the  schools.  The  council  will 
be  quite  as  ready  as  the  School  Board 
to  protect  them,  and  guard  against  such 


December  27 


797 


1906 


a contingency  in  the  future.  I do  not 
think  that  this  should  be  embodied  in  the 
charter.  It  is  a limitation,  and  it  is  one 
of  those  things  that  there  will  be  no  mo- 
tive whatever  on  the  part  of  the  council 
in  going  contrary  to  the  desire  expressed 
by  Mr.  Ritter.  I,  therefore,  move  that 
the  motion  be  laid  on  the  table. 

MR.  RITTER : Merely  because  this 

has  happened  without  any  intention  on 
the  part  of  the  council  is  the  reason  that 
I believe  that  something  should  be  in  the 
statute  which  would  prohibit  it  in  the 
future. 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  would  be  a proper 
provision  for  the  code. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  mo- 

tion. Those  in  favor  of  the  motion  that 
it  lay  on  the  table  signify  the  same  by 
saying  aye;  opposed  no.  It  is  so  or- 
dered. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 


you  that  we  adjourn  until  tomorrow  at 
2 o’clock. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like,  in 

order  that  these  two  sections  may  be  be- 
fore us  tomorrow  afternoon,  to  have  them 
read  at  this  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  them  be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendments 
as  hereinafter  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matters  will 

be  printed  and  taken  up  at  the  same  time 
that  Mr.  Patterson ’s  resolution  is  taken 
up  tomorrow.  The  meeting  stands  ad- 
journed until  tomorrow  afternoon  at  2 
o’clock,  when  we  ought  to  be  able  to  dis- 
pose of  our  labors. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  number 

should  be  23  instead  of  21. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Friday,  December  28,  1906,  at 
2 o’clock  p.  m. 


Secretary. 


December  27 


798 


1906- 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


I.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 

1.  A complete  charter  shall  be  drawn 
and  submitted  to  the  Legislature  em- 
bodying the  resolutions  adopted  by  this 
Convention. 

Alternative  to  1.  Separate  bills  shall 
be  drawn  covering  the  following  sub- 
jects: 

a.  Consolidation  (including  parks), 

b.  Public  utilities, 

c.  Education, 

d.  Revenue, 

e.  Amendments  (if  any)  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act. 

f.  All  other  charter  provisions, 
which  shall  be  submitted  to  a separate 
vote  for  adoption. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 


ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall,  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding, 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ite  provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
wffiich  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 


4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 


December  27 


799 


1906 


nicipal  court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 

V.  CIVIL  SEEVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service  I 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  tne  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days. 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after  j 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  alder-  I 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward. 
The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis-  ! 
tricted  by  the  City  Council  every  ten  i 


years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWEES  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENEEAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and  the 
amendments  thereof,  the  charter  shall 
vest  in  the  City  Council  the  power 
to  regulate  the  legal  observance  of  the 
weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly  called 
Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors  by 
bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  educa- 
tional, fraternal,'  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only.  Pro- 
vision shall  be  made  in  the  charter  for 
the  submission  of  this  section  to  a vote 
at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  char- 
ter. The  charter  shall  be  so  framed 
that  the  question  of  the  adoption  of  this 
section  may  be  voted  upon  separately. 
The  provision  for  such  submission  of 
this  section  to  a vote,  shall  be  so  framed 
as  to  require  the  voter  to  vote  upon  the 
two  questions  separately. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 


December  27 


800 


1906 


limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter ; it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  constitu- 
tionally be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state ; and  are 
not  in  conflict  with  any  general  law  of 
the  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  finally 
on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except  when 
approved  by  an  affirmative  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the  city 
council. 

Till.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 
any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 
and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen- 
eral taxation.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re- 
spective amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector’s  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tion herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 
the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
sion. In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
funds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 
which  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him, 
upon  order  of  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 


December  27 


801 

year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  re- 
ceipts and  expenditures  for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and-  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 
tures for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 

4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 
year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 


Action  on  the  following  propositions 
has  been  deferred  pending  the  report 
of  the  special  commitee  on  revenue  in- 
formation. 

Alternative  to  1 : 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 


1906 

taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  City  Council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 


3.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either,  any 
trade,  occupation  or  business  carried  on 
wholly  or  in  part  within  the  city  limits, 
and  all  persons,  firms  or  corporations 
owning  or  using  franchises  or  privi- 
leges. 

4.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles.  The  income  therefrom  shall 
be  used  in  the  repair  and  improvement 
of  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  ex- 
clusively. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  make  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 
by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 
50  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 
j any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  contiguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 


December  27 


802 


1906 


and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
crdinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

I.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 


The  city  may  acquire  by  purchase 
outside  as  well  as  within  the  city  limits 
for  any  municipal  purpose,  and  may 
acquire  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits  by  purchase  or  condemnation  for 
park,  boulevard  or  forest  preserve  pur- 
poses^ 

XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 

XV.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  private  temporary  users  of  space 
above  or  below  the  level  of  streets,  al- 
leys or  other  public  places  shall  pay 
compensation  to  the  city  according  to 
some  definite  scale  to  be  fixed  by  gen- 


eral ordinance.  This  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  grants  for  public  utilities. 

XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty -year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity wTorks  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powrers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4: 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to  the  powTer  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 
The  city  shall  have  no  powrer  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 
adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 


December  27 


803 


1906 


tion  from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
•departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 
floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

Provided  that  when  the  city  shall  own 
and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall  ; 
be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an  1 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 
dered or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 
city’s  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 


XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 
tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 


term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
I cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 

The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
boarcf. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

TT.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  management  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  education  of  fifteen  members 
to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 
approval  of  a majority  of  the  City 
Council. 

All  nominations  of  members  of  Board 
of  Education  by  the  mayor  shall  lie 
over  at  least  one  week  before  action 
for  confirmation  or  rejection  thereon 
by  the  City  Council. 


December  27 


804 


1906 


They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a person  shall  be  at  least  thirty 
years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 


Section  III,  with  amendments,  has 
been  re-referred  to  the  Committee  on 
RULES,  PROCEDURE  and  GENERAL 
PLAN.  The  committee  report  will  be 
found  under  ‘ ‘ Resolutions.  ’ * 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 
purposes,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

BY  MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART: 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “pur- 
poses, ” in  the  fifth  line,  and  add  “but 
no  real  estate  shall  be  leased  for  a term 
longer  than  five  years  without  the  con- 
currence of  the  City  Council,  nor  shall 
the  terms  of  any  lease  be  altered  with- 
out such  concurrence. ’ ’ 

BY  MR.  ERDMANN : 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“years, ” at  the  end  of  the  sixth  line, 
the  following  “unless  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  City  Council  by  a three- 
fourths’  vote.” 

BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“lease,”  at  the  end  of  the  seventh 


line,  the  following  “the  unexpired  term 
of  which  is  longer  than  five  years.” 


IV.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 
for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip- 
pled, schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 
ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 

It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 


Action  on  Section  V has  been  de- 
ferred pending  the  report  of  the  special 
committee  on  revenue  information. 

V.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
months  of  the  year. 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 


December  27 


805 


1906 


money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 
provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 


VI.  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enacted  or  changed,  money  appro- 
priated or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text- 
books adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 

VII.  OFFICERS. 

The  board  of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
education  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term 
of  office  of  the  superintendent  of  educa- 
tion and  of  the  business  manager  shall 
not  be  less  than  four  years.  And  the 
salary  of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint- 
ment be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall 
not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
education. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 


superintendent  of  education,  business 
manager,  attorney  and  auditor,  shall  not 
be  subject  to  the  civil  service  law,  but 
they  shall  be  removable  only  for  cause, 
by  a vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds 
of  all  the  members  of  the  board,  upon 
written  charges  to  be  heard  by  the 
board  on  due  notice  to  the  officers 
charged  therewith,  but  pending  the 
hearing  of  the  charges,  such  officers  may 
by  a two-thirds  vote,  be  suspended  by 
the  board. 

The  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  all 
the  members  of  the  board  shall  be  re- 
quired to  appoint  the  superintendent  of 
education  and  the  business  manager. 

VIII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  EDU- 
CATION. 

(1.)  The  superintendent  of  education 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, but  no  vote. 

Appointments,  promotions,  and  trans- 
fers of  teachers,  principals,  assistant 
and  district  superintendents  and  other 
educational  and  attendance  officers 
shall  be  made;  and  text  books  and  spe- 
cifications for  educational  apparatus, 
shall  be  introduced  only  upon  the  rec- 
ommendation of  the  superintendent  of 
education,  with  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
or  by  the  Board  of  Education  by  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  all  its  members. 

Provided,  That  said  text  books  or  ap- 
paratus when  once  adopted  shall  not  be 
changed  within  four  years  thereafter. 

IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 
property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 

Among  the  employes  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  be  a trained  architect 
and  a trained  engineer. 


December  27 


806 


1905 


X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments  and  promotions 
of  teachers  shall  be  made  for  merit 
only,  and  after  satisfactory  service 
for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  in  its  judgment  the  needs  of  the 
schools  require. 

XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XII.  PENSIONS. 

't’he  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 
City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 
from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 
retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 


tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  be 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 
schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 

2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


December  27 


807 


1906 


XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 
dinance granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below 
as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other 
public  places  for  any  public  utility, 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the  govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 


The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  at  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchise  be  altered  [extended],  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  .popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 
confer  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  “An 
act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages’ ’ approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


December  27 


808 


1906 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicle. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  4 * city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XVI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 


December  27 


809 


1906 


cil  shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  PENDARVIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  that  no  employe  of  the 
city  shall  become  or  continue  to  remain 
a member  of  any  society  or  organiza- 
tion, obedience  or  allegiance  to  whose 
rules,  principles  or  practices  shall  re- 
quire or  impose  any  express  or  implied 
obligation  upon  such  employe  to  refrain 
from  the  full  discharge  of  his  duties  or 
to  do  any  act  against  the  government 
of  the  city,  or  in  Violation  of  any  ordi- 
nance or  law,  or  of  any  rule  or  regula- 
tion of  any  department  of  the  city,  or 
of  any  order  of  any  official  of  the  city 
or  of  any  of  its  departments.  For  any 
violation  of  this  provision  an  employe 
shall  be  at  once  discharged  from  the 
city  service  by  the  head  of  the  de- 
partment in  which  he  is  employed. 


BY  MR.  WILKINS: 

Upon  the  adoption  of  this  charter,  the 
Board  of  Education  shall  prepare  or 
cause  to  be  prepared,  a code  of  morals, 
non-sectarian  in  character  and  tenor, 
and  put  the  same  into  book  form,  to 
be  used  as  one  of  the  text  books  of  the 
public  schools  and  taught  in  all  the 
branches  of  the  same. 


BY  MR.  WILKINS: 

During  the  life  of  this  charter  and 
while  it  operates  as  the  Constitution 


December  27 


810 


1906 


of  the  Municipality  of  Chicago,  the 
children  in  the  public  schools  shall  not 
be  segregated  or  separated  in  the  rooms 
and  classes  on  account  of  their  nation- 
ality, race  or  color. 

BY  MR.  EIDMANN: 

Resolved,  That  no  appointment  by  the 
mayor  shall  be  made  unless  concurred 
in  by  the  City  Council  at  a subsequent 
meeting. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  II,  on  page  593,  pro- 
viding that  “ members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation ’ ’ was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 

REPORT  OF  COMMITTEE  ON  RULES, 
PROCEDURE  AND  GENERAL 
PLAN — B.  A.  Eckhart,  Chair- 
man. 

Chicago  Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen: — Your  Committee  on 
Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan  to 
whom  were  referred  the  following  res- 
olutions and  amendments: 

III.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure, 
and  disposition  of  property  for  school 
purposes,  but  no  real  estate  shall  be 
leased  for  a term  longer  than  five  years, 
nor  shall  the  terms  of  any  existing  lease 
be  altered  without  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council. 

BY  MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART: 

Strike  out  all  after  the  word  “ pur- 
poses, ” in  the  fifth  line,  and  add  “but 
no  real  estate  shall  be  leased  for  a term 
longer  than  five  years  without  the  con- 


currence of  the  City  Council,  nor  shall 
the  terms  of  any  lease  be  altered  with- 
out such  concurrence.  ’ ’ 

BY  MR.  EIDMANN: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“years,”  at  the  end  of  the  sixth  line, 
the  following  “unless  with  the  concur- 
rence of  the  City  Council  by  a three- 
fourths’  vote.” 

BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

Amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
‘ ‘ lease,  ’ ’ at  the  end  of  the  seventh 
line,  the  following  “the  unexpired  term 
of  which  is  longer  than  five  years.” 

would  respectfully  report  that  the  com- 
mittee has  considered  the  subject  mat- 
ter, and  recommends  the  adoption  of  the 
following: 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure 
and  disposition  of  property  used,  in- 
tended, acquired,  held  or  sought  to  be 
disposed  of,  for  school  purposes  or  the 
use  of  schools,  but  no  real  estate  shall 
be  leased  by  said  board,  either  as  lessor 
or  lessee,  for  a term  longer  than  five 
years  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
City  Council,  nor  shall  the  provisions 
of  any  lease,  now  or  hereafter  made, 
whose  unexpired  term  may  exceed  five 
years,  be  altered  without  such  concur- 
rence. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART,  Chairman. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 
laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  the  present  pension  law 
providing  for  a pension  system  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Chicago  Public  Library  be 
included  in  the  proposed  charter  for  the 
City  of  Chicago. 


December  27 


811 


The  following  resolution  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  with 
instructions  to  draft  a provision  em- 
bodying the  sense  of  the  resolution: 

BY  MR.  PATTERSON: 

The  charter  shall  contain  a provision 
■extending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  over  those  submerged  lands 
up  to  the  line  of  navigation  which  are 
not  now  under  jurisdiction  of  the  park 
boards. 

BY  MR.  McCORMICK: 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually,  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
city,  and  the  report  thereof,  together 
with  any  recommendation  of  such  ac- 
countants, as  to  change  in  the  business 
methods  of  the  city,  or  of  any  of  its  de- 
partments, officers,  or  employes,  shall 
be  made  to  the  mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, and  be  spread  upon  the  records  of 
the  latter.  The  expenses  of  such  audit 
shall  be  paid  by  the  city. 


BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

All  appointments  and  removals  of 
employes  of  the  Board  of  Education,  ex- 
cept as  herein  otherwise  expressly  pro- 
vided, shall  be  made  pursuant  to  the 
provisions  of  the  general  civil  service 
law. 

BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

The  business  manager  shall  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  Board  of  Education 
appoint  a trained  chief  architect  and  a 


1906 

trained  chief  engineer,  both  of  whom 
shall  be  in  the  business  manager’s 
department,  and  whose  term  of  office 
shall  be  four  (4)  years,  and  whose  ap- 
pointment and  removal  shall  not  be 
subject  to  the  civil  service  law. 


BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

Amendment  to  Section  2,  Chapter 
VII,  and  are  not,  except  as  expressly 
modified  or  altered  by  this  charter,  in 
conflict  with  any  general  law  of  this 
state. 


BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

Section  XXIII.  The  State  of  Illinois 
hereby  cedes,  grants  and  conveys  to  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  its  title  to  land  un- 
der the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan  from 
the  shore  line  of  said  lake,  between  the 
northern  boundary  of  the  city  and  the 
boundary  between  the  State  of  Illinois 
and  the  State  of  Indiana,  and  extend- 
ing   feet  into  the  lake,  as  well  as 

all  title  to  land  formerly  under  water 
that  the  state  has  not  lawfully  parted 
with  or  lost,  such  land  to  be  held  by 
the  city  in  the  same  manner  and  for  the 
same  purposes  as  they  are  now  held,  or 
should  be  rightfully  held,  by  the  state, 
and  with  the  same  powers  of  disposi- 
tion that  are  now  vested  in  the  Legisla- 
ture of  the  state,  subject  to  all  lawful- 
ly existing  riparian  rights,  if  any,  and 
subject  to  all  public  rights  of  naviga- 
tion and  commerce,  and  to  the  authori- 
ty of  the  United  States  in  behalf  of 
such  public  rights. 


December  27 


812 


1906 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 


Resolution  by  Mr.  Patterson,  concerning  Submerged  Lands  (Friday,  December 
28,  1906,  at  2 o’clock  p.  m.) 


December  27 


813 


1906 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  th& 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may* 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
C^ica^o  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
ne  Juct<c»s  of  +he  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  27 


814 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  28,  1906 


(Elmaiji.  (Charter  (Cmuirutirm 

Convened,  December  12,  1905 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinlev Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Asst.  Secy 


December  28 


817 


1906 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
Regular  Meeting,  Friday,  December  28,  1906 
2:00  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order.  The  Secretary  has  a 
communication  which  he  will  please 
read. 

The  Secretary  then  read  the  follow- 
ing communication: 

December  27,  1906. 

Hon.  Milton  J.  Foreman,  President,  Chi- 
cago Charter  Convention,  100  Wash- 
ington Street,  Chicago. 

My  Dear  Sir: — I beg  to  inform  you 
that  I have  this  day  appointed  the  fol- 
lowing as  members  of  the  Chicago  Char- 
ter Convention: 

I.  T.  Greenacre,  vice  Joseph  Medill 
Patterson,  resigned. 

Walter  R.  Michaelis,  vice  John  J. 
Fitzpatrick,  resigned. 

Very  respectfully  yours, 

E.  F.  DUNNE, 

Mayor. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  names  will 

be  entered  on  the  roll  and  the  other 
names  taken  off.  The  Secretary  will 
now  call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Carey,  Cole,  Crilly,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W.  Dixon  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Erickson,  Green 
acre,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Kit 
tleman,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoor 
ty,  McKinley,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Pen 
darvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Raymer,  Rosen- 
thal, Shanahan,  Shepard,  Swift,  Taylor, 
Vopicka,  White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 41. 

Absent  — Badenoch,  Burke,  Church, 
Clettenberg,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gansber- 
gen,  Graham,  Haas,  Harrison,  Jones, 
Lathrop,  Lundberg,  McCormick,  Mer- 
riam,  Oehne,  Paullin,  Michaelis,  Powers, 
Revell,  Rinaker,  Ritter,  Robins,  Seth- 
ness,  Shedd,  Sinulski,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Thompson,  Walker,  Werno,  Wilson, 
Young — 33. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  re- 

ceived a message  from  Mr.  Shedd,  whi  h 
I desire  to  transmit  to  the  Convention. 


December  28 


818 


1901 


Lt  is  to  the  effect  ihat  his  absence  is 
due  to  illness,  otherwise  he  would  be 
present.  Pending  the  arrival  of  two  or 
three  more  members  of  the  Convention, 
the  Chair  suggests  that  the  Secretary 
read  a resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Pat- 
terson, and  also  a resolution  presented 
by  Mr.  Rosenthal,  bearing  on  the  same 
question,  printed  on  page  811. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  811,  upper 
leftj-hand  column:  “By  Mr.  Patterson: 

The  charter  shall  contain  a provision  ex- 
tending the  jurisdiction  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  over  those  submerged  lands, 
etc." 

By  Mr.  Rosenthal:  Page  811,  right- 

hand  column,  Section  23:  "The  State 

of  Illinois  hereby  cedes,  grants  and  con- 
veys to  the  City  of  Chicago  all  its  title 
to-  land  under  the  waters  of  Lake  Michi- 
gan, etc." 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  that  mo- 

tion, as  I remember  it,  was  made  by  Mr. 
Patterson,  and  what  has  just  been  rend 
is  the  formulation,  as  I understand  it, 
of  the  proposition  in  the  form  for  enact- 
ment. Mr.  Patterson  having  retired 
from  the  Convention  and  having  been 
succeeded  by  Mr.  Greenacre,  I think  we 
should  i hear  from  Mr.  Greenacre,  who 
has  some  observations  to  make  in  regard 
to  the  form  of  the  draft. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  If  I am  in  or- 

der, Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  two  or 
three  alterations  in  the  draft;  I think 
it.  requires  a little  alteration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A little  louder, 

please,  so  that  the  reporter  can  get  you. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  My  motion  is 

that  this  be  amended  by  striking  out 
the  words  "and  extending  blank  feet 
into- the  lake"  and  inserting  the  words 
"produced  east"  after  the  words  "the 
northern  boundary  line  of  the  city, ,f 
and  inserting  the  words  "produced 
north"  after  the  words  "boundary  be- 
tween the  State  of  Illinois  and  the  State 
of  Indiana. } 1 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  please 

write  your  amendment  out? 

MR,  GREENACRE:  Well,  may  I send 
it  up  afterwards,  so  that  I may  speak 
to  it  first? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR,  GREENACRE:  This  proposal 

affects  the  future  of  this  city  in  refer- 
ence to  an  outer  harbor.  Our  river  har- 
bor was  all  right  in  its  time,  but  with 
the  present  commerce,  and  the  present 
deep  draft  of  vessels  and  the  large  car- 
goes, there  will  come  a time  when  we 
will  have  to  have  an  outer  harbor,  and 
I am  in  favor  of  not  limiting  what  we 
ask  for  to  so  many  feet  or  yards  from  » 
the  shore,  but  asking  for  all  that  future 
requirements  will  demand.  The  state 
line  of  this  state  extends  from  the  boun- 
dary line  between  Michigan  and  Indi- 
ana, as  is  pointed  out  here,  produced 
north,  clear  to  the  shore;  and  the  state 
jurisdiction  extends  to  where  that  point 
meets  the  north  line  of  the  state  pro- 
duced east  to  meet  this  state  line.  The 
intention  which  I think  Mr.  Patterson 
had  in  mind  was  that  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago should  have  the  water  front  in 
front  of  it.  If  so,  there  is  no  reason 
why  we  should  limit  ourselves  in  con- 
fining the  harbor  to  any  part  of  the  lake 
which  is  in  front  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  practical  application  is  this,  that 
you  ask.  for  so  many  feet,  and  after  tak- 
ing it  you  reach  the  end  of  the  city’s 
jurisdiction.  The  state  jurisdiction  ex- 
tends way  out  to  the  meridian  line  be- 
tween Indiana  and  Illinois,  and  the  city 
will  only  have  control  over  the  land 
under  the  water  for  that  many  feet  out 
beyond  the  present  shore  line.  The  state 
title  will  attach  again  and  go  out  to  the 
state  line.  Why  not  ask  for  all  in  front 
of  the  city?  If  the  lake  should  be  filled 
in  out  to  the  line  contemplated  in  ten 
or  twelve  years,  you  may  find  that  when 
you  then  seek  more  submerged  land 
from  the  state  somebody  stepped  in 
I ahead  of  you  and  obtained  what  the  city 


December  28 


819 


1906 


then  asks  and  needs.  I am  in  favor  of 
home  rule  for  Chicago  and  home  rule  in 
reference  to  our  harbor.  I can  remem- 
ber well  when  the  waves  washed  inside 
the  Illinois  Central  tracks.  Nobody 
then  thought  the  harbor  line  would  be 
as  far  out  as  it  now  is.  We  may  come 
to  a time  when  this  limit  of  so  many 
feet  will  be  exceeded,  and  the  harbor 
will  be  built  out  beyond  that,  and  then 
we  may  find  some  other  person  ahead  of 
us — some  person  or  corporation.  You 
have  a litigation  similar  to  the  litiga- 
tion with  the  Illinois  Central  Railroad, 
which  lasted  for  twelve  or  sixteen  years. 
You  may  find  that  inconvenient.  You 
are  going  to  ask  for  so  many  feet  along 
the  shore  line.  Why  not  ask  for  all 
submerged  land  east  of  the  shore  line, 
instead  of  asking  only  for  so  many  feet. 
I would  like  to  ask  for  all  of  the  state S 
right  in  the  submerged  lake  ground  that 
is  in  front  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  That 
means,  from  the  state  line  between  In- 
diana and  Illinois  produced  north  to  a 
point  where  it  intersects  the  north  line 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  produced  east. 

I will  now  formulate  the  amendment 
and  send  it  up,  but  that  is  the  idea  that 
I wish  to  embody  in  the  motion. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  we 
had  this  matter  up  before  the  Commit- 
tee on  Wharfs,  Public  Docks,  etc.,  and  I 
understand  that  there  is  some  question 
as  to  what  municipalities  have  shore 
rights.  I do  not  believe  this  is  neces- 
sary to  go  into  a general  charter;  I 
do  not  believe  that  this  proposition  is 
necessary  to  be  submitted  to  a vote  of 
the  people.  The  simple  act  of  the  legis- 
lature would  transfer  the  title  from  the 
state  to  the  City  of  Chicago.  There  has 
been  considerable  legislation  passed  by 
the  legislature  in  regard  to  lake  front- 
age. I believe  that  the  title  of  all  the 
lake  shore  is  now  in  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois, with  the  exception  of  that  part  of 
the  lake  shore  known  as  Grant  Park, 
which  was  ceded  by  the  State  of  Hli- 
nois  to  the  South  Park  commissioners. 


The  legislature  passed  an  act,  either 
two  or  four  years  ago,  in  regard  to  Lin- 
coln Park,  whereby  certain  lands  were 
to  be  ceded  to  the  Lincoln  Park  commis- 
sioners when  they  performed  certain  du- 
ties and  made  certain  improvements. 
It  is  a question  what  would  become  of 
that  land  and  their  title  if  such  a bill 
as  this  were  passed. 

I do  not  think  this  Convention  ought 
to  take  up  any  great  time  in  discussing 
this  matter,  because  it  is  not  necessary 
to  be  put  into  the  charter,  and  it  is  not 
necessary  for  it  to  be  submitted  to  a 
vote  of  the  people.  If  the  legislature 
desires  to  transfer  what  title  it  has  in 
the  submerged  lands  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, it  can  be  done  by  a simple  act  of 
the  legislature,  and  it  will  not  be  neces- 
sary to  submit  it  to  a vote  of  the  people. 

I am  sorry  that  Mr.  Lathrop  or  Mr. 
Gansbergen  of  the  North  Park  commis- 
sioners are  not  here.  They  might  know 
definitely  in  regard  to  the  legislation 
with  reference  to  Lincoln  Park.  I 
would  say  that  the  title  to  the  land 
fronting  Jackson  Park  is  in  the  city  and 
not  in  the  South  Park  commissioners. 
The  only  title  to  submerged  land  resting 
in  the  South  Park  commissioners  is  the 
title  of  the  land  facing  Grant  Park,  ly- 
ing between  Randolph  street  and  Park 
row. 

MR.  POST:  The  object — I under- 

stand Mr.  Greenacres  amendment  is 
before  the  house.  I am  correct  in  that, 
am  I not? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  POST:  I understand  Mr.  Green- 

acre  S amendment  is  before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  I did  not 

know  that  it  was  written  out.  It  is  to 
amend  Section  23,  on  page  811.  The 
Secretary  will  please  read  Mr.  Green- 
acre  S amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  M.  Green- 

acre:  Amend  Section  23,  on  page  811, 

by  inserting  the  words  ‘produced  east* 
after  the  words  ‘the  northern  boundary 
of  the  city,’  and  by  striking  out  the 


December  28 


820 


1906 


words  1 extending  feet  into  the 

lake/  and  insert  instead  thereof  the 
words  ‘produced  north.’  ” 

MB.  POST:  The  object  of  this  prop- 

osition, as  stated  by  Mr.  Patterson  on 
page  689,  is  substantially  this:  There 

he  says  that  this  proposition  simply 
means  that  the  jurisdiction  of  land  now 
occupied  by  the  United  States  Steel  Cor- 
poration, by  the  Chicago  Beach  Hotel 
and  by  the  other  concerns  that  continue 
to  appropriate  land  without  any  let  or 
hindrance — that  the  jurisdiction  of  these 
lands  shall  be  vested  in  the  city.  The 
jurisdiction  of  these  lands  lies  now  in 
the  State  of  Illinois,  and  the  State  of 
Illinois  is  not  raising  a finger  to  pre- 
vent this  continued  stealing  and  en- 
croaching. He  sought  to  place  this  city 
in  the  position  so  that  it  could  exercise 
control  over  these  submerged  lands. 

As  I understand  the  legal  situation 
briefly  to  be,  it  is  this:  That  after  a 

long  litigation  some  years  ago  it  was 
established  under  the  administration  of 
Governor  Altgeld  that  these  lands,  these 
accretions,  the  title  to  which  had  been 
assumed  by  private  individuals,  be- 
longed to  the  state.  The  principle  has 
been  established  and  yet  the  state  has 
not  exercised  its  power,  but  powerful 
corporations  are  extending  their  prop- 
erty out  into  the  lake;  invading  the 
state’s  lands,  interfering  with  rights 
that  ought  to  be  the  rights  of  the  city. 
If  we  are  to  have  a municipal  govern- 
ment here  that  is  worthy  of  the  name, 
with  the  large  water  front  that  attaches 
to  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  city  ought 
tQ  be  put  in  position  to  exercise  control 
and  authority  over  actions  of  that  kind. 

It  is  said  that  we  can  do  this  by  special 
act,  but,  Mr.  Chairman,  I notice  that 
the  interests  that  want  a special  act  in  | 
this  case  have  not  felt  that  it  was  neces- 
sary to  fall  back  upon  a special  act  for 
the  things  that  were  wanted  affirmative- 
ly. The  thumb  marks  of  their  work  can 
be  traced  through  the  educational  de- 
cisions of  this  convention,  a subject 


which  might  just  as  well  and  much  bet- 
ter have  been  left  to  the  special  action 
of  the  legislature. 

1 am  sorry  Mr.  Patterson,  who  is  much 
more  at  home  with  that  subject  than 
some  of  us  are,  cannot  be  here  to  dis- 
cuss it.  It  seems  to  me  this  proposition 
is  an  entirely  proper  one,  and  that  the 
city,  if  it  is  to  have  home  rule  estab- 
lished, should  be  given  at  least  the  au- 
thority over  these  lands  and  the  power 
to  curb  the  accretions  of  these  corpora- 
tions upon  this  property,  which  ought  to 
be  city  property. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  Mr.  Post  a question.  Isn’t  it  a fact 
that  the  city  can  get  that  power  without 
this  charter  provision? 

MR.  POST:  How? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  By  simply  going 

to  the  legislature  and  memorializing  the 
legislature,  or  asking  the  legislature  to 
pass  such  an  act.  Why  put  it  in  this 
charter?  That  matter  does  not  have  to 
be  submitted  to  the  vote  of  the  people. 

MR.  POST:  I will  answer  Mr.  Shana- 
han ’s  question.  This  will  be,  if  it  is 
passed,  an  act  of  the  legislature,  and  I 
know  of  nobody  that  can  better  mem- 
orialize the  legislature  to  pass  such  an 
act  than  this  particular  body.  Who  else 
would  be  better  able  to  do  it?  I don’t 
imagine  that  we  will  lose  our  charter  be- 
fore the  people,  Mr.  Shanahan,  because 
this  provision  is  in  it;  we  may  lose  it 
before  the  legislature,  possibly,  because 
influences  that  do  not  want  this  may 
affect  the  legislature,  but  when  you  come 
to  the  test  I believe  we  will  have  no 
difficulty  in  passing  this  charter  so  far 
as  that  proposition  is  concerned. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I am  not  able  to 

see  why  this  Convention,  in  providing 
I for  a scheme  of  government  for  the  City 
of  Chicago,  should  not  embody  any  prop- 
osition which  might  properly  be  in- 
cluded in  such  governmental  scheme; 
and  I am  unable  to  see  any  force  in  my 
friend  Mr.  Shanahan’s  point  that  the 
| legislature  may  by  some  act  delegate  to 


December  28 


821 


1906 


the  City  of  Chicago  such  power.  We  are 
now  asking  the  legislature,  or  will  soon 
ask  the  legislature,  to  delegate  to  the 
City  of  Chicago  many  powers  in  the 
proposed  draft  of  the  charter;  and  it 
does  seem,  looking  to  the  future,  as  Mr. 
Greenaere  has  said,  that  the  legislature, 
or  the  state,  acting  through  the  legis- 
lature, will  delegate  to  the  city  all 
proper  powers  in  this  regard,  that  the 
city  \yll  have  the  right  to  any  scheme 
which  it  thinks  is  for  the  benefit  of  the 
commerce  and  of  the  beauty  of  Chicago, 
or  its  adornment,  whatever  adornment 
it  thinks  would  be  pleasing  to  the  eye, 
and  in  more  practical  and  material 
standpoints,  the  use  of  the  waters  of 
Lake  Michigan,  subject  to  the  para- 
mount rights  of  navigation  in  the  gen- 
eral state  government  and  the  riparian 
rights  of  abutting  property  owners. 

Of  course,  the  legislature  cannot  give 
any  rights  to  the  city  except  subject  to 
those  paramount  rights.  Now,  it  has 
been  stated  here  by  Mr.  Patterson  that 
not  only  the  companies  which  he  refers 
to,  but  that  other  interests  have  gradu- 
ally for  years  been  encroaching  upon 
the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan,  and  not 
by  accretion,  as  the  term  is  ordinarily 
understood,  but  by  literally  filling  in 
and  by  boldly,  in  defiance  of  the  law  and 
public  opinion,  taking  unto  themselves 
lands  so  made  from  the  state  and  from 
the  people;  so  that,  although  we  have 
the  finest  water  frontage  in  the  world, 
yet  it  is  an  anomaly  as  regards  other 
cities,  the  conditions  existing  in  other 
cities  such  as  the  city  of  Toronto  and 
other  great  cities  similarly  situated,  that 
we  have  but  little  access  to  the  lake, 
and  if  the  people  are  prevented  from 
enjoying  and  are  prevented  from  deriv- 
ing benefits  from  this  magnificent  body 
of  water,  which  they  otherwise  would 
enjoy,  because  of  the  encroachment  by 
these  private  individuals  and  their  de- 
fiance of  law  and  the  rights  of  others, 
why.  Mr.  Chairman,  I believe  that  in 
this  charter  the  city  should  be  given 


the  right  which  this  resolution  provides, 
that  the  State  of  Illinois,  now  holding 
these  submerged  lands  in  trust  for  the 
people,  it  should  delegate  this  power,  re- 
serving always  to  the  state  the  para- 
mount right  which  properly  is  its,  to 
use  these  waters  for  public  benefits  and 
for  public  uses,  and  making  improve- 
ments, and  thus  make  it  impossible  for 
the  officials  of  this  city,  if  they  do  their 
duty,  for  any  further  encroachment  by 
private  individuals  on  the  waters  of 
Lake  Michigan. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Greenaere  why  he 
seeks  to  define  a point  for  the  sub- 
merged land  underneath  the  waters  of 
the  lake.  Why  not  omit  the  words 
“ produced  to  the  east  and  produced  to 
the  north,’ ’ and  the  resolution  would 
then  read  “all  the  submerged  land  be- 
neath the  waters  of  the  lake  now  owned 
by  the  state.”  Our  title  then  would  go 
as  far  as  the  state ’s  title  goes,  and  we 
would  not  be  bothered  hereafter  as  we 
might  possibly  be  if  these  limitation 
words  are  left  in  the  resolution. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  The  only  reason 

in  the  world  is  because  that  is  an  ex- 
pression used  by  surveyors  with  refer- 
ence to  lines  produced  on  the  water. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Greenaere, 

will  you  kindly  speak  a little  louder? 
The  reporters  cannot  hear  you. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  point  I make 

is  to  leave  out  the  surveyors’  language 
and  terms.  The  city  now  owns  the  land 
beneath  the  waters  of  Lake  Michigan 
abutting  the  state  shore.  The  purpose 
of  the  resolution  is  originally  to  transfer 
that  title  to  the  City  of  Chicago.  Now, 
why  do  you  bound  that,  because  if  the 
city  limits  are  changed,  or  some  of  the 
lines  are  changed,  or  even  if  it  is  filled 
up,  that  line  might  extend  out  further. 
All  we  can  have,  and  the  most  we  can 
possibly  get,  is  the  state’s  right. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I have  no  pri- 

vate opinion  in  particular  words;  the 
object  is  what  I am  after.  Those  words 


December  28 


822 


1906 


were  used  simply  because  they  are  sur- 
veyors’ expressions  with  reference  to 
lines  produced  on  the  water.  I think 
that  the  gentleman’s  idea  (and  it  is  a 
new  one  to  me  of  the  moment)  that  the 
northern  limit  of  the  submerged  land 
might  vary  as  the  city  extends,  and  I 
am  very  glad  to  hear  he  made  the  sug- 
gestion, because  my  idea  is  by  this 
amendment  to  get  for  the  city  all  of  the 
submerged  land  of  the  state  in  front  of 
Chicago  as  it  is  now,  or  as  it  may  be; 
and  I think  his  idea  is  good  to  this  ex- 
tent, and  I would  change  my  wording 
to  accomplish  this  purpose.  The  intro- 
ducing of  the  line  between  the  State  of 
Indiana  and  the  State  of  Illinois,  how- 
ever, is  material,  because  the  act  of 
Congress  has  made  that  boundary  line, 
and  that  exists.  Illinois  jurisdiction 
extends  to  that  line,  whether  we  say  so 
or  not,  and  that  is  part  of  Illinois  sub- 
merged land  under  the  lake.  But  there 
must  be  a northern  boundary  line 
somewhere,  so  if  we  could  be  sure  as  to 
where  that  boundary  line  would  forever 
remain,  it  would  be  proper  to  define  the 
north  boundary  line  of  the  city  as  pro- 
duced. 

But  because  I recognize  the  great  im- 
portance of  the  gentleman’s  point,  that 
the  city  may  grow  to  the  north  as  well 
as  any  other  way,  and  the  line  shift,  I, 
therefore,  think  that  the  idea  now  ought 
to  be  that  all  the  submerged  lands  of 
Lake  Michigan  lying  east  of  the  City  of 
Chicago,  within  the  State  of  Illinois, 
ought  to  be  included,  and  with  his  per- 
mission I will  put  those  words  in. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  occurs  to  me,  if 

you  will  strike  out  of  your  amendment 
these  words  which  you  inserted,  in  ad- 
dition to  striking  out  the  words  Mr.  Ro- 
senthal put  in  his  resolution,  that  that 
will  cover  it. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  No,  I looked  at 
that  as  you  spoke  and  caught  the  im- 
portance of  your  point. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  We  do  not  have  to 
define  the  southern  boundary. 


MR.  GREENACRE:  The  trouble  is 

that  this  Section  23  is  drawn  upon  the 
theory  of  getting  a strip  so  many  feet 
wide  from*  the  north  end  of  the  state 
to  a point  on  the  boundary  line  be- 
tween the  state.  Now,  without  saying 
anything  about  it,  you  simply,  instead 
of  bounding  the  lands,  say,  “all  of  the 
submerged  lands  of  the  State  of  Illi- 
nois lying  east  of  the  line  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,”  and  then  it  would  change 
with  the  City  of  Chicago,  which  is  the 
proper  thing  to  have. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  is  the  point 

that  I make. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I will  frame 

that  in  that  way,  and  will  be  glad  to 
do  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I think  the  words 

of  limitation  in  both  resolutions  should 
be  stricken  out. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  You  are  entire- 

ly right.  What  I am  after  is  the  widen- 
ing of  this  land,  securing  it  all  and  not 
limiting  it  to  a few  feet  from  the  shore. 

MR,  KITTLEMAN:  I am  not  speak- 
ing for  or  against  the  resolution  here. 
I would  not  undertake  to  say  whether 
it  would  be  better  to  try  to  get  posses- 
sion of  these  lands  through  this  charter, 
or  to  go  to  the  legislature  direct;  but 
I was  a member  of  the  sub-committee 
on  docks  and  harbors,  and  I submit  to 
this  Convention,  as  a business  man,  that 
there  is  not  anything  in  the  charter 
that  may  mean  more  to  this  city,  as  a 
commercial  city,  than  the  establishing 
of  these  docks,  or  a great  outer  har- 
bor for  the  shipping  interests  of  this 
city.  Now,  I submit  this  to  you:  No- 

body who  has  had  experience  in  com- 
mercial affairs  does  not  know  that  the 
great  commercial  center  of  this  country 
is  New  York,  and  until  Chicago  lays 
down  in  the  original  packages  the  mer- 
chandise of  Europe  right  here  in  this 
city,  you  never  can  hope  to  establish 
a great  buying  market  for  the  merchant- 
men and  for  the  buyers  who  are  in 
the  mercantile  business  of  this  nation. 


December  28 


823 


1906 


And  when  you  consider  that  this  is  the 
greatest  railroad  center  in  this  coun- 
try, and  that  we  have  one  of  the  great- 
est bodies  of  water  in  this  country,  and 
that  the  two  are  absolutely  unable  to 
connect,  you  can  get  an  idea  of  the 
position  we  are  in.  And  in  connection 
with  the  deep  waterway  that  will  come, 
when  you  consider  again  that  you  can 
load  up  all  the  products  of  the  Missis- 
sippi Valley  and  take  them  direct  to 
Europe  and  unload  on  our  shores  the 
merchandise  of  Europe,  then  you  will 
make  a market  that  will  attract  the  buy- 
ers of  this  country.  I say  frankly,  with 
reference  to  the  matter  before  us,  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  Charter  Con- 
vention that  means  more  to  this  city 
commercially  than  the  establishment  of 
docks  in  a great  harbor. 

Now,  I don’t  believe  in  municipal 
ownership,  but  if  there  is  no  other  way 
of  getting  it  than  by  having  the  city 
take  a hold  of  it.  then  I would  be  in 
favor  of  the  city  owning,  establishing 
and  controlling  these  docks  so  that  Chi- 
cago would  become,  what  it  ought  to  be, 
one  of  the  greatest  markets  in  the  world. 
Now,  I think  this  Convention  ought  to 
seriously  consider  some  way  of  getting 
the  whole  of  these  submerged  lands, 
and,  if  possible,  encourage  the  city,  or 
have  the  city  encourage  somebody  hav- 
ing the  shipping  brought,  as  it  ought  to 
be,  to  the  shores  of  Lake  Michigan  for 
the  benefit  of  this  great  city. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

T would  like  to  have  that  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary read  the  pending  amendment? 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  How  does  the 

section  read  as  amended? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  a little 

louder,  please. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL?  How  does  the 
section  read  as  amended? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  section  as  amended. 


The  Secretary  read  the  section  as 
amended. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Greenacre. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Pardon  me. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I was  putting 

your  amendment. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I want  to  offer 

an  amendment,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I want  to  amend 
by  striking  out  the  following  words: 
“And  extending  blank  feet  into  the 
lake ” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  Mr. 

Greenacre ’s  amendment.  It  is  that  very 
language.  It  strikes  out  those  words. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Solely? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Solely? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Mr.  Greenacre ’s  amendment. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I thought  there 

was  more  to  his  amendment  than  strik- 
ing out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  covers  it. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Greenacre ’s 
amendment. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  My  amendment 

differs,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  this  that  it 
merely  strikes  out  those  words. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  write 

out  your  amendment,  please,  so  that  the 
Secretary  will  have  it? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  the  word 
“lost”  might  just  as  well  come  out  of 
this  amendment — out  of  this  section.  I 
ask  that  that  be  stricken  out — “or 
lost.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  a moment. 

| To  prevent  confusion,  all  amendments 
must  be  produced  in  writing.  The  Chair 
cannot  undertake  to  keep  track  of  them. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I was  looking  for 

a piece  of  paper.  I want  to  strike  out 
the  limitation  clauses  in  both  resolutions, 

I but  I cannot  find  a piece  of  paper  on 
I which  to  write  it. 


December  28 


824 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  get  that 

in  writing. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hill. 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems 

to  me  that  Mr.  Shanahan  is  clearly  right 
on  this  proposition.  We  are  not  asking 
here  for  the  state  legislature  to  give 
us  the  right  to  govern  ourselves,  to  give 
us  that  right — we  are  asking  that  the 
state  should  give  the  city  a title  to 
certain  property,  the  title  to  certain 
lands  so  that  they  may  be  disposed  of. 
I am  quite  sure  that  we  shall  meet 
with  quite  strenuous  opposition  to  this 
section  when  we  get  to  the  legislature. 
I do  not  see  where  it  provides  for  a ref- 
erendum vote  for  the  people  of  the  City 
of  Chicago.  I do  not  see  why  we  can- 
not press  this  fully  as  effectively  by  a 
separate  bill  as  we  can  by  embodying  it 
in  the  charter,  leaving  out  the  question 
altogether  of  our  individual  views  as 
to  whether  the  city  will  more  jealously 
and  efficiently  guard  the  rights  than 
the  state  does.  I think  all  of  us  agree 
that  if  it  can  be  done  it  will  be  of 
great  advantage  to  the  city,  if  we  can 
have  this  right.  There  is  no  question 
about  that.  The  effort  to  secure  that 
territory  is  all  right,  but  I think  it 
should  come  before  the  legislature  in  a 
separate  bill.  We  should  all  centralize 
our  efforts  upon  it  as  a separate  bill.  I 
do  not  think  it  belongs  to  this  charter. 
We  can,  as  a Charter  Convention,  I 
think,  if  we  desire,  memorialize  the 
legislature  and  ask  for  this,  or  we  can 
make  a separate  effort  for  it.  But  to 
put  it  in  the  charter  means  that  it  will 
require  extra  effort  to  get  the  things 
we  a^e  most  anxious  for.  My  idea  all 
the  time  in  reference  to  these  matters 
is  that  we  should  center  our  efforts  on 
those  things  that  are  most  necessary, 
such  as  revenue,  and  schools,  and  those 
things  which  are  more  important.  They 
are  of  more  importance,  and  we  should 
lay  our  foundation  upon  them,  and  let 
us  get  these  things  in  shape  as  well  as 


i9or. 

we  can,  and  we  shall  meet  as  little  op- 
position as  may  be  both  from  the  legis- 
lature and  from  the  people.  But  if  you 
add  these  things  separately,  one  by 
one,  you  make  them  a separate  issue.  I 
think  Mr.  Shanahan  is  clearly  right  in 
his  views. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Will  Mr.  Hill  per- 
mit a question? 

MR.  HILL:  Surely. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I would  like  to 

ask  the  gentleman  what  opposition,  or 
what  sources  of  opposition,  he  antici- 
pates that  there  will  be  to  this  bill  as 
recommended  by  this  Convention  that 
would  not  be  directed  against  it  if  it 
was  a separate  biff. 

MR.  HILL : I do  not  know  that  there 
would  be  any,  but  it  would  be  a sep- 
arate measure,  and  this  may  proceed 
alone.  The  charter  is  a measure  that 
can  be  guarded  better  if  we  create  no 
opposition,  and  if  this  is  put  forward 
as  a separate  bill  it  seems  to  me  that  it 
would  be  better.  That  is  the  view  I 
take  of  it. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  inclined,  after  listening  to  the  ar- 
guments advanced  by  Mr.  Hill  and  Mr. 
Shanahan,  to  think  that  if  this  Conven- 
tion in  its  wisdom  should  decide  to  in- 
clude propositions  in  regard  to  this  sub- 
merged land,  that  that  would  be  the 
surest  method  of  getting  the  legisla- 
ture to  pass  on  it  favorably;  that  is,  to 
make  it  a part  of  this  charter. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

with  reference  to  one  amendment  which 
has  been  suggested  here,  my  own  opin- 
ion as  a lawyer  is  that  no  grant  can  be 
made  at  the  present  time  which  will 
extend  automatically  as  the  boundaries 
of  the  city  may  extend;  and  it  seems 
to  me  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to 
consider  in  detail  all  these  amendments, 
because  all  that  will  be  embodied  in 
this  resolution  is  the  sense  of  this  con- 
vention; and  it  is  well  known  this  whole 
resolution  will  have  to  be  re  drafted. 
Therefore,  with  these  few  suggestions  by 


December  28 


825 


1906 


Mr.  Greenacre — these  few  words  strick- 
en out — the  resolution  can  be  safely- 
passed  and  left  to  the  Committee  on 
Rules  and  Procedure  to  formulate  a 
proper  draft. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I offer  as  a sub- 

stitute for  the  pending  motion  the  reso- 
lution just  sent  to  the  Secretary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard 

moves  a substitute  for  the  entire  mat- 
ter which  the  Secretary  will  read. 

The  Secretary  read  Mr.  Shepard’s 
substitute  as  hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Now,  that  gives 

everything  distinctly  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago and  leaves  it  to  the  expert  to 
frame  a proper  amendment,  and  is  in- 
tended to  cover  everything  the  state  has 
and  transfer  it  to  the  City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  a sub- 

stitute I would  have  liked  to  have  heard 
read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  All  those  in  favor 
of  the  substitute  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  Carried. 

The  next  matter  before  the  house  is 
the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Rules,  j 
Procedure  and  General  Plan.  The  Sec-  I 
reta~y  will  read  the  report  on  page  810. 

The  Secretary  read  the  report. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Has  anybody  a 

desire  to  debate  this  subject? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move  its 

adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart 

moves  the  adoption  of  the  report. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I tried 

to  follow  that  at  the  same  time  the 
Secretary  read  it,  but  it  was  not  quite 
as  reported  on  page  810.  How  is  that, 
Mr.  Eckhart;  did  you  make  a change? 

MR.  ECKHART:  No  change  has  been 
made. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  report  is  on 
page  810.  The  last  paragraph  of  the 
caption. 

MR.  POST:  Above  Mr.  Eckhart ’s 

signature? 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  I did  not  so  understand. 

I did  not  seem  to  read  it  that  way. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I simply 

i wish  to  make  an  observation  or  two  in 
I regard  to  that.  I make  this  suggestion: 

| That  for  the  present  at  least  you  had 
better  leave  the  question  of  the  manage- 
ment of  these  lands  where  the  matter 
stands  now,  without  taking  any  risks 
of  disturbing  the  existing  rights  of  the 
school  board  with  reference  to  those 
lands.  Now,  I know  that  the  form  of 
this  proposition  as  now  presented  by  the 
committee  has  the  appearance  of  giv- 
ing greater  protection  to  the  school  sys- 
tem with  regard  to  the  title  of  lands, 
and  I have  no  doubt  whatever  that  the 
Educational  Committee,  and  that  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  and  Mr.  Eckhart, 
and  all  concerned  in  this  Convention  in- 
tended to  add  a safeguard.  But  there 
was  connected  with  the  formulation  of 
these  educational  propositions  an  outside 
organization  which  has  many  business 
ramifications;  and  it  is  not  at  all  impos- 
sible that  some  legal  advice  may  have 
filtered  in  here  that  the  committees  did 
not  know  came  from  representatives  of 
certain  institutions. 

At  any  rate,  we  know,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  sometimes  lawyers  do  suggest  meth- 
ods of  reaching  a result  by  a process  of 
i what  I may  call  verbal  inversion,  or 
| something  of  that  kind,  by  making  a 
I statute  appear  more  protective,  really 
making  it  less  protective. 

Now,  pardon  me  for  a moment  while 
I explain  the  situation.  I do  not  be- 
lieve that  many  of  the  gentlemen  in 
this  convention  really  understand  the 
relation  of  this  city  to  the  school  board 
lands  and  its  leases.  You  all  do  under- 
stand that  Congress  once  gave  to  the 
state  and  that  the  state  gave  to  the 
city  a square  mile  of  land  extending 
i from  Twelfth  street  on  the  south  to 
Madison  street  on  the  north,  and  from 
State  street  on  the  east  to  Halsted 


December  28 


826 


1906 


street  on  the  west,  and  that  that  land 
was  soon  sold  for  a small  sum,  some- 
thing less  than  forty  thousand  dollars, 
and  that  within  fifteen  years  the  same 
land  was  estimated  to  be  worth  six  mil- 
lions of  dollars;  but  there  was  left  to 
the  school  system — the  land  had  been 
devoted,  all  of  it,  to  school  purposes — 
there  was  left  to  the  school  system  after 
those  sales  had  been  made  one  block 
known  as  142  of  Section  16,  which  is 
the  block  on  which  the  Tribune  build- 
ing stands  and  which  particular  block 
is  well  known  to  everybody. 

That  block  has  been  left  us,  and 
there  is  some  other  land  scattered 
around  the  city,  but  that  is  the  principal 
piece  left  from  the  donation  from  the 
state.  That  has  been  leased.  It  was 
leased  in  1850  for  fifty  years  with  re- 
valuations every  five  years.  In  1885  the 
change  of  rentals  was  resisted  and  this 
school  system  was  held  up  in  the  courts 
for  three  years,  and  finally  the  school 
board  at  the  time  was  forced  to  a settle- 
ment in  which  the  leases  were  changed 
from  fifty  years  to  one  hundred  years, 
and  the  revaluations  from  five  years  to 
ten  years. 

The  first  decennial  revaluation  oc- 
curred in  1895.  At  that  time  some  six 
or  seven  of  these  leases  had  their  re- 
valuation clauses  struck  out  without 
any  adequate  consideration  at  all;  for 
a grossly  inadequate  consideration,  and 
in  some  cases  no  consideration.  So  that 
those  leases  of  the  tenants  who  were  in 
that  combination  were  changed  from 
ninety-year  leases  with  ten-year  reval- 
uations to  ninety-year  leases  with  no 
revaluations,  and  on  the  basis  of  a re- 
valuation during  one  of  the  most  de- 
pressed periods  through  which  this  coun- 
try has  ever  passed. 

Now,  whether  that  can  be  got  back  or 
not,  I do  not  pretend  to  say,  but  the 
school  board  is  now  facing  the  demands 
of  other  leaseholders  who  insist  that 
we  should  strike  out  from  the  leases  in 


their  cases  as  was  done  in  the  other 
cases,  the  revaluation  clauses. 

The  point  that  I want  now  to  direct 
your  special  attention  to  is  this:  That 

under  the  existing  law  the  school  trus- 
tees are  trustees.  A school  board  is  not 
a governmental  body;  the  school  board 
has  no  legislative  power.  Every  act  of 
the  trustees  is  subject  to  the  scrutiny  of 
a court  of  equity,  and  I submit  that 
we  are  far  better  protected  on  the  leases 
of  our  school  system  if  this  land  remains 
for  leasing  purposes  under  the  control 
of  trustees  responsible  to  the  investiga- 
tion of  a court  of  equity  for  their  acts 
on  grounds  of  fraud,  or  improvidence, 
or  coercion,  or  what  not,  than  if  we 
place  the  matter  into  the  hands  of  the 
City  Council,  which  is  a governmental 
body,  which  is  a legislative  body,  and 
upon  whose  action  the  point  might  be 
raised  that  the  responsibility  to  a court 
of  equity,  of  trusteeship,  does  not  apply. 

Now,  I know  that  the  City  Council  is 
a perfectly  honest  body.  I am  making 
no  reflection  whatever  upon  the  City 
Council.  We  all  understand  it  is  ap 
honest  body.  We  are  not  allowed  to 
have  any  question  about  that;  on  every 
appropriate  occasion  the  members  as- 
sure us  that  they  are  an  honest  body, 
and  we  will  take  them  at  their  word. 
But  we  do  not  know  that  we  are  always 
going  to  have  an  honest  body;  we  do 
not  know  but  that  some  City  Council 
under  this  provision  might  not  come  in 
and  confirm  those  leases,  though  the 
leases  might  be  fraudulent — I don’t 
mean  the  leases,  I mean  striking  out  the 
revaluation  clause.  We  do  not  know 
but  what  a combination  of  the  board 
and  a future  council,  which  may  not  be 
an  honest  council,  might  strike  out  the 
revaluation  of  one  or  the  other  clause 
without  adequate  consideration.  I do 
not  pretend  to  say — you  lawyers  know 
much  better  than  I — whether  if  that 
were  done  the  courts  might  say,  “Well, 
the  City  Council  is  a governmental  body 
and  we  cannot  undertake  to  review  their 


December  28 


827 


1906 


action."  But  whether  the  courts  could 
say  that  or  would  say  that  or  not,  the 
lessees  could  raise  that  point  and  put 
one  more  obstacle  in  the  way.  I sub- 
mit this,  Mr.  President,  and  gentlemen 
of  this  convention,  that  you  had  better 
leave  this  question  of  the  making  of  the 
leases  to  the  trustees  as  it  now  stands, 
until  you  can  make  a little  better  in- 
vestigation along  the  lines  I have  in- 
dicated. 

On  the  question  of  the  advisability  of 
limiting  the  right  of  the  board  to  five- 
year  leases,  that  is  absurd,  gentlemen; 
no  business  can  be  done  at  all  on  the 
basis  of  five-year  leases.  What  we  need 
to-day  is  to  be  put  in  a position  to  know 
we  are  in  that  position,  the  board  is  in 
that  position,  to  make  proper  leases  for 
a sufficiently  long  period  of  time,  with 
proper  renewals  and  adjustment  of  the 
rents,  under  eireumstances  that  will  in- 
duce the  proper  improvement  of  the 
property,  and  the  maintenance  of  those 
improvements  during  the  period  of  the 
lease,  and  the  turning  over  of  those  im- 
provements to  the  school  board  at  the 
end  of  that  period  of  time. 

If  you  will  indulge  me  for  one  mo- 
ment more,  I think  it  is  proper  to  state 
here  that  I am  not  one  of  those  who  be- 
lieve these  leases  as  they  exist  now  are 
good  leases,  either  for  the  tenants  or 
for  the  Board  of  Education  or  for  the 
City  of  Chicago;  but  the  reason,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  they  are  not  good  leases 
is  not  the  reason  that  the  tenants  con- 
stantly insist  upon.  They  say  you  can- 
not build,  you  cannot  finance  a building 
or  any  building  if  you  have  revaluation 
at  frequent  intervals,  or  revaluation  at 
all,  for  that  matter.  I do  not  believe 
that  is  true.  The  experience  of  several 
estates  in  New  York,  the  Sailors'  Snug 
Harbor,  which  has  been  under  opera- 
tion for  a hundred  years,  gives  proof 
that  it  is  not  true.  I do  not  believe 
this  new  method  of  appraisement  re- 
quired by  these  leases  as*  interpreted 
by  the  courts  makes  it  possible  to  prop- 


erly improve  the  property,  that  any  at- 
tempt to  improve  it  is  likely  to  result  in 
confiscation  of  the  improvements.  I 
think  that  is  very  likely  true,  but  the 
reason  is  this,  that  under  the  present 
method  of  appraisement  provided  in 
these  leases,  improvidently  provided,  it 
seems  to  me,  the  appraisers  under  the 
leases  must  ascertain  the  selling  value 
of  the  property.  What  would  one  man 
wanting  to  buy,  and  another  man  want- 
ing to  sell,  but  neither  one  obliged  either 
to  buy  or  sell,  upon  what  terms  would 
they  come  to?  That  is  what  indicates 
the  market  price.  That  the  appraisers 
must  state,  and  having  ascertained  the 
market  price,  they  must  multiply  it  by 
six  per  cent  in  order  to  obtain  the  rental 
that  must  be  paid  for  the  next  ten 
years.  Now,  you  gentlemen  all  know 
in  a growing  city  such  as  Chicago  has 
been  for  sixty  years,  and  will  be  for 
many  years  to  come,  that  in  a growing 
city,  if  you  take  the  value  of  land  upon 
that  basis,  you  will  have  an  element  of 
speculation  in  the  value,  a speculative 
element  enters  into  it.  To  illustrate,  let 
us  suppose  a piece  of  land  will  earn  in 
ground  rent,  when  properly  improved, 
say  one  hundred  dollars  a year;  on  a 
twenty-year  lease,  which  is  the  ordinary 
estimate,  that  land  would  really  be 
worth  two  thousand  dollars;  that  is, 
five  per  cent  of  the  valuation,  usually 
accepted.  Here  you  have,  if  I rent  you 
for  twenty  years,  a rental  of  two  thou- 
sand dollars  for  the  land.  Now,  in  a 
city  like  this  that  is  growing,  you  would 
say  that  in  three  years  that  property 
would  be  worth  more  than  two  thousand 
dollars,  a great  deal,  that  in  a few 
years  it  will  earn  more  rent  than  that, 
more  than  one  hundred  dollars  a year, 
I won't  sell  that  for  two  thousand  dol- 
lars; I propose  to  hold  it,  and  it  will 
get  more  valuable.  Now,  that  makes 
the  market. 

To  illustrate  a point  here,  let  us  sup- 
pose that  the  rent  was  one  hundred  dol- 
lars, that  the  ground  was  capable  of 


December  28 


828 


1906 


earning  that,  and,  therefore,  worth  two 
thousand  dollars  on  a sale,  which  in  con- 
sequence of  the  speculative  element  was 
worth  three  thousand  dollars  on  a sale, 
at  any  rate,  one  hundred  dollars  a year 
is  the  rental  of  it,  and  you  think  it 
should  sell  for  three  thousand  dollars; 
those  appraisers  under  the  leases  must 
estimate  that  is  the  value  of  it,  you 
see,  three  thousand  dollars,  and  they 
must  multiply  that  by  six  per  cent.,  and 
they  get  a hundred  and  eighty  dollars 
a year  as  rental.  Under  those  circum- 
stances in  ten  years,  the  tenant  knows, 
the  same  thing  may  be  done  again;  for 
those  ten  years  it  can  only  earn  one  hun- 
dred dollars  a year  rent,  but  he  pays  a 
hundred  and  eighty  dollars  on  the  ba- 
sis of  the  new  valuation,  and  that  makes 
it  impossible  for  the  board  to  build  un- 
der those  circumstances;  and  that  is  one 
thing  that  gives  plausibility  to  the  argu- 
ment of  tenants,  that  you  cannot  finance 
buildings  on  this  revaluation.  But  if 
you  will  look  at  this  property,  and  at  its 
earning  power  as  ground  rent,  no  such 
objection  should  arise.  For  instance, 
you  get  a lease  from  the  school  board 
for  twenty  years  or  twenty-one  years 
on  a reasonable  rental  during  that  pe- 
riod; that  assumes  that  you  will  main- 
tain repairs  throughout  that  term,  the 
lease  contains  covenants  to  that  effect, 
and  assuming  that  the  covenants  of  the 
lease  are  observed  during  that  period, 
then  the  board  is  not  held — if  the  board 
is  not  held  up  in  any  wray,  why  at  the 
end  of  that  time  it  should  renew  the 
lease  upon  a revaluation  of  the  earn- 
ing power  as  ground  rent  for  another 
twenty-one  years,  and  then  after  that 
time,  after  another  term,  under  simi- 
lar circumstances,  that  the  whole  prop- 
erty should  come  to  the  board,  improve- 
ments and  all,  why,  under  those  condi- 
tions it  would  be  possible  to  get  tenants 
to  improve  the  property;  that  would 
benefit  the  board,  it  would  benefit  the 
tenants  and  it  would  benefit  the  city. 
And  that  is  no  dream  of  mine.  The 


same  thing  has  been  done  in  other 
places,  namely,  in  the  estate  which  I 
mentioned  in  New  York,  the  Sailors’ 
Snug  Harbor,  there  in  New  York  for 
one  hundred  years.  The  way  that  came 
about  was  this:  An  old  sea  captain 

invested  a small  amount  of  money  in  a 
farm,  and  he  willed  it  for  the  purpose 
of  establishing  a home  for  sailors,  the 
Sailors’  Snug  Harbor,  as  it  is  called,  a 
place  where  old  sailors  could  retire  and 
spend  the  balance  of  their  days  in  com- 
fort. That  estate  takes  in  the  corner  of 
Tenth  street  and  Broadway,  that  it 
is  operated  along  those  lines,  ground 
rent  for  the  premises  is  valued  substan- 
tially as  I have  said;  twenty-one  years, 
revaluation,  maintainance  of  improve- 
ments of  the  first-class  with  covenants 
to  be  observed;  a new  lease  after  twen- 
ty-one years  if  the  covenants  are  ob- 
served, and  after  that  a new  one  for 
twenty-one  years,  and  then  all  the  prop- 
erty, improvements  and  all  goes  back 
into  the  estate.  That  has  been  done  for 
more  than  one  hundred  years  in  that 
estate,  and  has  been  done  successful- 
ly. And  we  can  do  it  here  if  we  change 
our  method  of  revaluation. 

The  answer  is  made  that  Chicago  is 
not  New  York.  In  other  words,  Chi- 
cago cannot  do  what  New  York  can 
do.  Well,  this  is  .the  first  instance  of 
which  I have  ever  heard  where  Chica- 
goans assume  that  they  cannot  do  any- 
thing that  is  done  in  New  York  or  any- 
where else.  Now,  the  experience  in 
New  York  shows  that  it  can  be  done. 
It  shows  that  you  can  put  up  first-class 
buildings  under  those  conditions,  as  has 
been  done  on  the  corner  of  Tenth  street 
and  Broadway.  A.  T.  Stewart  put  up 
one  of  the  best  buildings  ever  built  in 
this  way  on  one  of  these  short  leases 
with  revaluation;  and  Wanamaker,  the 
Wanamaker  Company  is  putting  up  a 
first-class  modern  building  under  simi- 
lar circumstances. 

My  purpose  is  to  draw  your  attention 
to  the  general  situation  with  regard  to 


December  28 


829 


190(3 


these  lands  and  ask  you  not  improvi- 
dently  to  deliberately  make  a change  in 
the  law  and  leave  this  power  of  rental 
in  trust  with  the  trustees  who  hold  it 
now  and  who  can  be  held  accountable 
anywhere  by  a court  of  equity  if  they 
do  not  properly  administer  their  trust. 
Do  not  let  us  take  any  chances  here  by 
seeming  to  throw  greater  safeguards 
around  the  situation  really  to  take  safe- 
guards away.  For  that  reason  I oppose 
this  amendment. 

MB.  WHITE:  May  I ask,  if  this 

were  passed,  if  the  school  board  should 
make  a certain  lease  for  a certain  period 
and  it  was  submitted  to  the  City  Coun- 
cil for  concurrence  and  the  City  Coun- 
cil refused  to  concur,  what  would'  be 
the  situation,  and  what  would  the  prob- 
able ordinary  legal  procedure  be? 
Would  the  City  Council  have  any  power 
under  this  to  modify  a submitted  lease, 
or  would  it  go  back  to  the  school  board 
to  make  another  lease?  What  is  the  or- 
dinary practice  in  those  cases? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I desire  to 

say  a few  words  upon  the  report  of  the 
committee.  A few  days  ago  when  this 
matter  was  under  consideration  by  this 
•Convention  and  this  particular  item  was 
reached,  it  was  suggested  that  a provi- 
sion contained  in  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Education  upon  this  subject 
was  not  quite  clear  enough  upon  the 
point  as  to  whether  or  not  the  City 
Council  would  be  required  to  concur  in 
the  recommendation  of  the  Board  of 
Education  with  reference  to  a lease  for 
a longer  period  of  time  than  five  years, 
and  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General 
Plan.  This  matter  was  considered  by 
the  committee  and  by  four  or  five  dis- 
tinguished lawyers,  members  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  the  result  is  the  recommen- 
dation as  read  by  the  Secretary;  the  pur- 
pose of  that  recommendation  is  to  safe- 
guard the  school  property.  That  is  as- 
suming that  if  the  Board  of  Education 
made  a recommendation  with  reference 


to  the  leasing  of  property  for  a period 
longer  than  five  years,  that  it  be  re- 
quired to  have  the  concurrence  of  the 
City  Council. 

Now,  a great  deal  has  been  said  by  my 
friend,  Mr.  Post,  about  the  system  of 
leasing  the  property  for  a long  term  of 
years.  This  proposition  has  nothing  to 
do  with  that,  except  that  if  the  lease  is 
made  for  a longer  period  than  five  years 
it  requires  the  concurrence  of  the  City 
Council.  Now,  I may  be  unfortunate  in 
not  having  been  endowed  with  such  a 
vivid  imagination  as  my  friend,  Mr. 
Post,  but  I cannot  conceive  how  in  heav- 
en ’s  name  a great  fraud  can  be  perpe- 
trated when  the  Board  of  Education  ne- 
gotiates a lease,  and  before  that  lease 
can  be  executed  the  City  Council  is  re- 
quired to  concur  in  the  terms  of  the 
lease. 

I am  one  of  those  who  believe  that 
there  are  some  honest  men  and  honest 
representatives  of  the  people  in  our  pub- 
lic bodies.  I do  not  believe  that  the 
Board  of  Education  is  a corrupt  board, 
or  ever  will  be  a corrupt  board;  and  I 
do  not  believe  the  City  Council  ever  will 
be  a corrupt  City  Council.  I think  it  is 
safe,  quite  safe,  for  the  people  to  trust 
such  matters  in  the  hands  of  these  pub- 
lic officials,  when  they  are  safeguarded 
as  they  are  by  the  provision  of  this 
resolution  or  substitute. 

Now,  as  to  whether  or  not  the  lease 
should  be  negotiated  for  more  than  five 
years,  ten  years,  or  twenty  years,  is  a 
matter  that  can  be  determined  from 
time  to  time  as  these  matters  come  be- 
fore the  Board  of  Education  and  the 
City  Council.  Perhaps  there  is  some 
force  in  what  Mr.  Post  says  that  it  is 
impossible  to  lease  property  for  a period 
of  five  years  to  the  advantage  of  the 
city.  I agree  with  him  on  that  proposi- 
tion, but  whenever  such  a lease  is  nego- 
tiated for  a longer  period  of  time,  it 
should  require  the  consent  of  the  City 
Council,  as  the  Board  of  Education  will 
be  a department  of  the  city. 


December  28 


830 


1906 


I cannot  find  that  there  is  in  this 
proposition,  lurking  in  every  word,  the 
demon  of  corruption.  If  it  is  true  that 
it  is  somewhere  embodied  in  its  words,  I 
certainly  have  not  the  talent  to  conceive 
as  to  where  it  is.  The  whole  purpose  of 
all  of  the  amendments  on  this  matter 
from  the  first,  and  the  lawyers  who 
framed  this  provision,  was  to  protect  the 
property  of  the  city  and  of  the  school 
boards. 

MU.  HOYNE:  Having  had  a little 

experience  with  ninety-nine-year  leases, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I want  to  say  that  to  a 
certain  extent  I agree  with  Mr.  Post, 
for  which  I am  glad.  It  pleases  me  to 
be  able  to  agree  with  my  friend.  He 
is  absolutely  correct  when  he  says  a 
lease  cannot  be  made  to.  advantage 
either  to  the  owner  or  the  tenant,  at  a 
five-year  revaluation,  or  a ten-year  re- 
valuation. 

You  take  the  leases  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  with  the  revaluation  clauses, 
and  you  will  find  in  every  instance 
when  the  date  arrives  for  the  revalua- 
tion of  that  piece  of  property  it  is  a case 
of  court  procedure.  It  means  the  bring- 
ing of  a number  of  experts  before  the 
court  and  having  them  testify  as  to  the 
value  of  that  property  at  the  time  the 
revaluation  is  to  be  made.  That  has 
been  the  history  of  every  revaluation 
lease  in  the  history  of  Chicago.  I my- 
self have  testified  in  court  in  two  in- 
stances where  the  valuation  of  the  lease 
practically  had  been  left,  after  the  ex- 
perts on  both  sides  had  testified,  to  the 
court.  Where  on  one  side  they  come  in 
with  an  expert,  so  called,  to  give  testi- 
mony of  the  lowest  possible  value  and 
on  the  other  side  they  bring  in  experts 
to  give  testimony  as  to  the  highest  pos- 
sible value,  and  practically  it  is  left 
to  the  court  to  decide  what  is  the  value 
of  that  piece  of  property. 

Now,  I tell  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  a 
lease  cannot  be  made  with  any  fairness 
either  to  the  tenant  or  owner  with  a 
revaluation  clause  in  it;  and  I tell  you 


furthermore  that  in  the  past  few  years 
everyone  who  makes  a lease  gives  a 
ninety-nine-year  lease  without  any  re- 
valuation clause  in  it;  you  cannot  do  it, 
and  I am  opposed  to  it. 

I am  surprised  that  a committee  of 
business  men  will  come  in  here  talking 
about  a revaluation  clause  of  five  years. 
Why,  Mr.  Eckhart,  you  know  that  is 
impossible  and  that  it  will  simply  lead 
to  a matter  of  confusion. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Will  you  per- 
mit me  to  answer  your  question  in  reply 
to  that?  This  does  not  establish  the 
policy,  as  I understand  it,  at  all,  as  to 
what  the  school  board  shall  do,  except 
where  they  make  a lease  for  a longer 
period  than  five  years;  then  it  shall  re- 
quire the  concurrence  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

MR.  HOYNE:  Why  do  you  mention 

five  years?  Why  don’t  you  make  it 
twenty  years?  Why  five? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : It  is  to  safe- 

guard the  property  of  the  city  so  that 
an  unfavorable  lease  cannot  be  made 
without  giving  it  that  publicity  which 
a safeguard  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  carries  with  it. 

MR.  COLE : Mr.  Chairman,  I desire 

to  make  an  inquiry.  I understand  that 
under  this  lease  the  initiative  is  entirely 
with  the  Board  of  Education.  Simply, 
they  cannot  make  any  lease  whatever 
except  a little  temporary  lease  of  a barn 
or  something  of  that  sort,  without  the 
concurrence  of  the  City  Ciuneil. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  correct  the  suggestions  which 
have  been  made  here,  and  the  sugges- 
tions just  made  by  Mr.  Cole.  It  is  a 
misapprehension  as  to  this  clause.  It  does 
not  contain  a revaluation  at  all,  it  does 
not  refer  to  the  present  terms,  or  the 
terms  of  any  lease.  Mr.  Post  has  taken 
up  a lot  of  time  here  criticising  the 
present  form  of  the  lease  now  used  by 
the  school  board.  We  have  nothing  to 
do  with  that.  The  only  thing  I can 
suggest  is,  that  if  you  do  not  like  it. 


December  28 


831 


1906 


tear  it  up  and  throw  it  in  the  waste 
basket  and  get  a new~  one.  This  is  simply 
placed  in  the  hands  of  the  City  Council 
as  a matter  of  obtaining  publicity  and 
of  public  safeguard,  first  to  concur,  if 
it  is  satisfactory  and  right;  second,  if 
it  is  not  to  veto  it,  and  let  the  initiative 
always  remain  in  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion to  transact  its  own  business,  sub- 
ject to  that  right  of  the  City  Council 
when  the  lease  is  over  five  years. 

ME.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I start- 

ed first  to  say  in  answer  to  Mr.  Hoyne ’s 
suggestion  that  there  are  certain  small 
pieces  of  property  which  today  the  school 
board  does  lease  or  rent  for  a limited 
number  of  years.  I do  not  know,  how- 
ever, that  that  applies  altogether  to  real 
estate,  but  we  have  a few  instances  where 
we  do  lease  from  year  to  year  and  a 
few  leases  from  month  to  month. 

This  looks  good  on  the  face  of  it; 
it  sounds  all  right,  and  I thought  I 
was  in  favor  of  it,  and  I am  not  sure 
yet  that  I am  not.  If  it  gives  to  the 
City  Council  absolutely  no  power  more 
than  that  of  concurrence  or  non-concur- 
rence, and  in  the  case  of  non-concur- 
rence the  whole  matter  to  go  back  to 
the  school  board  for  such  revision  as 
shall  meet  with  the  approval  of  the  City 
Council,  that  of  course  is  one  thing. 
But,  if  that  is  all  it  means,  I want  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  gentlemen  of 
the  Convention  to  some  of  the  difficul- 
ties in  making  leases  anyhow  on  the  part 
of  the  school  board. 

The  usual  procedure  is  like  this: 
Wherever  it  comes  direct  to  the  school 
board,  as  under  a recent  decision  it  has 
come  back  to  the  school  board,  to  try 
at  least  to  settle  with  the  lessee,  this 
must  be  taken  up  first  with  the  Build- 
ings and  Grounds  Committee,  consisting 
of  eleven  members,  and  every  man  hav- 
ing a different  idea  as  to  how  it  ought 
to  be  done  and  perfectly  honest  in  his 
idea.  The  question  must  be  thrashed 
out  there  until  you  have  got  the  con- 
currence of  the  majority  of  that  com- 


mittee. Then  you  submit  your  findings 
to  the  lessees  and  they  consider  it  a 
while  and  see  what  they  will  do,  and 
then  come  back  again  and  then  it  goes 
back  again,  and  finally  if  you  ever  ar- 
rive at  anything  like  a unanimity  of 
opinion  on  the  part,  of  a majority  of 
the  Buildings  and  Grounds  Committee, 
and  the  lessee  should  accept  the  propo- 
sition, then  it  must  go  to  the  board  with 
a small  majority  ready  to  fight  it  out 
on  the  board  and  with  the  probability 
that  some  one  will  have  a hundred  and 
one  amendments  and  changes  to  make 
there,  so  that  by  the  time  you  have  got- 
ten it  through  the  Board  of  Education 
under  those  circumstances  you  have  spent 
a whole  lot  of  time. 

And  then  if  the  board  should  finally 
agree,  by  any  miracle,  if  it  should  agree 
upon  something  and  the  lessee  should  ac- 
cept it,  then  it  goes  to  the  City  Council, 
and  if  there  was  any  reason  in  the  world 
why  a certain  section  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil should  hold  that  up  or  make  trouble 
for  it,  you  would  be  up  against  an- 
other complication. 

Now,  then,  whether  the  safeguard  that 
this  proposition  wdll  throw  around  the 
public  property  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
is  worth  while  adding  to  the  complica- 
tion of  the  now  already  overcomplicated 
situation  in  regard  to  the  making  of 
leases,  I am  not  sure.  In  view  of  what 
I know  as  a matter  of  experience,  and 
the  time  I have  spent  personally  on 
the  Board  of  Education  on  this  matter 
of  leases,  I am  inclined  to  think  that 
it  will  be  wise,  for  the  sake  of  sim- 
plifying the  matter,  to  leave  it  entirely 
with  the  board. 

My  second  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  is 
this:  That  you  want  to  simplify  the 

whole  matter  of  placing  responsibility, 
so  far  as  you  can.  If  you  leave  this 
whole  matter  in  the  hands  of  the  board 
of  trustees  of  education,  or  whatever 
you  may  call  tluyn,  then  if  that  board 
of  trustees  make  bad  leases,  enter  into 
bad  bargains,  the  people  of  the  City  of 


December  28 


832 


1906 


Chicago  know  just  exactly  where  the  re- 
sponsibility rests,  upon  the  exact  coterie 
of  citizens  who  have  made  bad  leases. 
But  if  you  divide  that  responsibility  with 
a still  larger  body,  the  City  Council,  I 
am  inclined  to  think  that  you  will  de- 
centralize the  responsibility  and  scatter 
it  to  such  an  extent  that  in  the  confu- 
sion no  one  will  be  able  to  place  the  re- 
sponsibility. 

So,  everything  considered,  gentlemen, 
I am  inclined  to  think  that  the  resolu- 
tion ought  to  be  voted  down  and?  that 
the  matter  of  making  leases  ought  to  be 
left  just  where  it  is  now,  in  the  hands 
of  the  Board  of  Education,  and  hold 
them  responsible  for  results. 

MB.  GKEENACRE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  opposed  to  this  resolution  for  two 
reasons,  one  legal  and  the  other  a matter 
of  policy.  The  Board  of  Education  as 
it  is,  and  as  I apprehend  it  will  be,  is 
what  is  called  a quasi  body.  Sometimes 
the  court  holds  it  is  a corporation;  some- 
times the  court  holds  it  is  not.  At  all 
events  it  is  subject  to  the  court,  and 
that  is  a great  thing.  The  trustees  are 
not  only  so  in  name,  but  they  are  so 
in  fact  and  in  law,  and  subject  to  the 
revision  of  the  court  to  an  extent  that 
the  court  will  not  revise  or  look  into 
the  acts  of  the  City  Council. 

The  City  Council  is  elected  by  the 
people;  a vote  of  the  City  Council  is 
a vote  of  the  people,  over  which  there 
can  be  no  higher  power.  That  might  be 
an  argument  in  favor  of  it,  but  let  us 
see  how  that  applies;  come  to  the  second 
proposition,  is  it  policy? 

As  Dr.  White  says,  it  is  a division  of 
responsibility;  too  many  cooks  spoil  the 
broth.  This  is  what  will  happen  if  you 
adopt  it.  The  Committee  on  Buildings 
and  Grounds,  composed  of  eleven,  more 
or  less,  and  a president,  they  will  shirk 
the  responsibility  and  say,  “Well,  that 
is  not  our  matter;  we  are  not  responsible 
for  it.  Let  the  council  take  a whack 
at  it.  Let  us  not  waste  our  time  on 
this  thing.  We  are  not  responsible.  In 


fact,  we  do  not  have  the  last  say  on  it, 
and  it  does  not  make  any  difference  to 
us.  Let  us  get  through  with  it  and  get 
home,  or  let  us  get  out  to  luncheon,  and 
not  worry  about  this.  We  are  not  going 
to  be  held  responsible  for  it.” 

Now,  then,  it  comes  to  the  City  Coun- 
cil, arid  that  is  a large  body.  If  there 
is  any  place  you  can  sneak  a nefarious 
trick  through  or  get  through  some  scheme 
that  is  wrong,  it  is  in  a large  body, 
however  many  or  all  of  the  members  are 
honest.  Anybody  that  wants  to  get  any- 
thing through  a large  body  knows  that 
it  is  pretty  easy.  Al'dermanic  influence 
will  perhaps  prevent  somebody  else  from 
interfering.  ‘ 1 Oh,  that  is  So-and-so ’s 
ward,  ’ ’ and  it  goes  through  perhaps  in 
the  omnibus,  or  almost  in  the  omnibus, 
and  the  City  Council  members  say,  “We 
do  not  need  to  bother  about  this.  This 
is  So-and-so’s  ward,  and  the  Buildings 
and  Grounds  Committee  of  the  Board  of 
Education  looked  into  it  very  carefully, 
and  we  do  not  need  to  bother  about  it.” 
And  between  the  looking  into  it  in  both 
places  it  won’t  get  looked  into  in  any 
place,  it  will  slip  through  just  as  nice 
as  can  be,  and  that  is  bad  policy. 

Now,  when  it  has  slipped  through  the 
council  then  the  man  has  got  what  he 
wants;  he  has  got  it  securely;  he  has  it 
in  the  same  shape  as  if  it  had  been 
submitted  to  a vote  of  the  people,  and 
no  court  can  supervise  or  overlook  it. 

In  other  words,  I am  in  favor  of 
having  the  leases  made  by  an  agent  who 
is  responsible  for  what  he  does  to  his 
principals,  the  people,  and  an  agent  who 
is  liable  to  criticism  and  review  and  the 
overturning  of  his  work  by  a court  which 
also  represents  the  people.  I would 
sooner  have  the  work  done  by  a trustee 
whose  acts  are,  if  you  please,  revisable 
by  the  court  if  wrong,  when  discovered, 
than  to  have  it  slip  through  a big  body 
that  is  responsible  to  nobody,  because 
they  represent  everybody ’s  business  and 
anybody’s  business  and  they  assume  some- 
body else  has  taken  care  of  it.  Then 


December  28 


833 


1906 


when  it  has  slipped  through  and  it  is 
in  such  a position  that  no  court  can 
open  it,  the  man  has  gotten  what  he 
wanted  to  get  and  what  is  beyond  per- 
adventure  for  any  court  to  interfere 
with,  and  that  is  why  I think  the  res- 
olution ought  not  to  go  through,  and  as 
I understand  Mr.  Cole ’s  motion  it  is  to 
strike  out  the  last  part. 

MR.  DEVER : Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

like  to  ask  one  question  in  connection 
with  this  matter.  It  seems  to  me  the 
whole  discussion  arose  from  the  fact 
that  in  times  past  there  have  been  some 
abuses  in  connection  with  Ihe  making  of 
leases,  and  if  that  is  true,  it  seems  to 
me  that  the  abuses  grew  up  under  the 
trustee  system,  so  called.  I do  not  know 
how  you  can  cure  that  abuse  by  main- 
taining the  same  system. 

MR.  POST:  Will  Alderman  Dever  al- 

low me  to  answer  that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

•MR.  POST : The  point  I tried  to 

make  myself,  and  Mr.  Shepard  misun- 
derstood me,  I didn ’t  make  it  clear 
enough,  Mr.  Greenacre  has  just  made. 
That  is,  that  abuses  of  the  kind  you 
speak  of  by  trustees  are  subject  to  in- 
quiry by  a court  of  equity,  and  it  may 
be  a very  serious  question  as  to  whether 
you  can  make  such  an  inquiry  if  the 
City  Council  frames  the  act. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready — 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I just  wanted  to 

ask  a question  of  Mr.  Post,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. As  it  has  been  argued  it  has  been 
made  perfectly  clear  to  me  that  the  gen- 
tlemen are  mistaken.  They  have  made 
an  error.  The  present  Board  of  Educa- 
tion is  an  agent  of  the  State  of  Illinois 
in  school  matters;  its  acts  are  review- 
able  by  the  State  of  Illinois.  In  our 
law  the  Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
is  likewise  an  agent  of  the  State  of 
Illinois  in  school  matters.  That  is  a com- 
plete answer,  to  my  mind. 

MR.  POST:  May  I ask  Mr.  Shepard 

a question  ? 


MR.  SHEPARD : Certainly. 

MR.  POST : Supposing  this  propo- 

sition came  to  law  and  that  an  act  was 
done  by  the  school  board,  and  it  was 
done  as  an  act  of  the  trustees,  free 
from  any  intimidation  and  so  on.  Sup- 
posing it  should  be  proved  against  the 
trustees,  and  supposing  it  could  not  be 
proved  against  the  City  Council,  would 
it  have  any  effect? 

MR.  SHEPARD : You  cannot  prove 

men  guilty  of  fraud;  you  cannot  find  a 
man  guilty  of  fraud  on  the  acts  of  a 
council.  They  would  be  reviewrable  for 
the  same  reason  and  by  the  same  board 
as  the  acts  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. 

MR.  POST : That  is  not  the  question. 

Suppose  the  council  acted  in  good  faith 
and  the  board  did  not  act  in  good  faith. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  rules  of  this 

Convention  cannot  be  assailed. 

MR.  POST : I want  a roll  call. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I think  it  might  be 

well  and  for  the  benefit  of  this  Con- 
vention if  I were  to  state  what  my  ex- 
perience was  as  a member  of  the  board — 
as  a school  trustee  on  the  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation. Before  the  board  buys  a piece 
of  property  they  must  refer  it  to  the 
City  Council  for  confirmation,  and  if  the 
City  Council  refuses  to  purchase  the  site 
for  a school,  another  site  can  be  pur- 
chased by  the  Board  of  Education.  The 
practice  and  the  experience  in  the  past 
has  been  on  the  part  of  the  members 
of  the  school  board  that  that  method 
does  not  make  for  the  benefit  of  the  cit- 
izens of  Chicago,  but  to  their  loss;  not 
only  that  the  people  are  not  benefited 
by  it,  but  they  are  losing  not  only  money, 
but  they  are  losing  time.  It  was  my 
experience  in  regard  to  a site  on  the 
South  Side  that  property  was  selected  and 
approved  by  the  superintendent  of 
schools,  by  the  teachers  and  everybody 
else,  and  the  same  site  was  selected  and 
approved  by  the  board.  The  whole  thing 
was  referred  to  the  City  Council.  I re- 
signed in  the  meantime  from  the  Board 


December  28 


834 


1906 


of  Education,  expecting  that  the  site 
would  be  obtained  and  a school  built  in 
less  than  no  time.  I was  out  of  the 
board  for  a year  and  a half  and  then 
I heard  that  some  other  site  was  se- 
lected that  one  of  the  aldermen  was 
interested  in.  I do  not  know  that  it 
was  any  worse  site  than  the  other,  and 
probably  the  price  was  about  the  same. 
I don’t  wish  to  criticise  that.  But  the 
site  selected  by  the  board  was  not  bought, 
although  it  was  on  a corner  and  the 
other  was  inside  property.  I claim,  if  you 
leave  it  to  the  board  you  can  hold  it  re- 
sponsible and  leave  it  in  their  hands 
and  it  will  work  for  the  benefit  of  the 
citizens;  and  the  responsibility,  as  Dr. 
White  said,  will  rest  on  one  body  and 
you  can  then  make  them  responsible. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  the  Secretary 
call  the  roll  on  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Eek- 
hart’s  motion  to  adopt  the  report  of  the 
committee. 

MR.  POST:  There  is  an  amendment, 

which  is  to  strike  out  a part  of  it.  I 
have  no  objection  to  the  re-enacting  of 
the  substance. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary  will 
read  the  amendment  and  the  vote  will  be 
taken  on  that  amendment.  The  amend- 
ment is  to  strike  out  all  after:  “the  use 
of  schools 1 ’,  in  the  seventh  line,  and 
reads  as  follows : 1 1 But  no  real  estate 

shall  be  leased  by  said  board  ’ ’,  etc.  Mr. 
Post  moves  to  strike  out  the  words  he 
has  indicated  out  of  that  motion,  and 
the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beilfuss,  Crilly,  Dever,  Green- 
acre,  Hoyne,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  Mc- 
Goorty,  Owens,  Post,  Rainey,  Rosenthal, 
Swift,  Vopicka,  White — 15. 

Nays — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Carey,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Erickson,  Hill,  Hunter,  MacMillan, 
McKinley,  O’Donnell,  Raymer,  Shanahan, 
Shepard,  Taylor,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 23. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  DEVER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  change  my  vote  from  no  to  aye. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Dever 

changes  his  vote  from  no  to  aye. 

THE  SECRETARY : Dever  votes  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Post’s 

motion  to  strike  out  everything  after  the 
word  “school”,  the  yeas  are  15  and  the 
noes  23,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  re- 

curs upon  the  original  report.  As  many 
as  favor  its  adoption  say  aye,  opposed, 
no.  Carried. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  is 

there — this  matter  is  finished,  is  it  not? 

MR.  POST:  Is  this  a matter  of  edu- 

cation, I would  like  to  ask,  Mr.  O’Don- 
nell? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  No,  it  is  not. 

MR,  POST:  Then,  Mr.  O’Donnell, 

will  you  yield  to  me  before  we  pass  from 
this  subject? 

MR,  O’DONNELL:  Certainly. 

MR.  POST:  This  is  a matter  of  ed- 

ucation, and  that  is  why  I asked  Mr. 
O’Donnell  to  yield  to  me.  I understood 
we  were  practically  through  with  it.  1 
wish  to  offer  the  following  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  resolution 

will  be  received. 

The  next  matter  before  the  house  will 
be  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Rosenthal  upon 
the  subject  of  education — 

MR,  POST : I would  like  to  have  some 
arrangement  with  you  for  the — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  resolu- 

tion be  read. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as 
follows: 

By  Mr.  Post:  Whereas,  in  the  avowed 

interest  of  public  school  education  in 
Chicago,  the  Merchants’  Club  of  Chica- 
go, which  had  co-operated  by  invitation 
with  the  Education  Committee  of  this 
Convention  in  the  formulation  of  the  pro- 
posed chapter  on  education,  have  added 
to  their  service  in  that  behalf  by  bring- 
ing to  Chicago  the  distinguished  president 
of  Columbia  University,  of  New  York, 
Dr.  Nicholas  Murray  Butler,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  him  publicly  advise  the 
members  of  this  Convention  and  other 


December  28 


835 


1906 


officials  of  Chicago  on  the  subject  of 
public  school  education  in  Chicago; 

And,  whereas,  the  said  Dr.  Butler  ac- 
cordingly did  so  advise,  in  a speech  at 
a banquet  given  for  that  purpose  by  the 
Merchants’  Club  of  Chicago  to  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  and  other  invited 
guests  at  the  Auditorium,  on  the  8th  of 
December,  1906,  as  appears  by  the  offi- 
cial report  of  the  speeches  at  said  ban- 
quet, copies  of  which  have  been  distrib- 
uted by  the  said  Merchants’  Club  to 
members  of  this  Convention,  such  advice 
of  the  said  Dr.  Butler  being  in  one  re- 
spect as  follows: 

“If  I were  a member  of  your  school 
board  I would  do  my  best  to  adopt  a by- 
law that  would  remove  from  the  service 
of  the  schools  at  once  any  teacher  who 
affiliated  herself  with  a labor  organiza- 
tion. (Loud  applause.)  If  I were  a 
member  of  your  Charter  Convention  I 
would  have  a vote  and  a roll  call  on 
that  proposition  in  the  Charter  Conven- 
tion. (Applause.)”; 

And,  whereas,  a large  number  of  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  were  present  by 
invitation  at  the  delivery  by  Dr.  Butler 
of  his  said  speech,  and  a considerable 
majority  of  them  expressed  their  ap- 
proval thereof  at  the  time,  and  especially 
of  the  foregoing  quotation  therefrom,  by 
joining  in  the  applause;  and  whereas  the 
advice  of  Dr.  Butler  in  his  said  speech 
has  in  several  respects  been  followed  by 
this  Convention,  but  by  evident  over- 
sight the  members  who  approve  of  Dr. 
Butler’s  recommendations  as  to  the  af- 
filiation of  teachers  with  labor  organiza- 
tions have  neglected  to  bring  the  same 
to  the  attention  of  the  Convention  for 
its  action ; 

Therefore,  be  it  Resolved,  That  the 
adoption  of  Section  10  (see  page  727  of 
Proceedings)  be  reconsidered  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  enabling  the  Convention  to 
receive  and  act  upon  an  amendment 
thereof  by  roll  call,  said  amendment  to 
be  germane  to  the  proposition  outlined 


by  Dr.  Butler  in  that  part  of  his  afore- 
said speech,  which  is  quoted  above. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  (Rising  to 

speak  at  the  conclusion  of  the  words : 
“If  I were  a member  of  this  school 
board”.)  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  evident 
to  me  as  far  as  we  have  gone  along  in 
the  reading  of  this  resolution  that  this 
is  intended  as  a reflection  to  be  offered 
by  this  Convention,  or  by  some  member 
or  members  of  this  Convention,  to  Pres- 
ident Butler — 

MR.  POST:  I rise  to  a point  of  or- 

der. It  cannot  be  evident  to  any  mem- 
ber that  this  is  a reflection,  and  I in- 
sist it  is  not.  I am  making  that  as  a 
basis  for  a motion  which  is  at  the  end 
of  the  resolution- — which  is  in  the  reso- 
lution. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I do  not  under- 

stand that  a point  of  order  supersedes 
a point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  what  pur- 

pose does  Mr.  Rosenthal  rise? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  To  make  a point 

of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your 

point  of  order? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  This  resolution 

is  out  of  order.  It  is  evidently  intended 
as  an  insult  to  Dr.  Butler,  and  I,  as 
a member  of  this  Convention,  am  not 
going  to  sit  here  and  listen  to  a pro- 
ceeding of  this  sort,  which  is  marring 
the  order  and  dignity  of  this  Conven- 
tion as  it  has  been  conducted  up  to  the 
present  time.  I believe  that  the  Chair 
should  rule  on  this  before  this  thing  gets 
into  the  public  press  and  before  Mr. 
Post  has  an  opportunity  of  expressing 
his  personal  spite.  Mr.  Post  ought  to 
be  given  to  understand — 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman,  I believe 

that  is  an  imputation  that  I have  a right 
to  be  protected  against.  This  member  does 
not  know  what  is  in  that  resolution,  and 
I deny  that  there  is  any  reflection  on 
Mr.  Butler  in  it,  or  any  intention  to 
reflect  on  him. 


December  28 


836 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN : The  resolution 

will  be  read  and  if  the  Convention  de- 
sires it  will  be  placed  in  the  records; 
if  not,  it  will  not  be  placed  in  the  rec- 
ords. But  until  the  resolution  is  read, 
the  house  does  not  know  what  is  in  it. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Will  you  have  to 

begin  over  again1? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  continue  reading. 

(The  Secretary  continued  reading  the 
resolution  from  the  words  quoted  above.) 

MR.  POST:  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  that  resolution  for  the  purpose 
stated  in  the  resolution. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  as 

no  one  has  offered  any  proposed  amend- 
ment to  the  section  heretofore  adopted, 
which  Mr.  Post  now  moves  to  be  recon- 
sidered—until  some  one  offers  an  amend- 
ment on  that  proposition  that  will  lay 
a foundation  for  the  reconsideration  of 
this  section  heretofore  adopted,  I do  not 
think  it  would  be  advisable  to  reconsider 
it.  I think  this  is  out  of  order,  and  I 
therefore  move  you  that  the  communica- 
tion just  read  be  placed  on  the  table. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I submit 

that  I have  the  right  to  move  the  re- 
consideration. That  is  what  I am  doing; 
and  I am  making  it  for  the  sole  purpose 
expressed  there,  so  that  the  matter  shall 
not  all  be  gone  over  again. 

MR.  SHEPARD : I move  it  be  placed 

on  file. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  two 

separate  motions  before  the  house.  The 
present  matter  is  Mr.  Post ’s  preamble 
and  resolution;  if  that  is  placed  on  file, 
there  is  nothing  to  prevent  Mr.  Post 
then  moving  to  reconsider  any  section 
upon  which  he  voted  on  the  majority 
side.  The  question  will  be  upon  Mr. 
Shepard ’s  motion  to  place  the  resolution 
— the  preamble  and  resolution  on  file,  and 
upon  that — 

MR.  WHITE:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  —and  upon  that 

the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 


Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Ben- 
nett, Brosseau,  Brown,  Carey,  Crilly,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Erickson,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Kit- 
tleman,  Lathrop,  MacMillan,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  O ’Donnell,  Pendarvis,  Ray- 
mer,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shepard, 
Swift,  Taylor,  Yopicka,  White,  Wilkins, 
Zimmer — 32. 

Nays — Cole,  Dever,  Greenacre,  Owens, 

Post— 5. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish  to 

explain  my  vote.  I think  that  the  sub- 
stance of  Mr.  Post’s  resolution  is  per- 
fectly proper,  and  I do  not  see  any 
cause  for  reflection  upon  his  bringing  it 
up,  although  I would  vote  in  favor  of 
a proposition  that  no  teacher  should  be 
a member  of  the  Federation  of  Labor. 
I wish  to  say  that  I vote  no  because 
I would  like  to  go  on  record  as  one 
being  opposed  to  any  teacher  being  a 
member  of  the  Federation  of  Labor.  As 
opposed  to  it,  not  in  favor  of  it,  un- 
derstand, please.  I vote  no. 

MR.  DEYER:  What  is  the  motion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is  to 

place  the  resolution — the  preamble  and 
resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Post  on  file. 

MR.  DEVER:  No. 

MR.  RAYMER : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  it  is  a most  unfortunate  thing  that 
this  resolution  and  preamble  have  been 
presented  to  this  Convention.  I do  not 
believe  that  they  have  any  place  here 
whatsoever;  I vote  no — I vote  aye. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hoyne,  I 

hope  you  will  stay  here  a few  minutes 
to  complete  some  more  work  we  have 
got  here.  You  will  save  a good  many 
afternoons  if  you  stay  here  a little  later 
today. 

MR.  HOYNE:  I have  got  to  go  out, 

Mr.  Chairman,  but  I will  be  back  in  a 
few  minutes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

rise  to  explain  my  vote  of  aye.  It  seems 


.December  28 


837 


1906 


to  me  it  is  an  outrage  to  consume  the 
time  of  the  convention  in  order  to  allow 
Mr.  Post  to  express  his  personal  spite 
against  a distinguished  educator. 

MR.  POST : I rise  to  a point  of  order, 

Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal  is 

out  of  order. 

MR.  POST : The  gentleman  had  no 

right  to  make  that  reflection. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motives  of 

any  member  cannot  be  impugned  on  the 
floor.  Mr.  Rosenthal  can  explain  his  vote 
but  not  attack  any  other  member  on  the 
floor. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I am  simply 

stating  that  because  Mr.  Butler  is  not 
here  to  defend  himself. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Butler  is  not  at- 

tacked. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  we 

should  supplement  Mr.  Shepard’s  mo- 
tion by  another  motion  to  expunge — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal, 

you  can  explain  your  vote  on  this  propo- 
sition. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

explain  why  I am  voting  aye,  and  why 
I think  this  ought  to  be  supplemented 
by  a further  motion — 

MR.  POST:  To  a point  of  order,  l^Ir. 

Chairman. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  —To  expunge 

this  from  the  record. 

MR.  POST : To  a point  of  order, 

Mr.  Chairman.  He  is  not  in  order  at 
this  time. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I vote  aye. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

voting  I wish  to  repudiate  the  implica- 
tion that  any  body  of  citizens  had  any 
more  invitation  to  appear  before  this 
Public  Educational  Committee  than  any 
other  body.  The  club  named  came  be- 
fore that  committee  and  had  a full  hear- 
ing just  as  the  Teachers’  Federation  did 
or  any  other  body.  I vote  aye. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 

sire to  vote  aye,  and  in  so  voting  state 


that  I shall  be  pleased  to  vote  to  ex- 
clude any  labor  organization  from  the 
public  schools  if  it  came  to  a direct 
vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  the  motion 

to  place  on  file,  the  yeas  are  32  and  the 
nays  are  5.  How  many  did  not  vote? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Three. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  three  have 

not  voted,  and  the  motion  to  file  is  car- 
ried. 

MR.  POST : As  I understand,  Mr. 

President,  the  placing  of  these  resolu- 
tions on  file  does  not  preclude  a motion 
to  reconsider. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  un- 

derstands that. 

MR.  POST : I now  offer  a motion  that 

we  reconsider  the  adoption  of  Section 
10,  for  the  purpose  of  opening  up  the 
way  to  receiving  and  getting  an  amend- 
ment thereof  with  reference  to  the  af- 
filiation of  teachers  with  labor  organi- 
zations. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman— 

MR.  SHEPARD:  If  I may  interrupt, 

I ask  this  as  a matter  of  courtesy,  is 
it  proposed  that  such  a resolution  be 
offered?  I wish  to  ask  that  as  a matter 
of  information. 

MR.  POST : I will  make  one,  at  any 

time. 

Mr.  SHEPARD:  If  nobody  wants 

to  offer  such  a resolution  I want  to  vote 
aye;  if  there  is  no  one  to  offer  such  a 
resolution  I want  to  vote  no,  to  save 
time. 

MR.  POST:  Several  gentlemen  have 

indicated  a desire  to  vote  on  such  a 
resolution. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understand 

Mr.  Post ’s  motion  has  not  received  a sec- 
ond; I,  therefore,  move  to  expunge  the 
whole  Post  motion  from  our  record. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your 

motion? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  to  ex- 

punge the  entire  Post  resolution. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I second  the 

motion  of  Mr.  Post. 


December  28 


838 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post’s  mo- 

tion having 4 received  a second  is  now  be- 
fore the  house.  Do  you  desire  a roll 
call? 

MR.  WHITE:  Just  what  section  is 

that  on,  what  page  and  what  section? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Chapter  10,  Mr. 

Post?  What  chapter,  Mr.  Post? 

MR.  POST:  If  my  resolutions  have 

not  been  put  on  file  I will  put  a copy  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  did  not 
know,  or  does  not  know  whether  it  is 
necessary  to  reconsider  this  entire  sec- 
tion; what  do  you  say  to  that? 

MR.  LINEHAN : I rise  to  a point 

of  order.  The  point  of  order  is  Mr. 
Post  has  not  offered  a definite  amend- 
ment. He  has  not  offered  any  definite 
amendment  to  that  section,  and  until  he 
does  it  is  not  in  order  for  him  to  move 
to  reconsider  a section  without  any 
definite  purpose. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  point  is  not 

wt'll  taken.  A motion  to  reconsider  may 
be  made  without  any  definite  resolution 
being  before  the  assembly. 

AIR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I would  like 

to  know  how  Air.  Post  voted  on  that 
proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Air.  Post,  how 

did  you  vote  upon  the  entire  Section  10, 
which  you  desire  to  have  entirely  re- 
considered? 

MR.  POST : Air.  Chairman,  the  rec- 

ord shows  the  vote. 

THE  CHAIRA1AN:  I have  not  the 

record  here;  perhaps  the  Secretary  has. 

AIR.  POST:  It  was  a viva  voce  vote, 

Air.  Chairman.  But  as  I understand  the 
rules  of  parliamentary  procedure  from 
congress  down,  it  entitles  anyone  to  move 
a reconsideration;  if  there  is  any  ques- 
tion on  that  point  at  all  I will  put  my 
motion  in  another  form.  I submit  that 
is  proper. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  has 

no  record  of  the  vote. 


AIR.  POST:  I have  no  recollection  of 

how  I voted  on  it;  I don’t  know  whether 
I said  anything  at  that  time  or  not. 

THE  CHAIRA1AN : Being  a viva  voce 
vote  the  Chair  has  no  means  of  knowing 
how  the  gentleman  voted,  and  unless  he 
voted  in  the  affirmative  on  the  adoption 
it  would  not  be  in  order  for  him  to 
move  for  reconsideration. 

AIR.  POST:  Then  I will  move  to 

take  from  the  table  the  part  of  the 
educational  chapter  at  page  733  for  the 
same  purpose  as  indicated  in  my  last 
motion. 

AIR.  GREEN^CRE : I second  that 

motion,  Air.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion,  gentlemen.  The  Chair  will 
try  to  find  out  what  is  on  page  733  in 
a moment. 

AIR.  POST:  It  is  also  on  page  700. 

THE  SECRETARY:  I do  not  find 

it  on  page  733. 

AIR.  POST : It  is  where  it  is  laid  on 

the  table;  that  page  is  where  it  is  laid 
on  the  table;  the  resolution  is  on  page 
700. 

AIR.  SHEPARD:  Understanding  that 

anybody  can  offer  new  resolutions  to 
the  house  at  any  time,  or  at  a time  like 
this,  I move  now  that  Air.  Post’s  reso- 
lution be  laid  upon  the  table.  It  serves 
no  good  purpose. 

AIR.  POST:  If  I am  assured  that 

such  a motion  as  I am  trying  to  pre- 
pare the  way  for  would  be  in  order  for 
a reconsideration,  I am  entirely  willing 
to  agree  to  that. 

THE  CHAIRA1AN : The  subject  mat- 

ter of  the  resolution  has  not  been  taken 
up  by  this  Convention ; there  is  no  reason 
why  a new  resolution  on  the  same  sub- 
ject may  not  be  introduced. 

AIR.  POST:  Let  us  see  if  I under- 
stand : Any  member  of  this  Convention 

on  this  floor  would  now  be  in  order,  if 
this  resolution  is  proper,  would  now 
be  in  order  to  move  a provision  providing 
for  the  expulsion  of  every  school  teacher 
belonging  to  a labor  organization? 


December  28 


839 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  person  on 

the  floor  can  offer  a resolution  on  any 
subject  that  has  not  been  disposed  of 
by  the  Convention. 

MR.  POST : Do  I understand  that 

•would  be  within  the  ruling  of  the  Chair, 
if  such  a resolution  should  be  offered? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  does 

not  understand  that  such  resolution  as 
that  subject  matter  suggests  has  been 
before  the  Convention ; if  that  is  the 
case,  it  would  be  in  order. 

MR.  COLE:  As  I understand  it, 

there  is  nothing  now  before  the  house, 
and  to  bring  it  up  I offer  and  move  the 
adoption  of  the  resolution  offered  by 
Mr.  Shedd,  ‘ ‘ Resolved : The  charter 

shall  contain  a provision,”  etc.,  left  hand 
column,  page  809.  I will  ask  the  Sec- 
retary to  read  it,  and  I move  its  adop- 
tion. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  809,  right 

hand  column : 

MR.  DEVER : It  seems  to  me  we  are 

going  off  for  the  first  time  in  the  history 
of  these  meetings  on  the  wrong  track. 
I do  not  think  we  have  any  right  to 
interfere  with  the  freedom  of  action  on 
the  part  of  any  city  employe  when  that 
person  is  not  engaged  in  the  duties  of 
his  or  her  office.  The  basic  law  of  our 
charter  should  be  that  the  performance 
of  the  duties  of  city  employes  rests 
upon  their  shoulders,  and  that  we  have 
nothing  to  say  about  their  actions  when 
not  engaged  in  the  performance  of  the 
duties  of  their  office.  I think  this  reso- 
lution is  as  objectionable  as  the  one 
which  has  just  been  voted  upon.  I voted 
upon  that  so  as  to  get  the  matter  before 
this  body  and  give  it  an  airing  upon  the 
floor  of  the  Convention.  We  have  no 
right  to  tell  such  a person  that  they  shall 
or  shall  not  do  this  or  that  thing  when 
they  are  not  employed  by  the  city,  out- 
side the  duties  of  their  office.  We  can- 
not do  that,  we  have  not  the  right  to 
do  that.  The  constitution  of  the  state 
would  not  permit  us  to  do  that,  it  would 
not  allow  us  to  interefere  in  such  mat- 


ters, especially  in  matters  that  do  not 
interfere  with  their  eligibility  for  office, 
or  the  sufficiency  of  their  capacity  as 
public  officials.  We  are  here  treating  of 
a question  that  is  broader  than  any- 
thing of  that  kind;  we  are  treating  with 
regard  to  a charter  that  means  the  mak- 
ing of  the  basic  fundamental  laws  for 
the  City  of  Chicago.  We  all  know  it 
is  small  politics  to  deal  with  the  con- 
duct of  city  officials  when  they  are  away 
from  their  duties  in  which  the  city 
employs  them.  They  have  a right  to 
freedom,  whether  in  the  employ  of  the 
city  or  not.  They  have  that  right,  and 
wre  should  not  tell  them  that  they  have 
not,  and  we  should  not  hold  over  their 
heads  a club  such  as  is  intimated  or  sug- 
gested in  this  resolution.  We  all  know 
what  it  means,  we  know  what  the  sub- 
stance of  it  means.  We  may  have  vary- 
ing opinions  upon  it.  I may  think  it  is 
in  bad  taste,  that  it  is  in  bad  form  for 
a police  officer,  or  a fireman,  or  such 
a city  employe  to  become  a member  of 
a labor  union.  But  the  question  what 
is  right — what  right  has  this  Conven- 
tion to  deal  with  that  subject  at  all, 
that  is  the  question.  I don ’t  think  it 
has  any  right  to  deal  with  it.  I think 
we  ought  to  go  on  and  make  laws  for  the 
city  which  will  amount  to  something. 
This  Convention  has  been  conducted  in 
an  able,  as  well  as  pleasant  manner, 
up  to  this  time,  and  I hope  the  Conven- 
tion will  see  its  way  clear  to  get  rid 
of  this  whole  subject  and  let  us  get 
along  and  do  the  work  we  are  called  upon 
to  do  here. 

MR.  WHITE:  May  I ask  Alderman 

Dever  a personal  question? 

MR.  DEVER:  Certainly. 

MR.  WHITE:  It  will  clear  up  the 

matter  very  much,  Alderman,  for  me 
personally.  In  opposing  this,  do  you 
oppose  it  personally  because  you  believe 
it  is  good  policy  to  have  public  servants 
attend  the  sectional  bodies  of  the  city? 

MR.  DEVER:  I don’t  think,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  is  any  of  our  special  busi- 


December  28 


840 


1906 


ness,  whether  the  employes  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  belong  to  certain  societies 
or  not.  As  I say,  as  citizens  we  might 
question  the  wisdom  of  that,  although 
we  might  doubt  its  wisdom  or  even  the 
propriety  of  it ; but  the  question  here 
for  us  to  consider  is  what  do  we  take 
that  subject  up  here  for,  why  do  we 
treat  of  the  subject  at  all  in  this  city 
convention,  which  is  one  altogether  in- 
tended for  the  purpose  of  making  a char- 
ter. I think  this  is  not  the  place  at 
all,  and  that  is  the  objection  I have  to 
it.  It  is  not  necessary  for  me  to  give 
my  personal  opinion  one  way  or  the 
other  on  the  subject.  The  point  I make 
is  we  have  no  right  to  treat  on  that  sub- 
ject or  to  consider  it  in  this  body  at 
all. 

ME.  LINEHAN:  I was  in  hopes,  Mr. 

Chairman,  I would  see  Mr.  Shedd  before 
this  matter  came  before  the  house.  I 
had  my  mind  made  up  to  ask  him  to 
withdraw  it.  I know  that  the  spirit  in 
which  he  offered  it  is  likely  to  be  mis- 
taken. There  is  no  firm  today  in  the 
City  of  Chicago  that  employs  as  many 
members  of  labor  organizations  from 
the  building  trades  as  Marshall  Field 
& Company  does,  of  which  firm  Mr.  Shedd 
is  nominally  the  head.  I know  that  is 
not  brought  forward  by  him  in  any  spirit 
of  antagonism  to  labor  unions,  because 
his  firm  is  remarkable  for  the  fact  that 
they  always  employ  members  of  the 
trades  unions.  I believe  the  whole  mat- 
ter is  a mistake. 

It  does  not  follow  that  that  means 
that  labor  unions  are  always  at  fault 
or  in  the  wrong;  it  is  not  intended  to 
convey  that  meaning,  and  I claim  it  en- 
tirely fails  its  object,  if  that  could  be 
said  to  be  the  object,  so  far  as  labor 
unions  are  concerned.  The  labor  unions 
do  not  protect  a man  that  violates  the 
laws  of  the  State  of  Illinois.  You  will 
find  that  fact  well  demonstrated  if  you 
would  step  into  the  civil  service  rooms 
when  there  is  a matter  on  trial.  No  man 
can  bring  his  labor  organization  forward 


to  protect  him  for  any  violation  of  his 
duty,  with  regard  to  what  he  should  live 
up  to  in  regard  to  his  work.  It  would 
entail  for  him  a lot  of  trouble,  the  in- 
sistence on  such  matter  as  this.  If  this 
matter  were  allowed  to  go  in  it  would, 
in  my  opinion,  do  great  injury,  for  it 
brings  about  a spirit  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  in  organized  labor  circles  that 
would  be  detrimental  to  the  adoption 
of  this  charter. 

It  also  provides  at  the  end  there  some- 
thing that  is  entirely  in  violation  of  the 
spirit  of  civil  service.  It  says  that  for 
any  violation  of  those  provisions  the  em- 
ploye shall  be  at  once  discharged  from 
such  service  by  the  head  of  the  depart- 
ment in  which  he  is  employed.  Now, 
let  me  inform  you  that  the  head  of  a 
department  cannot  discharge  an  employe; 
he  must  first  prefer  charges  against  an 
employe.  So  that  the  spirit  of  that  last 
sentence  would  really  be  in  violation  of 
the  civil  service  law.  Now,  I am  sorry 
that  this  organization  did  not  get  through 
this  work  without  such  a thing  as  this 
happening,  because  I fear  very  much  that 
it  will  be  looked  upon  as  a slap  at  or- 
ganizations that  for  years  and  years  have 
been  working  hard  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago toward  the  uplifting  and  benefiting 
of  their  fellow  workmen.  I want  to 
say  to  you  that  after  twenty-two  years 
of  intimate  acquaintance  with  the  labor 
organizations  of  Chicago  I am  prepared 
to  say  that  they  have  done  as  much  for 
the  betterment  of  this  city  as  any  insti- 
tutions here,  and  I don’t  think  that  the 
few  disorders  that  have  taken  place,  the 
few  troubles  that  have  come  up  in  this 
community  in  the  past  few  years  ought 
to  be  the  means  of  condemning  people 
who  have  slaved  and  worked  as  hard  as 
they  have.  If  the  labor  organizations  of 
Chicago  had  not  accomplished  anything 
else  but  this,  that  they  have  reduced  the 
amount  of  suffering  among  their  fel- 
lows; that  the  drunkard  is  exceptional 
now  where  formerly  he  was  common ; 
Monday  mornings  at  one  time  on  a job 


December  28 


841 


1906 


it  was  impossible  to  get  hold  of  your 
workingmen;  Monday  mornings  now  they 
are  always  present;  they  do  not  lay  off 
the  day  after  pay  day  any  more;  they 
own  their  own  homes  a good  many  of 
them,  and  a good  many  of  them  are 
spending  their  money  in  this  city,  and 
many  of  the  organizations  are  spending 
their  money  in  this  city  investing  it  in 
city  bonds  and  in  county  bonds,  mark 
you.  Is  that  spirit  unlawful? 

Further  than  that,  I want  to  t say  that 
it  does  come  with  bad  taste  at  this 
late  day; — these  men  are  slaving  and 
working  from  day  to  day  and  are  in- 
volved and  interested  in  the  advancement 
of  this  city.  There  is  not  a solitary  in- 
stitution or  bit  of  progress  that  takes 
place  but  what  they  are  to  the  front 
helping  to  erect  it,  helping  with  all  that 
can  be  done  for  the  good  of  the  com- 
munity, and  because  a few  individuals 
at  certain  times  of  trouble  are  doing 
things  that  may  not  be  just  as  they 
should  be,  is  that  any  reason  why  all 
of  the  institutions  should  be  condemned? 
I think  not.  I do  not  think  it  is  fair, 
I do  not  think  it  is  honest  or  square  that 
the  200,000  men  connected  with  the  la- 
bor organizations  of  this  city  should  be 
slapped  in  the  face  by  a resolution  of 
this  kind.  I am  extremely  sorry  that 
this  matter  came  up,  and  I am  surprised, 
very  much  surprised,  that  it  came  from 
the  place  where  it  did  come. 

MR.  COLE:  I want  to  say  that  I 

introduced  this  resolution,  and  that  I 
introduced  it  for  a purpose.  I am  frank 
to  say,  since  personalities  have  come  up 
this  afternoon,  that  I do  not  think  Mr. 
Post  was  fairly  treated.  I think  that 
under  the  rules  and  regulations  the  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  Post  ought  to  have  been 
considered.  I think  that  his  remarks 
were  all  right;  I think  it  was  faiV  to 
criticize  Prof.  Butler,  and,  if  Mr.  Post 
asked  a vote  in  regard  to  that  T think  we 
should  give  it  to  him,  we  should  extend 
him  that  courtesy,  we  should  extend  him 
the  courtesy  of  a vote  in  regard  to  that 


matter.  I think  it  will  be  perfectly  fair 
to  bring  that  up  for  discussion.  I want 
to  say  that  I do  not  endorse  everything 
that  is  stated  in  this  resolution,  by  any 
means,  and  I realize  the  fact  that  insofar 
as  anything  that  in  any  way  restrains 
anyone  from  the  exercise  of  whatever 
freedom  they  wish  to  exercise,  I do  not 
stand  for  that  at  all.  But  I do  stand  for 
the  fact  that  the  teachers  of  our  schools 
should  not  be  members  of  the  Feder- 
ation. I would  be  glad  to  be  put  ou 
record  as  voting  that  they  should  not 
be  members  of  the  Federation. 

Now,  this  fact  that  Prof.  Butler  made 
certain  statements  which  were  applauded, 
what  difference  does  that  make,  that  does 
no  one  any  harm.  Mr.  Post  had  a right 
to  make  the  statement  just  as  he  did. 
It  was  simply  what  Prof.  Butler  had 
said,  and  I do  not  see  why  anything 
that  Prof.  Butler  has  said  should  hurt 
us.  I presume  that  we  may  not  all  agree 
with  what  he  has  said,  and  there  may  be  p, 
difference  of  opinion  between  Mr.  Post 
and  Prof.  Butler.  But  even  so,  I think 
if  Mr.  Post  and  Prof.  Butler  would  see 
each  other  they  might  agree  on  this 
point,  and  I am  sure  they  would  be  very 
friendly.  I don’t  see  any  reason  for 
bringing  that  up  here  at  all.  It  is  a 
fact  that  we  have  radicals  and  conser- 
vatives here.  It  is  a fact  that  Mr.  Shedd 
is  a conservative,  an  honest  conserva- 
tive, a good  citizen  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. It  is  also  a fact  that  Mr.  Post 
is  a radical,  an  honest  radical  and  a 
good,  patriotic  citizen.  Now,  Mr.  Shedd 
in  this  resolution  suggests  something  that 
stands  against  the  opinions  of  some  of 
us,  and  some  other  motions  have  been 
made  here  that  we  did  not  all  agree  with ; 
but  there  was  nothing  said  in  criticism 
of  Mr.  Shedd ’s  resolution  that  I remem- 
ber. Now,  on  the  other  hand,  Mr.  Post 
introduced  a resolution  that  is  in  cour- 
teous language,  and  it  met  with  opposi- 
tion right  away.  The  position  I take 
is  that  I do  not  care  how  you  vote  on  it, 
but  I think  he  should  have  been  given 


December  28 


842 


1906 


a vote  on  it.  Now,  I am  perfectly  will- 
ing to  withdraw  my  resolution  for  the 
time  being,  or  I am  walling  to  withdraw 
it  after  debate.  Now',  let  us  be  fair 
to  each  other,  let  us  be  fair  with  one 
another  whether  we  agree  with  the  reso- 
lution or  not,  wTe  don’t  care  about  that. 
That  is  all  I want  to  say  in  regard  to 
the  matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  in  regard  to  this  resolution  offered 
by  Mr.  Cole,  the  motion  that  this  reso- 
lution be  adopted? 

MR.  POST : I should  like  to  say  a 

word  before  that  is  discussed. 

MR.  COLE : I will  not  withdraw  the 

resolution  until  we  have  some  discussion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  disposi- 

tion do  you  want  to  make  of  this  resolu- 
tion? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Cole  has  with- 

drawn his  resolution. 

MR.  POST  : Before  that  is  withdrawn 

I would  like  one  wrord. 

MR.  COLE:  I say,  I am  willing  to 

withdraw  it  after  debate. 

MR.  POST : .1  wish  to  express  my 

appreciation  of  the  kind  words  spoken 
by  Mr.  Cole.  They  relieve  me  from  the 
necessity  of  saying  one  or  two  things 
I should  have  felt  like  saying  on  this 
motion.  Mr.  Cole  is  mistaken  in  sup- 
posing it  is  my  desire  to  have  such  a 
resolution  passed  as  this  which  he  has 
spoken  of.  That  was  not  my  purpose 
in  introducing  the  resolution  that  was 
put  upon  file.  My  purpose  in  doing 
that  was  this:  I try  to  do  things  openly 

myself  and  with  a reasonable  degree  of 
the  courage  of  my  conviction ; I like 
to  have  other  people  act  in  the  same 
way.  I had  observed  that  this  speech 
•was  made  under  certain  auspices ; that 
this  pamphlet  is  being  circulated,  and 
that  on  the  occasion  when  the  speech 
was  made — I am  not  reflecting  on  Mr. 
Butler  at  all — but  on  that  occasion  a 
number,  a large  number  of  the  members 
of  this  Convention  were  present,  and  when 
the  quotation  I have  made  was  uttered 


by  the  speaker  they  responded  vocifer- 
ously in  approval.  Now,  it  struck  me 
as  rather  strange  that  men  who  in  other 
places  are  advocating  this  sort  of  thing 
and  applauding  it  should  hesitate  to 
bring  it  properly  before  this  Convention. 
I do  not  know  whether  it  was  purposely 
omitted  or  whether  it  was  an  oversight. 
I am  inclined  to  think  it  was  purposely 
omitted  because  members  of  this  Con- 
vention are  unwilling  to  stand  up  in  the 
Convention  for  what  they  advocate  and 
for  what  they  want  done  with  a thing 
that  Dr.  Butler  wanted  advocated  here 
to  the  effect  that  if  he  were  a member 
of  this  Convention  he  wrould  introduce 
such  a resolution  and  he  would  ask  a 
roll  call  on  it;  and  these  members,  my 
associates  who  were  there  present  ap- 
plauded that  sentiment,  and  yet  do  not 
come  into  this  Convention  and  ask  a 
roll  call  upon  that  proposition.  Now, 
I am  perhaps  not  entirely  ignorant  on 
the  question  of  labor  organizations,  and 
I agree  with  what  Mr.  Linehan  has  said. 
I can  endorse  every  word  he  has  said, 
and  I would  even  go  one  step  further 
with  regard  to  the  Teachers’  Federation, 
which  is  associated  with  the  Federation 
of  Labor,  that  the  Teachers’  Federation 
is  and  has  been  one  of  the  most  useful 
organizations  that  the  City  of  Chicago 
has  ever  known.  The  Teachers’  Federa- 
tion has  served  the  school  board  better 
than  any  other  civic  organization  in 
the  city,  far  better  than  the  Merchants’ 
Club,  which  is  putting  out  this  pamphlet. 
They  have  served  the  city  in  spite  of 
the  opposition  of  the  school  board,  in 
spite  of  the  opposition  even  of  the  city 
government,  in  spite  of  the  opposition 
of  the  Board  of  Equalization.  They 
have  secured  for  this  city  something 
like  $600,000,  and  over,  in  taxes  that 
could  not  be  secured  before,  and  $250,000 
for  the  school  board  itself. 

MR.  COLE:  Will  Mr.  Post  allow  an 

interruption  ? 

MR.  POST:  Certainly. 

MR.  COLE:  I would  like  to  have  it 


December  28 


843 


1906 


appear  in  the  record  that  I am  not  op- 
posed to  the  Teachers’  Federation,  but 
I am  opposed  to  their  being  connected 
with  anyone,  or  with  the  Federation  of 
Labor.  I think  they  should  be  separate 
and  not  joined  with  any  other  federation. 

MR.  POST : I think  I understand  your 

position,  and  heartily  sympathize  with  ft. 
I believe  you  and  other  men  hold  that 
opinion  honestly  and  sincerely;  and  if 
it  were  a mere  abstract  question,  I 
should  be  inclined  to  join  with  you  gen- 
tlemen in  regard  to  that.  But  it  is  not 
an  abstract  question,  and  I ask  you  to 
bear  that  in  mind.  I ask  you  to  bear 
in  mind  that  in  the  terrific  fight  this 
Teachers’  Federation  has  had,  largely 
with  these  public  utility  corporations, 
they  were  unable  to  get  any  support,  any 
sympathy,  any  help  in  any  way  from 
any  other  civic  organization  except  the 
Federation  of  Labor  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. The  circumstances  make  the  ques- 
tion stand  to  my  mind  in  a light  quite  dif- 
ferent from  what  it  would  stand  if  that 
were  a mere  abstract  question  of  whether 
a teachers’  organization  ought  or  ought 
not  to  affiliate  itself  with  the  labor  or- 
ganizations. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I do  not  under- 

stand there  is  anything  before  the  house 
at  present. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Cole,  I under- 

stand, (lid  not  withdraw  his  motion  until 
after  debate. 

MR.  COLE:  I said  I would  withdraw 

it  after  discussion.  I have  a right  to 
withdraw  it  any  time,  any  time  the  dis- 
cussion is  over. 

MR.  WHITE:  I may  perhaps  not 

understand  the  situation  just  as  Mr.  Post 
does.  I did  not  understand  that  any 
one  had  declined  to  introduce  this  reso- 
lution, or  that  it  had  been  purposely 
delayed  in  any  way.  I have  been  watch- 
ing for  its  coming  for  some  time  and 
assumed  that  it  would  come,  and  I took 
it  that  it  was  merely  a matter  of  ordin- 
ary delay,  and  that  in  due  course  of  time 


this  Convention  proposed  to  take  up  the 
matter  and  dispose  of  it  as  it  saw  fit. 

I wish  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention,  therefore,  to  the  fact  that 
my  understanding  of  this  is  not  at  all 
the  understanding  of  Mr.  Post,  that  any- 
one had  designedly  delayed  this  pur- 
posely or  refrained  from  bringing  it 
to  the  front.  One  question  I wish  to 
speak  upon  and  that  is  this,  I cannot 
see,  Mr.  President,  what  possible  bearing 
with  leference  to  this  the  Merchants’ 
Club  has,  or  Mr.  Butler,  who  was  an 
invited  guest  from  the  city  of  New  York, 
had  to  do  with  this  Convention  what- 
soever. It  is  none  of  our  business  what 
the  Merchants’  Club  does,  or  what  Prof. 
Butler  said  there. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  another  thing:  There 

again  I do  not  understand  the  question 
correctly — either  I do  not,  or  Mr.  Post 
does  not,  Mr.  Post  very  properly  said 
that  to  the  Teachers  ’ Federation  belongs 
the  credit  of  largely  increasing  the  tax- 
ation of  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  to 
that  there  is  no  contradiction.  Now, 
from  my  knowledge  of  the  Teachers  ’ Fed- 
eration, dating  back  to  some  years  ago, 
no  one  can  speak  with  more  enthusiasm 
than  I can  speak.  I wish  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  fact 
that  unless  I am  misinformed,  and  I 
think  I am  not,  that  they  have  won  the 
fight  for  increased  taxation,  and  the  mat- 
ter wras  in  the  court  for  the  adjustment 
so  far  as  that  portion  which  they  be- 
lieved ought  to  go  back  to  them  through 
the  increase  of  the  Board  of  Education 
was  concerned,  before  ever  the  Teachers’ 
Federation  joined  the  Federation  of 
Labor  of  the  City  of  Chicago.  They 
were  indebted  for  the  moral  support  of 


the 

Federation 

of  Labor 

and 

the  v 

/ork- 

ing 

men  of  this 

city,  an< 

1 we 

should 

1 not 

lose 

sight  of  tl 

iat,  and 

when 

Mr. 

Post 

said 

. that  from 

no  sourcM 

3 wha 

itsover 

did 

the 

Teachers  ’ 1 

Federatio: 

n in 

that 

fight 

for 

higher  taxa 

,tion  in 

Chi' 

cago 

and 

aga 

inst  the  corporations, 

receive  any 

sup- 

December  28 


844 


1906 


port,  Mr.  Post  is  simply  saying  what 
he  does  not  know. 

I call  the  attention  of  the  Convention 
to  the  fact  that  among  the  first  in  this 
city  to  stand  on  the  platform  of  the 
city  and  to  advocate  what  the  Teachers’ 
Federation  was  fighting  for  was  myself 
and  Bishop  Spalding  of  Peoria ; we  were 
the  first  two  men  to  take  that  matter 
up,  to  take  the  matter  up  publicly,  Bishop 
Spalding  and  myself,  and  I took  it  up  in 
my  pulpit  and  helped  the  Teachers’  Fed- 
eration before  ever  they  joined  the  Feder- 
ation of  Labor  in  this  tax  fight. 

I took  up  this  matter  on  my  own  re- 
sponsibility and  I do  not  remember  now 
outside  of  the  specific  corporations  that 
were  being  specifically  attended  to  by 
the  Teachers’  Federation  that  there  was 
any  serious  objection  to  the  things  that 
the  Teachers’  Federation  was  doing,  at 
least  on  the  part  of  the  great  masses  of 
the  people,  the  laboring  masses  of  Chi- 
cago and  the  small  tax  payers  of  Chi- 
ago;  and  I do  not  remember  that  the 
press  of  Chicago  to  a large  extent  were 
opposed  to  the  attitude  of  the  Teachers’ 
Federation  in  wresting  a proper  amount 
of  taxation  from  tax-dodging  corpora- 
tions at  that  time. 

Now,  we  want  to  be  fair  to  the 
Teachers  ’ Federation  in  that  fight,  but 
we  want  also  to  be  fair  to  the  other 
side.  They  won  that  fight  before  they 
joined  the  Federation  of  Labor  and  they 
won  that  fight  because  they  had  back 
of  them  not  merely  the  Federation  of 
Labor  but  had  back  of  them  all  the 
small  tax  payers  of  this  entire  city.  It 
was  because  the  interests  of  this  city 
were  unified  in  what  the  Teachers  ’ Fed- 
eration were  fighting  for,  and  I yield  to 
no  man  in  my  admiration  for  the  fight 
that  was  made  in  those  days,  and  the 
result  of  which  was  so  magnificently 
successful.  I am  proud  to  say  today 
that  I was  one  of  the  men  who  had  a 
hand  in  that  publicly  and  privately  in 
my  weak  way. 

But,  now,  sir,  if  I may  proceed  one 


step  farther.  Mr.  Post  implied  that  cer- 
tain gentlemen  of  this  Convention,  who 
have  cheered  the  remarks  of  President 
Butler,  at  the  Merchants’  Club  banquet, 
which  has  been  referred  to,  somehow  or 
other  refrained  from  coming  into  this 
Convention  and  pushing  forward  a reso- 
lution following  out  the  suggestion  of 
President  Butler,  and  yet  intimating 
that  perhaps  some  members  of  this  Con- 
vention were  perhaps  a little  bit  afraid 
to  put  themselves  on  record. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I want  to  say 
with  all  due  humility  I am  sure,  that  I 
was  one  of  the  auditors  who  listened  to 
what  President  Butler  said  about  the 
Teachers’  Federation  of  Chicago  and 
the  Labor  Federation  of  Chicago,  and 
I was  one  of  the  men  who  ap- 
plauded it  as  hard  and  as  heartily 
as  I could.  And  I stand  here  today  not 
necessarily  to  approve  this  particular 
resolution,  because  I do  not  know,  sir, 
whether  it  is  wise  to  insert  this  propo- 
sition in  a charter  or  not;  I do  not  know 
if  you  propose  to  insert  in  a charter, 
sir,  whether  that  is  the  form  in  which 
it  ought  to  come,  but  I at  least,  as  one 
member  of  this  Convention,  want  to  put 
myself  on  record  here  unequivocally 
and  with  such  emphasis  that  no  man 
will  ever  misunderstand  my  position  in 
regard  to  this  matter,  that  I have  been 
opposed  from  the  start,  I am  opposed 
now,  on  the  grounds  of  public  policy 
alone,  and  on  no  grounds  of  personal 
animosity  or  personal  feeling,  to  the 
federation  of  public  employes  of  any 
kind  with  one  section  of  the  public, 
whether  that  section  be  the  laboring  or- 
ganizations of  Chicago  or  whether  it  be 
the  wealth  of  Chicago. 

I yield  to  no  man  in  my  admiration 
for  the  work  that  has  been  done  by  the 
labor  unions  of  Chicago  and  of  the 
United  States.  I believe  in  the  great 
battle  of  competition  between  wealth  on 
the  one  hand  and  labor  on  the  other  for 
the  largest  possible  share  of  the  profits. 
The  labor  union  has  been  a necessity  and 


December  28 


845 


1906 


it  has  been  the  salvation  of  the  laboring  4 
man;  and  for  twenty  years  I have 
preached  that  from  my  pulpit  and  it  has 
cost  me  pew  renters  to  preach  it.  And, 
any  man  who  is  unfair  enough  to  con- 
fuse the  issue  and  say  that  because  a 
man  refuses  to  subscribe  to  the  union  of 
public  servants  with  sections  of  the 
public  that  employs  them  that  he  is 
therefore  an  enemy  of  labor  on  the  one 
hand  or  an  enemy  of  wealth  on  the 
other,  is  unfair  and  resorts  always  to  the 
arguments  which  men  who  have  no  ar- 
guments invariably  resort  to. 

Now,  sir,  I believe  today  that  the 
City  of  Chicago  has  permitted  for  one 
reason  or  another,  perhaps  it  has  not  the 
means  of  stopping  it  legally — has  per- 
mitted a situation  to  grow  up  in  this 
city  that  can  mean  only  confusion  and 
detriment  to  its  public  interests.  I be- 
lieve that'  the  organization  of  the  fire- 
men and  the  federation  is  already  be- 
ginning to  prove  itself  detrimental  to 
the  discipline,  and  some  of  the  leading 
officers  in  the  Firemen’s  Association  of 
Chicago  will  tell  you  the  same  thing. 

I believe  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart, 
without  one  iota  of  personal  animosity 
against  the  peopie  who  are  leading  the 
Teachers’  Federation — for  I have  none, 

I admire  some  of  them  immensely,  I 
admire  them  for  their  fighting  qualities 
and  for  their  staying  qualities,  but  I 
disagree  with  them  entirely,  and  I did 
from  the  start,  publicly  in  my  own  pul- 
pit— from  leading  the  teachers  or  a sec- 
tion of  the  teachers  of  this  city  into  a 
■juncture  with  the  great  section  of  the 
public  that  employs  them. 

Gentlemen,  this  is  an  important  prop- 
osition. I do  not  say  that  I will  even 
vote  to  put  this  thing  in  the  charter. 

I only  ask  that  it  is  time  the  people  of 
Chicago  looked  this  matter  squarely  and 
fairly  in  the  face.  Here  is  the  whole 
proposition,  and  I am  through: 

T*  deny  that  any  public  body  of  em- 
ployes paid  by  the  whole  people  to  serve 
the  interests  of  the  whole  people  have 


any  right  in  the  world  to  go  and  de- 
liberately affiliate  themselves  with  one 
section  of  the  people  in  order  that  they 
may  domineer  the  rest  of  the  people. 
The  labor  unions  are  in  competition  with 
vast  wealth;  it  is  an  economic  fight. 
Your  teachers  and  your  firemen  and 
your  policemen  are  not  in  competition 
with  wealth.  They  are  simply  servants 
of  the  public  and  when  they  join  one 
section  of  the  public,  it  is  a sort  of  slap 
in  the  face,  perhaps  not  consciously, 
perhaps  not  purposely,  but  really  to  the 
other  great  section  of  the  public  that 
has  as  much  interest  in  the  situation  as 
they  have. 

I simply  want  to  put  myself  on  record, 
however  I may  vote  on  that  proposition, 
and  I reserve  the  right  to  determine  that 
later — against  the  whole  matter  of  pub- 
lic employes  affiliating  with  any  section- 
al body  of  citizens,  whether  it  be 
wealth  on  one  hand  or  labor  on  the 
other. 

ME.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  the 

interests  of  peace  on  earth  and  good 
will  towards  men,  I desire  to  withdraw 
the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Very  well.  There 
is  no  matter  before  the  house,  excepting 
the  matter  called  up  by  the  Chair,  and 
when  that  matter  is  disposed  of  Mr. 
O’Donnell  will  have  the  floor. 

MR.  LTNEHAN:  Does  that  mean, 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  that  disposes  of  this 
resolution? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  motion  is 

withdrawn. 

MR.  COLE:  You  might  move  to  lay 

it  on  the  table. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I move  to  lay  it 

on  the  table. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

Mr.  Linehan’s  motion  that  this  resolu- 
tion lay  on  the  table;  all  those  in  favor 
say  aye;  contrary,  no.  The  motion  is 
carried,  and  Mr.  Shedd’s  resolution  is 
laid  o/i  the  table. 

MR.  WTLKTNS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  ask  a question.  Do  we  have 


December  28 


846 


1906 


anything  more  after  this  to  say  on  the 
school  question,  after  this  meeting? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  WILKINS:  After  this  meeting 

will  there  be  other  resolutions  that  may 
be  offered  in  regard  to  the  school  ques- 
tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  try- 

ing to  bring  them  up  as  rapidly  as  pos- 
sible, one  after  another.  There  will  be 
none  lost  sight  of. 

MR.  WILKINS:  I want  to  give  no- 

tice that  I have  a couple  of  resolutions 
which  I would  like  to  offer  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  next  meeting. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  we  get  through 
with  what  is  printed 

MR.  WILKINS:  We  won't  get 

through  with  it  this  afternoon,  and  I 
have  got  to  get  away  in  a few  minutes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal's 

resolution  is  on  the  educational  question. 
Mr.  Swift,  won’t  you  stop  a while?  Mr. 
Rosenthal's  resolution  will  be  read  at 
once. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman, 

there  is  nothing  before  the  house 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  this  res- 
olution of  Mr.  Rosenthal's  before  the 
house. 

The  Secretary  read  the  first  resolution 
by  Mr.  Rosenthal,  in  the  first  column,  at 
page  811. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  the 

adoption  of  that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  All  in  favor 
will  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no. 
The  motion  is  carried.  Read  the  next 
resolution. 

The  Secretary  read  the  second  resolu- 
tion of  Mr.  Rosenthal,  in  the  first  col- 
umn, at  page  811. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  that 

was  all  thrashed  out  before,  and  I move 
to  lay  it  on  the  table. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I hope 

that  will  not  be  done. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  at  a time, 

gentlemen.  Mr.  Shepard  moves  that  the 


resolution  be  laid  on  the  table.  Mr.  Ro- 
senthal, this  matter  has  been 'gone  over 
about  four  times  in  this  Convention  in 
various  forms. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  If  it  had  been 

gone  over  a dozen  times,  and  it  was 
right  to  bring  it  up,  I would  do  so,  if 
allowed.  The  point  in  this  particular 
resolution  is  this:  We  have  excepted 
the  attorney  of  the  Board  of  Education 
from  civil  service,  and  yet  by  the  same 
act  we  are  attempting  to  put  the  chief 
architect  and  the  chief  engineer  under 
the  civil  service. 

Now,  that  theory  is  all  wrong.  There 
is  a great  deal  more  reason  to  have  an 
attorney  under  the  civil  service  law 
than  to  have  the  architect  and  engineer 
under  the  civil  service  law.  Let  us  con- 
sider a moment  what  can  happen.  You 
employ  an  architect  and  put  him  under 
the  civil  service  law.  He  can  remain 
with  the  Board  of  Education  we  will 
say  ten  years.  In  that  time  building 
ideas  may  variously  change,  sanitation 
ideas  may  change;  there  can  be  a great 
originality  in  the  whole  field  of  archi- 
tecture and  still  your  architect  has  ab- 
sorbed none  of  them. 

Now,  is  there  any  (reason  in  God's 
world  why  the  architect  under  those  cir- 
cumstances should  be  put  under  the 
operation  of  the  civil  service  law?  So 
far  as  the  attorney  is  concerned,  his 
mistakes  can  be  corrected  by  the  Board 
of  Education  or  by  the  courts,  as  a 
matter  of  last  resort;  but  that  is  not  the 
case  with  the  archiect.  His  mistakes 
when  once  made  are  incorporated  into 
permanent  buildings  and  we  want  to 
provide  the  best  sort  of  buildings  for 
our  children  and  leave  the  Board  of  Ed- 
ucation a*,  free  hand  in  that  respect  in 
the  selecting  of  these  men.  That  is  why 
I have  introduced  this  resolution. 

MR.  WHITE:  Just  one  word,  Mr. 

Chairman.  I am  sorry  to  take  up  the 
time  of  this  Convention,  but  this  is  a 
matter  of  immense  importance  and  I 
tried  to  have  some  consideration  given 


December  28 


847 


1906 


to  it  at  the  time  when  the  matter  of  put- 
ting the  architect  under  civil  service 
came  up,  but  at  that  time  1 absolutely 
failed.  Now,  let  me  in  just  one  word, 
Mr.  Chairman,  say  to  the  gentlemen 
what  the  situation  is  on  the  Board  of 
Education.  Our  architect  has  the  hand- 
ling of  material  in  conjunction  with  the 
engineer  which  shall  go  into  the  build- 
ing or  buildings  each  year  to  the  extent 
of  something  like  $2,500,000,  and  it  ought 
to  be  more.  I think  you  gentlemen  will 
all  agree  that  the  man  who  has  the  hand- 
ling of  such  immense  sums  and  when 
those  sums  ought  to  be  expended  in  the 
best  possible  way  for  the  benefit  of  the 
children  of  Chicago,  ought  to  be  a man 
who  can  be  depended  upon. 

Now,  while,  of  course,  I am  a firm  be- 
liever in  civil  service,  what  happens 
when  the  Board  of  Education  wants  an 
architect?  You  have  this  most  impor- 
tant, almost  the  most  important  man 
outside  of  the  educational  man  under 
civil  service.  We  cannot  go  out  and  se- 
lect the  best  man  or  the  man  we  think 
is  the  best  man.  We  have  got  to  go  over 
to  the  civil  service  and  what  happens? 
They  certify  over  to  us  the  man  who 
stands  at  the  head  of  the  list.  He  may 
be  a man  with  experience  and  he  may 
not  be.  He  may  be  even  some  young 
student  who  has  entered  into  this  com- 
petitive test,  and  because  of  some  ex- 
treme facility  in  answering  the  techni- 
cal questions  set  forth  by  the  civil  ser- 
vice board  he  passes  where  an  old  and 
trained  architect,  perhaps  away  from 
his  books  and  the  mere  technicalities  of 
his  profession,  may  fail. 

What  is  the  consequence?  You  send 
over  a man  to  an  important  department 
of  your  city  government  to  take  charge 
of  $2,500,000  a year;  a man  whose  only 
competency  is  to  give  an  answer  to  a 
few  questions  at  a desk  before  the  civil 
service  commission. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I know  what  I am 
talking  about,  and  that  is  why  I am 
talking  to  you.  T have  tried  not  to  talk 


in  this  Convention  except  on  those  ques- 
tions which  I am  vitally  interested  in, 
and  upon  which  I feel  it  my  duty  to 
talk. 

The  same  is  true  of  the  engineer.  The 
whole  question  of  proper  sanitation,  the 
whole  question  of  proper  ventilation, 
the  whole  question  of  proper  heating  for 
250.000  children  in  this  city  must  be  in 
charge  of  and  must  be  governed  ac- 
cording to  the  opinion  of  this  individual. 
Now,  are  you  willing,  gentlemen,  to 
leave  that  to  the  hazard  of  getting  a 
man  whose  chief  value  is  that  he  knows 
how  to  answer  a question,  but  when  you 
get  him  over  into  your  place  of  busi- 
ness you  will  find  that  he  is  not  a man  of 
experience? 

I submit  to  this  Convention  that  upon 
these  important  matters  there  should  be 
a right  of  choice  to  get  the  best  men 
that  it  is  possible  to  get  for  these  two 
most  important  positions.  They  are  the 
two  most  important  positions  outside  of 
the  educational  expert.  And  then  let 
the  responsibility  rest  upon  him  when 
you  have  got  the  best  man.  I really 
hope  it  will  be  changed. 

(Cries  of  11  Question.  ’ ’) 

MR.  BENNETT:  I want  heartily  to 

endorse  all  that  Dr.  White  has  said.  He 
has  touched  on  the  weakness  of  the  civil 
service  for  certain  positions.  This  Con- 
vention, in  my  judgment,  should  adopt 
this  resolution  unanimously.  Tt  is  one 
of  the  most  important  sections  in  my 
judgment  that  has  been  proposed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  COLE:  No,  I have  something  to 

say  on  this. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  every- 

body knows,  we  have  simply  heard  argu- 
ments advanced  by  Mr.  White  that  any- 
body knows  can  be  advanced  against 
every  important  position  under  the  civ- 
il service  law  in  county,  state  or  city. 
T do  not  know  that  there  is  any  posi- 
tion against  which  those  arguments 


December  28 


848 


1906 


could  not  be  advanced  either  under  the 
state,  county  or  city  civil  service  com- 
mission. This  thing  should  be  brought 
out  in  its  proper  proportions.  It  may 
be  it  will  take  a little  longer  time;  it 
will  be  three  or  four  years  before  this 
thing  is  adopted.  In  the  meantime  as 
things  go  along  in  this  way,  we  will  get 
a new  commission,  and  when  the  time 
comes  that  we  have  got  our  laws  so 
perfected,  and  working  smoothly  and 
with  proper  efficiency,  the  council  will 
except  these  two  exceptions  and  this 
matter  can  be  taken  up  in  regard  to  the 
proper  people.  We  are  not  the  proper 
people  to  do  it,  and  I am  opposed  to  it 
for  that  reason. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  “ Question.  ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Those  in  favor 

of  the  resolution,  say  aye;  those  opposed, 
no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau.  Brown,  Carey,  Crilly,  Dever,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.;  Eckhart,  J.  W.;  Hill,  Hoyne, 
Hunter,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  MacMillan, 
McGoorty,  Owens,  Rainey,  Raymer,  Ro- 
senthal, Swift,  Taylor,  Yopicka,  White, 
Wilkins — 26. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.; 
Erickson,  Greenacre,  McKinley,  O’Don- 
nell, Pendarvis,  Post,  Shanahan,  Shep- 
ard, Zimmer — 12. 

(During  roll  call.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Dever, 

won’t  you  wait,  please.  We  want  to  get 
through  this  afternoon,  and  we  have 
only  two  or  three  more 

MR.  DEVER:  I intended  to  go,  but 

I will  go  to  the  telephone  and  come 
right  back. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right,  I wish 

you  would  leave  your  coat  here  as  a 
guarantee.  Proceed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  the  motion 

to  adopt  the  yeas  are  26,  and  the  nays 
12,  and  the  motion  is  carried. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

has  a committee  report.  All  reports  will 
have  an  opportunity  to  be  heard  if  you 
hold  yourselves  together.  This  is  a re- 
port on  civil  service,  which  was  re- 
ferred back  to  the  committee,  and  the 
Secretary  will  read  the  report. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  It  is  the  Com- 

mittee on  Municipal  Elections  and  Ten- 
ure of  Office. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Municipal  Elec- 
tions and  Appointments  and  Tenure  of 
Office. 

The  Secretary  read  the  report,  as  here- 
inafter printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  this  resolution? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  There  is  one 

more  section. 

Section  4 read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  that  all? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  that  is  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  this  resolution? 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  make  a motion  in  regard 
to  that  resolution,  and  that  is,  that  this 
Convention  do  not  consider  the  report  of 
the  commitee  until  the  Committee  on 
General  Rules  and  Procedure  have  re- 
ported back  the  work  of  this  Conven- 
tion. 

My  idea  is  that  this  particular  matter 
should  be  published  and  time  should  be 
taken  by  the  members  to  properly  con- 
sider it.  We  cannot  do  that  over  night, 
and  we  are  apt  to  get  it  back  from 
the  Secretary  within  a day  or  two,  and 
I do  not  think  we  should  sit  here  day 
after  day  and  take  up  those  matters  as 
they  come  up,  and  that  propositions  of 
this  magnitude  should  be  considered  and 
plenty  of  time  taken  for  that  purpose. 
Therefore,  I make  that  motion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I hope  that  Mr.  Raymer  will  not  apply 
that  to  the  first  section  of  the  proposi- 
tion that  we  submit.  That  is,  that  the 
term  of  the  commissioners  shall  be 
changed  from  three  to  six  years.  We 


December  28 


849 


1906 


have  changed  the  mayor  to  four  years 
and  the  requirements  of  the  civil  service 
law  is  that  no  one  mayor  during  a sin- 
gle term  of  office  shall  control  the  entire 
commission,  and  it  becomes  practically 
essential  to  change  the  term  of  the  com- 
mission. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Raymer’s  motion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I ask  Mr.  Ray- 

mer  to  allow  a vote  on  that  proposition. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I have  no  objection. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  the  change  of 
term? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  On  the  first 

proposition. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Read  the  first  propo- 

sition. Let  us  know  what  it  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  the  term  of 

office  of  the  Civil  Service  Commission 
shall  be  six  years,  one  to  be  appointed 
every  two  years.  Are  you  ready  for  the 
question? 

(Cries  of  1 1 Question.  ’ ’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor— 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  this  whole  matter  might  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  Pro- 
cedure and  General  Plan,  to  take  it  all 
up  together.  I make  that  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  motion— 

Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  motion 

was  made  before,  and  my  motion  was 
to  take  up  Section  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : And  Mr.  Me- 

Goorty  moves  to  defer  that  with  the 
balance  of  it. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Yes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I want  to  say  a 

word  in  opposition  to  that.  I see  no  rea- 
son why  that  particular  clause — this  is 
simply  a change  not  in  the  law — why 
that  particular  section  should  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  and 
why  we  cannot  pass  on  that  proposition 
at  the  present  time.  It  was  originally 
brought  before  the  Convention  and  it  is 
still  before  the  Convention  and  should 


be  passed  on  along  with  the  other  prop- 
osition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  Mr.  McGoor- 

ty  will  withdraw  his  motion,  the  Chair 
will  put  it. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I do  not  know  but 

the  other  provisions  will  affect  it.  I do 
not  know  what  the  other  provisions  are 
in  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal. They  may  have  some  bearing  on 
the  term  of  office. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I say  they  may 

have,  in  the  opinion  of  some  of  the 
others  of  us.  So  I stand  by  my  motion 
that  the  whole  matter  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and  Gen- 
eral Plan. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McGoorty 

moves  that  the  entire  matter  be  de- 
ferred until  the  next  meeting  of  this 
Convention,  which  will  be  in  the  course 
of  several  days. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  To  the  Committee 

on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General  Plan. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir?  To  refer  it 

to  the  Committee  on  Rules,  to  be  taken 
up  for  their  report.  As  many  as  favor 
that  proposition  say  aye;  opposed,  no. 
It  is  carried. 

MR,  O’DONNELL:  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I want  to  move  my  motion  to  re- 
consider the  vote  by  which  the  term  of 
office  of  aldermen  was  fixed  at  four 
years  to  be  made  a special  order  for  the 
next  meeting  of  this  Convention.  Tt 
is  a matter 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  it  is  so  ordered. 

MR.  WILKINS:  I wish  to  have  read 

on  page  809,  the  right  hand  column 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  White,  sit 

down. 

MR,  WILKINS:  The  bottom  right 

hand 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sit  down,  sir. 

(Laughter.)  The  Chair  does  not  desire 
to  appoint  a sergeant-at-arms  to  bar 
these  doors,  but  he  .will  do  it  if  it  is 
necessary. 


December  28 


850 


1906- 


MR.  WILKINS:  I say  I desire  to 

have  the  resolution  which  I offer,  which 
is  found  on  the  bottom  of  the  right  hand 
column  of  page  809. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  the  resolutions  offered  by  Mr. 
Wilkins,  on  the  lower  right  hand  col- 
umn of  page  809,  and  the  Convention 
will  come  to  order. 

The  Secretary  read  the  first  resolution. 

MR.  WILKINS:  Mr.  President,  I 

have  been  told  by  a number  of  mem- 
bers since  I have  presented  this  that  the 
members  of  this  Convention — the  con: 
sensus  of  opinion  is  that  they  do  not 
want — would  not  like  to  have  much  to 
do  with  the  moral  question  in  the 
schools.  I think  that  owing  to  the  con- 
dition of  our  young  men  that  graduate 
from  the  schools,  the  large  number  of 
crimes  committed  in  our  city  being  com- 
mitted by  the  young  men,  and  the  large 
number  of  those  young  men  committing 
crimes  are  graduates  from  our  schools, 
that  there  ought  to  be  some  sort  of  an 
arrangement  made  by  which  the  Board 
of  Education  would  be  compelled  to 
have  the  teachers  teach  more  morals  to 
the  boys  and  girls  of  our  schools  than 
are  found  in  the  general  text  books. 
For  that  reason  I offer  this  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Wilkins’  motion.  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 
Everybody  will  be  recognized. 

MR.  WHITE:  Is  it  on  the  adoption? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  WHITE:  On  the  adoption? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  This  is  simply  to  pre- 

pare a text  book  of  morals. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  Is  that  all  that  is  in- 

volved? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir.  All 

those  in  favor,  signify  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 


Yeas — Cole,  Crilly,  Dixon,  G.  W.;. 
Wilkins — 4. 

Nays — Brosseau,  Brown,  Carey,  Eck- 
hart,  J.  W.;  Greenacre,  Hill,  Hoyne, 
Hunter,  Kittleman,  Linehan,  MacMil- 
lan, McGoorty,  McKinley,  O’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Ray- 
mer,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Tay- 
lor, Yopicka,  White,  Zimmer — 26. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  gentle- 

men vote.  Gentlemen,  if  you  will  be  in 
order,  we  have  got  about  four  resolu- 
tions, and  then  it  will  all  be  over. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  What  is  the 

question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Wilkins' 

motion  that  the  Board  of  Education  pre- 
pare a code  of  morals. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  MacMillan, 

we  would  like  to  have  you  stay  here. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  President,  I would 

not  want  to  be  recorded  as  voting  against 
teaching  the  children  morals  in  the  pub- 
lic schools,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  this 
is  not  the  way  to  go  about  it,  to  prepare 
a book  of  morals.  For  that  reason  I 
vote  no. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

if  I knew  what  the  majority  of  the  board 
consisted  of  that  was  going  to  prepare 
this  code  of  morals,  I might  vote  in 
favor  of  it,  but  I do  not  know  who  the 
majority  will  be  and  I vote  no. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

contributive  to  the  idea  of  course,  but  I 
doubt  whether  it  would  be  wise  to  put 
it  into  the  charter,  and  for  that  reason 
I vote  no. 

MR.  BROWN:  I vote  no. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Brown,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  adopt,  the  yeas  are  four  and  the  nays 
are  26  and  the — how  many  not  voting? 

THE  SECRETARY:  I don’t  know. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  motion  is 

lost. 


December  28 


851 


1906 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Read  the  second 

of  Mr.  Wilkins’  resolutions. 

MR.  WILKINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  may 

I have  that  read? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  WILKINS : Thank  you. 

The  Secretary  read  the  second  resolu- 
tion. 

MR.  WILKINS:  I move  the  adoption. 

MR.  WHITE:  I would  like  to  ask 

some  of  the  lawyers  here  if  that  is  not 
already  provided  for  either  in  the  stat- 
utes of  the  state  or  in  the  constitution. 
If  it  is  that  will  be  provided  for.  Per- 
sonally I am  in  favor  of  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fav- 

or, signify  by  saying  aye.  Opposed,  no. 
Carried. 

MR.  BENNETT:  On  page  808,  the 

lower  left  hand  column,  there  is  a resolu- 
tion presented  that  the  present  laws  pro- 
viding for  the  firemen’s  pensions  be  re- 
tained in  the  charter.  I move  the  adop- 
tion of  that  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  All  those  in  fav- 
or signify  by  saying  aye— what  is  it? 
Let  the  Secretary  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Should  not  that 

be  deferred  until  the  report  of  the  Reve- 
nue Committee? 

MR.  BENNETT : I think  these  two 

matters  should  be  disposed  of. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  pension  mat- 

ters should  be  deferred  until  the  revenue 
report  is  brought  in. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I think  that  these 

two  matters  should  be  disposed  of  on  the 
floor  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  McGOORTY : Mr.  Chairman,  it 

is  represented  to  me  by  some  of  the 
members  of  the  fire  department  in  the 
ranks  that  there  are  present  inequalties 
in  the  pension  laws  as  they  now  stand. 
That  widows  and  the  children  of  de- 
ceased members  of  the  fire  department 
receive  but  a mere  pittance;  a sum  very 


much  inadequate  and  almost  impossible 
to  support  such  child  or  children.  I be- 
lieve that  before  this  convention  makes 
any  recommendation,  that  the  present 
pension  law  be  retained  and  incorporated 
into  the  charter — we  know  it  is  always 
difficult  to  amend  matters,  and  there  is 
reason  for  consideration — I move  no 
recommendation  at  all,  at  this  time;  be- 
cause when  it  is  embodied  in  the  charter 
why  then  the  legislature  cannot  change 
the  law;  it  will  have  to  be  submitted  to 
a vote  of  the  people. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Let  me  make  a 

statement  first.  The  present  pension  law 
give  one-half  of  the  pay  upon  disability 
or  death  for  a term  of  twenty — twenty- 
one  years  to  the  widow  while  unmarried, 
that  is  thirty  dollars;  and  to  each  child 
six  dollars.  The  total  shall  not  exceed 
the  pay  which  the  member  would  re- 
ceive if  he  had  retired  naturally  on  one- 
half  pay.  I think  it  is  carefully  safe- 
guarded in  that  respect  and  I do  not 
think  that  the  amount  to  be  paid  to 
the  family  of  a deceased  member  should 
be  increased  beyond  the  amount  which 
he  would  receive  if  he  retired.  It  would 
not  be  fair  to  the  other  members  who 
have  contributed  to  this  fund. 

MR.  HILL:  I want  to  ask  you  a 

question.  I understand  that  the  pension 
law’  in  regard  to  the  police  is  that  none 
should  receive  less  than  twenty  dollars 
and  none  over  seventy-five. 

MR.  BENNETT : That  is  true. 

MR.  HILL:  This  relates  to  the  fire- 

men. I understand  that  some  of  the 
firemen  have  $3,000  a year.  It  has  been 
suggested  that  the  two  laws  should  be 
uniform  in  reference  to  that  and  I think 
wre  should  give  a little  consideration.  I 
think  the  suggestion  is  a good  one  that 
this  question  should  be  left  till  we  con- 
sider revenue  matters  and  then  it  can 
be  taken  into  consideration. 

MR.  RAINEY : I think  this  matter 

should  be  passed  and  considered  as  a 
separate  bill  by  the  legislature.  I do 
not  believe  it  pfoperly  belongs  in  the 


ember  28 


852 


1906 


rter,  and  I move  that  the  resolution 
-tip  laid  on  the  table. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

my  understanding  of  this  is  that  this  is 
a matter  of  general  law  which  is  already 
applicable  to  the  city  and  to  all  other 
cities  in  this  state.  Now,  if  that  is  the 
ease  and  we  do  not  care  to  make  any 
change  in  it,  it  will  of  itself  be  appli- 
cable to  Chicago  and  we  need  not  in- 
corporate it  in  the  charter,  because  it 
is  already  provided  for. 

MR.  BENNETT : I have  no  objection 

to  let  the  matter  go  over. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  this  matter, 

together  with  all  matters  regarding  pen- 
sions, lay  over  till  the  report  on  revenue 
is  received,  when  they  can  be  taken  up. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I so  move. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  there  is  no 

objection,  it  is  so  ordered. 

MR.  BEEBE:  I want  to  move  a reso- 

lution which  appears  on  page  344,  re- 
garding the  condemnation  of  lands.  It 
is  as  followTs.  I understand  that  the 
city  finds  itself  in  the  position  at  the 
present  time  of  trying  to  build  a sewer 
into  the  canal,  and  I think  this  ought 
to  be  passed. 

MR.  CAREY : I might  throw  a little 

light  on  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that, 

sir? 

MR.  CAREY : I can  throw  a little 

light  on  that,  I think.  For  the  last  eight 
or  ten  years  the  southwest  portion  of 
the  city  has  been  trying  to  get  a sewer 
system  a good  many  miles,  and  we  have 
always  been  tied  up  with  the  proposi- 
tion that  we  cannot  go  through  the  old 
canal.  It  has  come  to  that  point  at  all 
times  in  our  proceedings  for  a dozen 
years.  Now,  Mr.  McCormick,  as  presi- 
dent of  the  Drainage  Board,  recognizing 
that  fact,  introduced  this  resolution,  and 
I think  it  is  a very  good  resolution,  and 
I think  it  ought  to  be  passed. 

(Cries  of  ‘ ‘ Question.  ’ ’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fav- 


or of  the  resolution  will  signify  by  saying 
aye.  Opposed,  no.  Carried. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I move  that  we  now  adjourn,  sub- 
ject to  the  call  of  the  Chair. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Raymer. 

MR.  RAYMER:  There  is  one  other 

resolution,  on  page  809,  I believe  it  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Page  809. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Introduced  by  Mr. 

Eideman  in  reference  to  appointments 
by  the  Mayor  not  being 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  810. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  resolution 

that  no  appointment  by  the  Mayor  shall 
be  made  unless  concurred  in  by  the  City 
Council  at  a subsequent  meeting. 

MR.  RAYMER : I move  its  adop- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  ip,  fav- 

or signify  by  saying  aye.  Opposed,  no. 
''Carried. 

MR^ ROSENTHAL : jOh  page  811, 

there  is  a^hoi±__in«lfiplication  of  one 
section  and  I think  it  embodies  the  in- 
tention of  this  Convention.  It  will  be 
found  on  the  right  hand  column.  I ask 
that  that  be  considered.  ‘ ‘ Amendment 
to  Section  2,  Chapter  7,  and  are  not, 
except  as  expressly  modified  or  altered 
by  this  charter,  in  conflict  with  any  gen- 
eral law  of  this’  state.  ’ 1 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  that  is 

the  intention  of  the  Convention.  All 
those  in  favor  signify  by  saying  aye. 
Opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

The  question  is  now  upon  Mr.  Eck- 
hart’s  motion  to  adjourn,  subject  to  the 
call  of  the  Chair.  All  those  in  favor 
signify  the  same  by  saying  aye.  Op- 
posed, no.  Carried. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned  to 
meet  subject  to  the  call  of  the  Chairman. 


December  28 


853 


1906 


MEMORANDA. 


These  memoranda  indicate  the  various 
matters  adopted  by  the  Convention.  (See 
page  50  and  succeeding  pages  of  the 
proceedings. 


1.  SCOPE  OF  PROPOSED  LEGIS- 
LATION. 

Action  on  all  paragraphs  under  this 
section  has  been  deferred. 

1.  A complete  charter  shall  be  drawn 
and  submitted  to  the  Legislature  em- 
bodying the  resolutions  adopted  by  this 
Convention. 

Alternative  to  1.  Separate  bills  shall 
be  drawn  covering  the  following  sub- 
jects: 

a.  Consolidation  (including  parks), 

b.  Public  utilities, 

c.  Education, 

d.  Eevenue, 

e.  Amendments  (if  any)  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act. 

f.  All  other  charter  provisions, 
which  shall  be  submitted  to  a separate 
vote  for  adoption. 


II.  CONSOLIDATION. 

1.  The  corporate  authorities  existing 
at  present  for  the  government  of  the 
park  systems  of  Chicago  shall  be  abol- 
ished and  the  management  of  the  parks 
shall  become  a department  of  the  city 
government. 

2.  The  administration  of  the  public 
school  system  of  the  city  of  Chicago 
and  of  the  Public  Library  shall  con- 
stitute departments  of  the  city  govern- 
ment. 

III.  THE  MAYOR. 

1.  The  charter  shall  continue  sub- 
stantially the  provisions  of  the  pres- 
ent laws  regarding  the  qualifications  and 
executive  functions  of  the  mayor. 

2.  The  charter  shall  continue  the 
provisions  of  the  present  laws  regard- 


ing the  relation  of  the  mayor  to  the 
city  council. 

Resolved,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  a clause  be  inserted  in 
the  charter  designating  a city  official 
who  shall  act  as  mayor  during  the  ab- 
sence or  inability  of  the  mayor. 

First  Alternative  to  2 

b.  The  mayor  shall  have  a right  to 
a seat  in  the  city  council,  but  shall  have 
no  vote.  He  shall  have  the  right  to 
speak  and  present  messages  and  intro- 
duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  city  council. 

Second  Alternative  to  2: 

The  charter  shall  continue  the  pres- 
ent provisions  of  the  law  regarding  the 
relation  of  the  mayor  to  the  city  coun- 
cil, except  that  he  shall  not  preside  at 
the  meetings  of  the  city  council,  but  the 
city  council  shall  elect  its  own  presiding 
officer  from  its  members. 

3.  The  veto  power  of  the  mayor  shall 
be  as  now  prescribed  by  law. 

4.  The  term  of  office  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  four  years. 


IV.  ELECTIONS. 

First  alternative  to  1 : Elective  city 

officers  shall  be  nominated  under  a sys- 
tem of  direct  primaries,  with  appropri- 
ate provision  for  independent  nomina- 
tions by  petition. 

2.  The  names  of  all  the  nominees 
for  each  office  shall  be  printed  on  the 
ballot  under  the  title  of  the  office  for 
which  they  are  candidates,  in  alphabeti- 
cal order,  and  the  designation  of  the 
party,  if  any,  to  which  they  belong. 

4.  a.  The  election  of  all  city  offi- 
cers, including  those  for  the  municipal 
court,  shall  be  held  in  the  spring.  Pro- 
vided, however,  that  judges  of  the  mu- 


December  28 


854 


1906 


nicipal  court  shall  be  elected  at  a time 
when  no  offices  other  than  judicial  are 
to  be  filled. 

5.  Candidates  and  political  commit- 
tees shall  be  required  to  make  sworn 
statements  of  receipts  and  expenditures 
of  any  campaign  for  nomination  or 
election. 

V.  CIVIL  SERVICE. 

1.  All  departments  of  the  city  gov- 
ernment shall  be  under  an  appropriate 
civil  service  law. 

Alternative  to  1:  a.  The  civil  service 
law  shall  apply  to  the  department  of 
public  parks. 

The  application  of  the  civil  service 
law  to  the  department  of  public  parks 
shall  not  operate  in  and  of  itself  to  dis- 
charge the  present  employees. 

b.  The  civil  service  law  shall  apply 
to  tne  municipal  court. 

The  Bailiff  and  Chief  Clerk  of  the 
Municipal  Court  shall  be  subject  to  re- 
moval by  a majority  of  the  judges  of 
the  court,  after  a hearing,  for  incompe- 
tency, inefficiency,  malfeasance  or  mis- 
feasance in  office.  The  reasons  for  such 
removal  shall  be  specified  in  writing  and 
shall  be  spread  at  large  upon  the  records 
of  the  court. 

Section  2 of  Civil  Service,  together 
with  resolution  printed  in  the  proceed- 
ings of  December  6,  have  been  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Municipal  Elec- 
tions, Appointment  and  Tenure  of  Office, 
with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention within  ten  days.  The  committee 
report  will  be  found  under  “Resolu- 
tions. ’ ’ 

VI.  THE  CITY  COUNCIL. 

The  charter  shall  provide  for  redis- 
tricting the  city  into  seventy  wards,  of 
compact  and  contiguous  territory,  and 
with  an  equitable  distribution  of  area 
and  population,  as  soon  as  possible  after 
the  adoption  of  this  charter,  one  aider- 
man  to  be  elected  from  each  ward.  I 


The  city  shall  thereafter  be  redis- 
tricted by  the  City  Council  every  ten 
years  after  the  federal  census  has  been 
taken,  but  no  more  than  seventy  wards 
shall  be  made. 

2.  The  compensation  of  aldermen 
shall  be  at  the  rate  of  thirty-five  hun- 
dred dollars  per  annum. 

The  term  of  office  of  aldermen  shall 
be  four  years. 

The  aldermen  shall  be  elected  at  the 
same  time  as  the  mayor. 

VII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL IN  GENERAL. 

1.  The  powers  of  the  city  council 
shall  be  as  now  prescribed  by  law,  ex- 
cept as  modified  by  this  charter.  The 
city  council  shall  have  all  powers  of  local 
legislation  which  can,  under  the  con- 
stitution, be  vested  in  a municipality; 
subject  to  the  constitution  of  the  state, 
the  provisions  of  the  charter,  and  the 
general  laws  of  the  state. 

In  addition  to  all  the  legislative 
powers  now  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
general  cities  and  villages  act  and  the 
amendments  thereof,  the  charter  shall 
vest  in  the  City  Council  the  power 
to  regulate  the  legal  observance  of  the 
weekly  day  of  rest,  commonly  called 
Sunday;  and  the  sale  of  liquors  by 
bona  fide  athletic,  charitable,  educa- 
tional, fraternal,  musical  and  social 
associations,  corporations  and  societies 
at  social  gatherings,  or  entertainments 
conducted  or  held  by  them  only.  Pro- 
vision shall  be  made  in  the  charter  for 
the  submission  of  this  section  to  a vote 
at  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  char- 
ter. The  charter  shall  be  so  framed 
that  the  question  of  the  adoption  of  this 
section  may  be  voted  upon  separately. 
The  provision  for  such  submission  of 
this  section  to  a vote,  shall  be  so  framed 
as  to  require  the  voter  to  vote  upon  the 
two  questions  separately. 

2.  The  specification  of  particular 
powers  shall  never  be  construed  as  a 


December  28 


855 


1906 


limitation  upon  the  general  powers 
granted  by  the  charter;  it  being  in- 
tended to  grant  and  bestow  upon  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  the  powers  of  mu- 
nicipal government  which  can  consti- 
tionally  be  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  and  which  are  not  expressly 
prohibited  to  it  by  this  charter,  or  by 
the  constitution  of  the  state;  and  arc 
not,  except  as  expressly  modified  or  al- 
tered by  this  charter,  in  conflict  with 
any  general  law  of  this  state. 

3.  No  ordinance  shall  be  passed  final- 
ly on  the  day  it  is  introduced,  except 
when  approved  by  an  affirmative  vote 
of  two-thirds  of  all  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 

Resolved,  That  no  appointment  by  the 
mayor  shall  be  made  unless  concurred 
in  by  the  City  Council  at  a subsequent 
meeting. 

VIII.  POWERS  OF  THE  CITY  COUN- 
CIL WITH  REGARD  TO 
OFFICES. 

The  office  of  City  Clerk  shall  cease  to 
be  a Charter  office,  and  the  City  Council 
shall  have  power  by  ordinance  to  provide 
for  the  method  of  choosing  the  City 
Clerk  and  to  provide  for  the  duty  of  the 
City  Clerk. 

The  City  Treasurer  shall  be  ex-officio 
city  collector. 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  investigate  any  department  of  the 
city  government  and  the  official  acts 
and  conduct  any  city  officer  and 
the  making,  terms,  and  performance  of 
any  public  contract,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  ascertaining  facts  in  connection  with 
such  investigation  to  compel  the  attend- 
ance of  witnesses  and  the  production  of 
material  documents  and  books. 


IX.  POLICE  POWER. 

1.  The  police  power  of  the  city  shall 
extend  to  the  prevention  of  crime,  to  the 
preservation  and  advancement  of  local 
peace,  safety,  morals,  health,  order  and 
comfort,  and  to  the  prevention  of  fraud 


and  extortion  within  the  community,  by 
measures  of  regulation,  licensing,  require- 
ment of  bonds,  inspection,  registration, 
restraint  and  prohibition,  as  well  as  by 
the  establishment  of  municipal  services. 


X.  REVENUE. 

GENERAL  TAXATION. 

Section  1.  The  City  Council  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  shall  annually  in  the 
first  quarter  of  its  fiscal  year,  levy  a 
general  tax  for  all  city,  school,  park  and 
library  purposes  for  such  year,  not  ex- 
ceeding in  the  aggregate,  exclusive  of 
the  amounts  levied  for  the  payment  of 
bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 

on  bonded  indebtedness per  centum 

of  the  assessed  value  of  the  taxable 
property  of  said  city  as  assessed  and 
equalized  according  to  law  for  gen- 
eral taxation.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  annual  levy  shall  specify  the  re- 
spective amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
amount  levied  for  educational  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  school  building 
purposes,  the  amount  levied  for  park 
purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for  li- 
brary purposes.  The  county  clerk  shall 
extend  upon  the  collector’s  warrant 
all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the  limita- 
tion herein  contained,  in  a single  col- 
umn as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amount  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and 
the  interest  on  bonded  indebtedness, 

shall  exceed per 

centum  of  such  assessed  value  such  ex- 
cess shall  be  disregarded,  and  the  resi- 
due only  treated  as  certified  for  exten- 
! sion.  In  such  case  all  items  in  such 
| tax  levy  except  those  for  the  payment 
! of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the  interest 
on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be  re- 
duced pro  rata.  The  city  treasurer  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  keep  separate 
i funds  in  conformity  to  said  tax  levy, 


December  28 


856 


1906 


whieh  funds  shall  be  paid  out  by  him, 
upon  order  of  the  proper  authority  for 
the  purposes  only  for  which  the  same 
were  levied. 

2.  The  Board  of  Education  of  the 
( ity  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of  each 
year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and 
expenditures  for  the  preceding  calen- 
dar year  stating  therein  the  sources  of 
its  receipts  and  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  its  expenditures.  It  shall 
also  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  in  January  of  each  year  an  es- 
timate of  its  expenditures  for  the  cur- 
rent calendar  year,  stating  therein  the 
several  objects  and  purposes  of  such 
expenditures. 

3.  The  Board  of  Park  Commissioners 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January 
of  each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the 
City  Council  a statement  of  its  re- 
ceipts and  expenditures  for  the  preceding 
calendar  year  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expendi- 
tures. It  shall  also  prepare  and  transmit 
to  the  City  Council  in  January  of 
each  year  an  estimate  of  its  expendi- 
tures for  the  current  year,  stating 
therein  the  several  objects  and  purposes 
of  such  expenditures. 

4.  The  Board  of  Library  Directors  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  shall  in  January  of 
each  year  prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City 
Council  a statement  of  its  receipts  and  ex- 
penditures for  the  preceding  calendar 
year,  stating  therein  the  sources  of  its 
receipts  and  the  several  objects  and  pur- 
poses of  its  expenditures.  It  shall  also 
prepare  and  transmit  to  the  City  Council 
in  January  of  each  year  an  estimate  of 
its  expenditures  for  the  current  year, 
stating  thereing  the  several  objects  and 
purposes  of  such  expenditures. 

Action  on  the  following  propositions 
has  been  deferred  pending  the  report 


of  the  special  commitee  on  revenue  in- 
formation. 

Alternative  to  1: 

a.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  fixed 
by  the  charter  shall  not  apply  to 
taxes  levied  for  school  purposes,  but 
taxes  shall  be  levied  for  school  build- 
ing and  educational  purposes  as  now 
provided  by  law. 

b.  The  limit  of  the  tax  rate  to  be 
fixed  by  the  charter  shall  not  apply 
to  taxes  levied  for  library  purposes, 
but  the  City  Council  shall  annually 
levy  for  library  purposes  a tax  of  not 
less  than  one  mill  and  not  more  than 
one  and  one-half  mill  on  the  dollar 
on  all  taxable  property  in  the  city. 

c.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  levy  annually  a tax  of  two 
mills  on  the  dollar  on  all  taxable 
property  for  a police  pension  fund. 

2.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  levy  a tax  of  one  per  cent,  additional 
to  the  rate  fixed  by  the  above  resolu- 
tion for  a specific  purpose  or  purposes, 
provided  that  such  additional  tax  levy 
shall  have  been  approved  by  a major- 
ity of  those  voting  on  the  question  at  a 
general  or  special  election. 


3.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  have 
power  to  tax  and  license,  or  either,  any 
trade,  occupation  or  business  carried  on 
wholly  or  in  part  within  the  city  limits, 
and  all  persons,  firms  or  corporations 
owning  or  using  franchises  or  privi- 
leges. 

4.  a.  The  City  Council  shall  also 
have  power  to  tax  or  license  all  wheeled 
vehicles  used  upon  the  streets  of  the 
city,  or  any  particular  class  of  such 
vehicles.  The  income  therefrom  shall 
be  used  in  the  repair  and  improvement 
of  streets  and  alleys  of  the  city  ex- 
clusively. 

Alternative  to  5:  The  City  Council 

shall  have  power  to  ihake  local  im- 
provements by  special  assessment  or 


December  28 


857 


1906 


by  special  taxation  of  contiguous  prop- 
erty or  otherwise;  but  not  more  than 
50  per  cent,  of  the  cost  of  repaving 
any  street  or  alley  shall  thus  be  im- 
posed upon  contiguous  property,  after 
such  street  or  alley  has  once  been  paved, 
and  the  expense  thereof  paid  in  whole 
or  in  part  by  special  assessment  or 
special  taxation. 


XI.  INDEBTEDNESS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  vest  in  the  city 
the  power  to  assume  and  incur  debts 
and  issue  bonds  in  the  manner  and  to 
the  extent  that  such  power  is  permitted 
to  be  granted  by  the  constitutional 
amendment  of  1904. 


XII.  EXPENDITURES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  present  city 
act  regarding  the  annual  appropriation 
ordinanc,  the  limitation  of  expendi- 
tures and  contracts  by  such  appropria- 
tions, the  keeping  of  a separate  fund 
for  each  appropriation,  and  the  require- 
ment of  warrants  for  payments,  shall  be 
substantially  embodied  in  the  charter. 


XIII.  PROPERTY. 

1.  The  city  may  acquire  property  by 
purchase  or  condemnation  for  any  pur- 
pose for  which  it  may  exercise  the  power 
of  taxation. 

The  city  may  acquire  property  by  pur- 
chase outside  as  well  as  within  the  city 
limits  for  any  municipal  purpose,  and 
may  acquire  property  outside  of  the 
city  limits  by  purchase  or  condemnation 
for  park,  boulevard  or  forest  preserve 
purposes. 

The  city  shall  be  empowered  to  ac- 
quire, by  purchase  or  condemnation, 
land  for  the  purpose  of  building  sewers 
into  the  Drainage  Canal. 


XIV.  CONTRACTS. 

1.  Municipal  services  may  be  per- 
formed and  municipal  works  carried  out 
by  the  city  directly  or  by  means  of  con- 
tract. 


XV.  STREETS  AND  PUBLIC 
PLACES. 

All  private  temporary  users  of  space 
above  or  below  the  level  of  streets,  al- 
leys or  other  public  places  shall  pay 
compensation  to  the  city  according  to 
some  definite  scale  to  be  fixed  by  gen- 
eral ordinance.  This  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  grants  for  public  utilities. 


XVI.  PUBLIC  UTILITIES. 

1.  The  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  the  limitations  contained  therein 
(including  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchises),  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided,  shall  be  extended  to  all  in- 
tramural railways,  subways,  telephone, 
telegraph,  gas,  electric  lighting  and 
power  plants,  and  other  local  public 
utility  works  operated  in,  over,  under 
or  upon  the  streets  and  public  places 
of  the  city,  also  to  docks,  wharves  and 
their  necessary  appurtenances. 

2.  The  present  powers  regarding  water 
works  and  water  supply  shall  be  con- 
tinued. 

3.  Any  consent  granted  by  the  city 
for  the  private  operation  of  public  util- 
ity works  shall  be  made  subject  to  the 
continuing  exercise  of  the  city’s  street 
and  police  powers  concerning  the  struc- 
ture or  works  permitted,  whether  re- 
served in  the  grant  or  not. 

Alternative  to  4 : 

Such  consent  hereafter  granted,  shall 
further  be  subject  to1  the  power  of  the 
city,  whether  expressly  reserved  in  the 
grant  or  not,  to  make  reasonable  regu- 
lations of  the  charges  to  be  made  in 
the  operation  of  such  public  utilities. 
The  city  shall  have  no  power  to  grant 
away  or  limit  the  subsequent  exercise  of 
this  right,  except  that  the  question  of  rea- 
sonableness of  any  such  regulation  shall 
always  be  determined  with  due  regard  to 
the  provisions  and  limitations  of  the 
grant  under  which  such  public  utility  is 
being  operated. 

5.  Such  consent  shall  further  be  sub- 
ject to  the  right  of  the  city  to  require 


December  28 


858 


1906 


adequate  service  and  reasonable  exten- 
sions at  all  times. 

No  city  officer  or  employe  shall  di- 
rectly or  indirectly  ask  for,  demand  or 
accept  for  his  own  use,  or  for  the  use 
of  another,  any  free  pass,  frank,  gratui- 
ty, gratuitous  service,  or  discrimina- 
tion from  any  person  or  corporation 
holding  or  using  any  franchise,  privi- 
lege or  license  granted  by  the  city. 

But  this  prohibition  shall  not  ex- 
tend to  the  furnishing  of  free  transpor- 
tation to  members  of  the  police  and  fire 
departments  while  on  duty. 

The  charter  shall  contain  appropriate 
provisions  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
prohibition. 


The  following  proposition  as  offered 
by  Mr.  Snow  (and  amended  from  the 
floor  by  Messrs.  Rosenthal  and  Shepard) 
is  still  pending. 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  adding  the  following: 

Provided  that  when  the  city  shall  own 
and  operate  a public  utility  then  and  in 
such  case  the  city  shall  keep  separate 
accounts  for  each  public  utility,  and 
that  the  income  from  each  service  shall 
be  used  solely  for  the  benefit  of  that 
utility  exactly  as  though  it  were  an 
independent  business  enterprise;  and 
reasonable  sinking  funds,  requirements 
for  improvements  or  extensions,  the 
price  of  or  charge  for  the  service  ren- 
dered or  commodity  furnished  by  such 
utility  shall  be  lowered,  to  the  end  that 
the  patrons  of  such  utility  shall  direct- 
ly secure  the  greatest  benefit  of  the 
city’s  ownership  thereof,  and  no  such 
utility  shall  be  so  operated  as  to  render 
its  charge  for  service  an  indirect  form 
of  taxation. 


XVII.  PARKS,  BOULEVARDS  AND 
PUBLIC  GROUNDS. 

1.  The  management  of  the  parks  and 
parkways  and  small  parks,  and  of  any 
forest  preserve  or  outer  belt  park  sys- 


tem shall  be  vested  in  a board  of  park 
commissioners  consisting  of  nine  mem- 
ber who  shall  be  appointed  by  the  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago — three  from  the 
West  Side,  three  from  the  South  Side 
and  three  from  the  North  Side;  three 
for  a term  of  two  years,  three  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  and  three  for  a term 
of  six  years,  their  successors  to  be  ap- 
pointed for  a term  of  six  years.  Any 
vacancy  which  may  occur  shall  be  filled 
by  appointment  of  the  mayor,  for  the 
unexpired  term.  No  appointment,  how- 
ever, shall  be  acted  upon  until  at  a 
subsequent  meeting  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 

The  park  commissioners  shall  be  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor,  with  the  consent 
of  two-thirds  of  the  members  of  the 
City  Council. 

The  following  paragraph  was  de- 
ferred, for  consideration  together  with 
the  subject  of  Revenue. 

2.  Taxes  may  be  levied  and  bonds  is- 
sued for  park  purposes  by  the  City 
Council  only  upon  the  request  of  the 
park  board;  and  park  funds  shall  be 
paid  out  only  upon  the  order  of  the  park 
board. 


XVIII.  EDUCATION. 

I.  THE  DEPARTMENT  OF  EDUCA- 
TION. 

The  City  of  Chicago  shall  constitute 
one  school  district.  The  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  under  the 
management  and  control  of  a depart- 
ment of  education  at  the  head  of  which 
there  shall  be  a Board  of  Education, 
and  no  power  by  this  charter  vested  in 
the  Board  of  Education  or  in  any  officer 
of  the  department  shall  be  exercised  by 
the  City  Council  except  as  by  this  char- 
ter otherwise  provided. 

II.  THE  BOARD  OF  EDUCATION. 

The  management  of  the  public  school 
system  of  the  city  shall  be  vested  in  a 
board  of  education  of  fifteen  members 
to  be  appointed  by  the  mayor,  with  the 


December  28 


859 


1906 


approval  of  a majority  of  the  City 
Council. 

All  nominations  of  members  of  Board 
of  Education  by  the  mayor  shall  lie 
over  at  least  one  week  before  action 
for  confirmation  or  rejection  thereon 
by  the  City  Council. 

They  shall  serve  for  a term  of  four 
years,  except  that  on  the  first  appoint- 
ment of  the  board  three  members  shall 
be  chosen  for  one  year,  four  for  two 
years,  four  for  three  years,  and  four 
for  four  years,  and  annually  thereafter 
members  shall  be  appointed  to  suc- 
ceed those  whose  terms  expire. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  serve  without  compensation. 

To  be  eligible  for  appointment  to  the 
board  a person  shall  be  at  least  thirty 
years  of  age  and  a resident  and  citizen 
of  the  United  States  and  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  for  at  least  five  years  im- 
mediately preceding  the  appointment. 

m.  SCHOOL  PROPERTY. 

The  charter  shall  re-enact  in  sub- 
stance the  provisions  of  the  existing 
law  regarding  the  acquisition,  tenure 
and  disposition  of  property  used,  in- 
tended. acquired,  held  or  sought  to  be 
disposed  of,  for  school  purposes  or  the 
use  of  schools,  but  no  real  estate  shall 
be  leased  by  said  board,  either  as  lessor 
or  lessee,  for  a term  longer  than  five 
years  without  the  concurrence  of  the 
City  Council,  nor  shall  the  provisions 
of  any  lease,  now  or  hereafter  made, 
whose  unexpired  term  may  exceed  five 
years,  be  altered  without  such  concur- 
rence. 

IV.  POWERS  AND  ADMINISTRA- 
TIVE DUTIES  OF  THE  BOARD. 

In  addition  to  the  powers  now  vested 
in  it  by  law,  the  board  of  education 
shall  have  power  to  establish  as  well  as 
maintain  schools  of  all  grades  and 
kinds,  including  normal  schools,  schools 
for  defectives  and  delinquents,  schools 


for  the  blind,  the  deaf  and  the  crip- 
pled, schools  or  classes  in  manual  train- 
ing, constructional  and  avocational  teach- 
ing, domestic  arts  and  physical  culture, 
extension  schools  and  lecture  courses,  and 
all  other  educational  institutions  and 
facilities. 

It  shall  have  the  power  to  co-operate 
with  the  juvenile  court  and  to  make  ar- 
rangements with  the  public  and  other 
libraries  and  museums  for  the  purpose 
of  extending  the  privileges  of  the  pub- 
lic library  and  museums  to  the  attend- 
ants of  schools  and  the  public  in  the 
neighborhood  of  the  schools. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have  the 
power  to  fix  the  school  age  of  pupils, 
which  in  kindergartens  shall  not  be 
under  four  years  and  in  grade  schools 
shall  not  be  under  six  years. 


Action  on  Section  V has  been  de- 
ferred pending  the  report  of  the  special 
committee  on  revenue  information. 


V.  REVENUE. 

The  charter  shall  preserve  the  provi- 
sions of  the  present  law  regarding  the 
levy  and  collection  of  taxes  for  school 
purposes,  except  that  it  shall  not  em- 
body the  limitation  of  the  power  to 
support  schools  to  the  period  of  nine 
months  of  the  year. 

The  provisions  of  the  present  law  re- 
garding the  care  and  custody  of  school 
funds  shall  be  re-enacted. 

The  board  of  education  shall  have 
power  by  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
the  City  Council  to  issue  bonds  to  raise 
money  for  purchasing  school  sites  and 
for  the  erection  of  school  buildings,  and 
provision  shall  be  made  for  the  pay- 
ment of  such  bonds  out  of  the  school 
building  tax. 


VI.  EXERCISE  OF  THE  POWER  OF 
THE  BOARD. 

Rules  of  the  board  of  education  shall 
be  enacted  or  changed,  money  appro- 


December  28 


860 


1906 


priated  or  expended,  salaries  fixed  or 
changed,  courses  of  instruction  and  text- 
books adopted  or  changed  (subject  to 
additional  provisions  hereinafter  con- 
tained), only  at  regular  meetings  of  the 
board  of  education,  and  by  a vote  of 
the  majority  of  the  full  membership  of 
the  board  of  education,  and  upon  such 
propositions,  and  upon  all  propositions 
requiring  for  their  adoption  at  least  a 
majority  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board,  the  ayes  and  nays  be  taken  and 
recorded. 


VII.  OFFICERS. 

The  board  of  education  shall  annual- 
ly choose  one  of  its  members  as  presi- 
dent, and  one  as  vice-president  of  the 
board.  The  board  shall  appoint  as  ex- 
ecutive officers  a superintendent  of 
education  and  a business  manager,  and 
may  also  appoint  or  provide  for  the  ap- 
pointment of  such  other  officers  and 
employes  as  it  may  deem  necessary,  and 
shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of  this 
charter  prescribe  their  duties,  compen- 
sations and  terms  of  office,  but  the  term 
of  office  of  the  superintendent  of  educa- 
tion and  of  the  business  manager  shall 
not  be  less  .than  four  years.  And  the 
salary  of  no  officer  shall  be  lowered  dur- 
ing his  term  of  office. 

The  requirement  that  an  officer  of  the 
city  shall  at  the  time  of  his  appoint- 
ment be  a resident  of  the  city,  shall 
not  apply  to  the  superintendent  of 
education. 

The  appointment  and  removal  of  the 
superintendent  of  education,  business 
manager,  attorney  and  auditor,  shall  not 
be  subject  to  the  civil  service  law,  but 
they  shall  be  removable  only  for  cause, 
by  a vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds 
of  all  the  members  of  the  board,  upon 
written  charges  to  be  heard  by  the 
board  on  due  notice  to  the  officers 
charged  therewith,  but  pending  the 
hearing  of  the  charges,  such  officers  may 
by  a two-thirds  vote,  be  suspended  by 
the  board. 


The  concurrence  of  two-thirds  of  all 
the  members  of  the  board  shall  be  re- 
quired to  appoint  the  superintendent  of 
education  and  the  business  manager. 

All  appointments  and  removals  of 
employes  of  the  Board  of  Education,  ex- 
cept as  herein  otherwise  expressly  pro- 
vided, shall  be  made  pursuant  to  the 
provisions  of  the  general  civil  service 
law. 


VIII.  SUPERINTENDENT  OF  EDU- 
CATION. 

(1.)  The  superintendent  of  education 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion, but  no  vote. 

Appointments,  promotions,  and  trans- 
fers of  teachers,  principals,  assistant 
and  district  superintendents  and  other 
educational  and  attendance  officers 
shall  be  made;  and  text  books  and  spe- 
cifications for  educational  apparatus, 
shall  be  introduced  only  upon  the  rec- 
ommendation of  the  superintendent  of 
education,  with  the  approval  of  a 
majority  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
or  by  the  Board  of  Education  by  a two- 
thirds  vote  of  all  its  members. 

Provided,  That  said  text  books  or  ap- 
paratus when  once  adopted  shall  not  be 
changed  within  four  years  thereafter. 

IX.  THE  BUSINESS  MANAGER. 

The  business  manager  shall  have  the 
general  care  and  supervision  of  the 
property  and  the  business  matters  of 
the  department  of  education. 

In  matters  affecting  the  general  poli- 
cy of  his  administration  he  shall  be 
subject  to  the  direction  of  the  board. 

Among  the  employes  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  be  a trained  architect 
and  a trained  engineer. 

The  business  manager  shall,  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  Board  of  Education, 
appoint  a trained  chief  architect  and  a 
trained  chief  engineer,  both  of  whom 
shall  be  in  the  business  manager ’s  de- 
partment, and  whose  term  of  office  shall 


December  28 


861 


1906 


be  four  (4)  years,  and  whose  appoint- 
ment and  removal  shall  not  be  subject 
to  the  civil  service  law. 

X.  APPOINTMENT  OF  TEACHERS, 
ETC. 

(1.)  Appointments  and  promotions 
of  teachers  shall  be  made  for  merit 
only,  and  after  satisfactory  service 
for  a probationary  period  of  three 
years,  appointments  of  teachers  and 
principals  shall  become  permanent,  sub- 
ject to  removal  for  cause  upon  written 
charges,  but  the  board  need  not  retain 
in  service  more  principals  or  teachers 
than  in  its  judgment  the  needs  of  the 
schools  require. 

XI.  COMPULSORY  EDUCATION. 

The  maximum  age  of  compulsory 
school  attendance  shall  be  increased 
from  fourteen  to  sixteen.  But  the 
children  between  the  ages  of  fourteen 
years  and  sixteen  shall  not  be  required 
to  attend  school  for  such  time  during 
said  years  as  they  may  be  in  good 
faith  engaged  in  regular  employment 
not  less  than  five  hours  daily  for  not 
less  than  five  days  in  each  week. 

XII.  PENSIONS. 

The  Board  of  Education  may,  and 
with  the  co-operation  and  consent  of  the 
City  Council,  establish  a permanent  pen- 
sion system  for  teachers,  principals  and 
other  employes  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion. It  may  be  maintained  in  part 
from  the  public  funds  to  be  provided  by 
the  city,  and  in  part  by  voluntary,  fixed 
and  proportionate  contributions,  to  be 
retained  from  the  salaries  of  teachers 
and  principals.  The  pension  system,  as 
now  administered,  shall  continue  until 
the  same  is  organized  for  administra- 
tion under  and  by  virtue  of  the  provi- 
sions hereof. 

XIII.  REPORT  AND  EXAMINA- 
TION OF  ACCOUNTS. 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually  ap- 


point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  and  the  report 
thereof,  together  with  any  recommenda- 
tion of  such  accountants,  as  to  change 
in  the  business  methods  of  the  board,  or 
of  any  of  its  departments,  officers,  or 
employes,  shall  be  made  to  the  mayor 
and  to  the  Board  of  Education,  and  be 
spread  upon  the  records  of  the  latter. 
The  expenses  of  such  audit  shall  be  paid 
by  the  board. 


XIY.  NON-SEGREGATION. 

During  the  life  of  this  charter  and 
while  it  operates  as  the  Constitution 
of  the  Municipality  of  Chicago,  the 
children  in  the  public  schools  shall  not 
be  segregated  or  separated  in  the  rooms 
and  classes  on  account  of  their  nation- 
ality, race  or  color. 


XIX.  LIBRARY. 

1.  The  management  of  the  public 
library  shall  be  vested  in  a board  of 
nine  library  directors,  constituted  as  at 
present,  and  with  the  present  powers 
and  duties,  except  as  herein  otherwise 
provided. 

2.  The  term  of  office  of  members  of 
the  library  board  shall  be  six  years, 
three  retiring  every  two  years. 

3.  The  library  board  may  establish 
branch  libraries  and  reading  rooms,  sub- 
ject to  the  approval  of  the  City  Coun- 
cil. 


XX.  PENAL,  CHARITABLE  AND 
REFORMATORY  INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  The  charter  shall  grant  to  the 
city,  in  addition  to  the  powers  which 
it  has  now: 

a.  Authority  to  maintain  alms- 
houses. 

b.  Authority  to  maintain  free  lodg- 
ing houses,  and  free  employment  bu- 
reaus in  connection  therewith. 

c.  Authority  to  maintain  creches 
for  infants. 

d.  Authority  to  maintain  training 


December  28 


862 


1906 


schools  for  dependent  and  indigent 
children. 

2.  The  city  shall  have  the  power  to 
contract  with  the  county  of  Cook  or 
otherwise  provide  for  the  detentions, 
housings  and  care  of  indigent  persons, 
prisoners,  or  dependent  or  delinquent 
children. 

This  section  shall  contain  a clause 
that  the  City  of  Chicago  can  contract 
with  the  county  of  Cook  for  the  erec- 
tion and  maintenance  of  a Juvenile 
Court  building. 


XXI.  INITIATIVE  AND  REFEREN- 
DUM. 

The  charter  shall  provide  that  any  or- 
dinance granting  any  franchise  or  the 
use  of  any  street  or  alley  or  space  below 
as  well  as  above  the  level  of  the  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  alleys  and  other 
public  places  for  any  public  utility, 
shall  not  go  into  effect  until  sixty  (60) 
days  after  the  passage  thereof,  and  if 
within  that  time  twenty  (20)  per  cent, 
of  the  voters  of  the  city  petition  for  the 
submission  of  such  ordinance  to  popular 
vote  at  the  next  succeeding  general  or 
special  election,  such  ordinance  shall 
not  go  into  effect  until  and  unless  at 
such  election  it  shall  have  been  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  voters  vot- 
ing upon  the  question. 


XXII.  RELATION  OF  THE  CHAR- 
TER TO  OTHER  LAWS,  AND 
AMENDMENTS  TO 
CHARTER. 


The  following  section  has  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  its  constitutionality. 

1.  Any  act  of  the  general  assembly 
that  shall  be  passed  after  the  adoption 
of  this  charter  relating  to  the. govern- 
ment or  the  affairs  of  the  cities  of  the 
state  or  of  cities  containing  a stated 
number  of  inhabitants  or  over  shall  be 
construed  as  not  applying  to  the  City  of 
Chicago. 


2.  The  charter  shall  re-enact  the  pro- 
visions (not  inconsistent  with  these  res- 
olutions) of  the  existing  laws  applicable 
to  the  government  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, and  shall  vest  in  the  City  Council 
power  to  amend  such  of  these  provisions 
as  the  charter  may  specify. 

The  following  sections  have  been  re- 
ferred to  the  LAW  COMMITTEE  for 
an  opinion  as  to  their  constitutionality: 

3.  The  City  Council  shall  have  power 
to  amend  any  part  of  this  charter 
with  the  approval  of  three-fifths  of 
those  voting  at  the  proposed  change  at 
any  election,  provided  that  the  tax  rate 
established  by  this  charter  shall  not  be 
increased  nor  the  twenty-year  limit  on 
franchise  be  altered  [extended],  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

4.  The  charter  shall  make  provision 
for  submission  to  popular  vote  of 
amendments  to  the  charter,  proposed  by 

a petition  of per  cent,  of  the  voters 

of  the  city,  such  proposed  amendments 
to  become  part  of  the  charter  when  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  the  votes  cast 
at  the  election  (or:  upon  the  question). 
Provided,  that  in  this  manner  the  tax 
rate  established  by  this  charter  shall 
not  be  increased,  nor  the  twenty-year 
limit  on  franchises  be  altered,  nor  the 
municipal  court  act  amended,  nor  any 
provision  be  made  for  the  exercise  of 
any  power  not  strictly  local  or  munici- 
pal in  its  character. 

5.  Nothing  in  this  act  shall  be  con- 
strued to  modify,  impair  or  affect  or  to 
confer  upon  the  City  Council  power  to 
pass  any  ordinance  modifying,  impair- 
ing or  conflicting  with  the  provisions 
of  Section  18  of  an  act  entitled  “An 
act  to  provide  for  the  annexation  of 
cities,  incorporated  towns  and  villages 
or  parts  of  same  to  cities,  incorporated 
towns  and  villages’ ’ approved  April 
25th,  1889. 


December  28 


863 


1906 


XXIII.  SUBMERGED  LANDS. 
Resolved,  That  the  state  cede  to  the 
City  of  Chicago  all  its  right,  title  and  in- 


terest in  and  to  all  submerged  land  or 
riparian  rights  of  Lake  Michigan  abut- 
ting said  city. 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention, 
but  not  acted  upon. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicle. 

BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XVI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annua]  installments  as  the  City  Conn- 


December  28 


864 


1906 


cil  shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  MR.  YOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  YOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  eases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  PENDARYIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  II,  on  page  593,  pro- 
viding that  “ members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation’ ’ was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 
laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  the  present  pension  law 
providing  for  a pension  system  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Chicago  Public  Library  be 
included  in  the  proposed  charter  for  the 
City  of  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  McCORMICK: 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually,  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
city,  and  the  report  thereof,  together 


December  28 


865 


1906 


with  any  recommendation  of  such  ac- 
countants, as  to  change  in  the  business 
methods  of  the  city,  or  of  any  of  its  de- 
partments, officers,  or  employes,  shall 
be  made  to  the  mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, and  be  spread  upon  the  records  of 
the  latter.  The  expenses  of  such  audit 
shall  be  paid  by  the  city. 


Report  of  the  COMMITTEE  on  MU- 
NICIPAL ELECTIONS,  APPOINT- 
MENTS and  TENURE  of  OFFICE: 

Lessing  Rosenthal,  Chairman  Chicago 
Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen — Your  Committee  on  Mu- 
nicipal Elections,  Appointments  and 
Tenure  of  Office,  to  which  was  referred 
the  subject  of  Civil  Service,  begs  leave 
to  report: 

That  the  provisions  of  the  present 
Civil  Service  Act  shall  be  incorporated 
in  the  charter  with  the  follqwing 
changes  or  additions: 

(1.)  That  the  term  of  office  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commissioners  shall  be 
six  (6)  years,  one  to  be  appointed 
every  two  (2)  years. 

(2.)  Section  -.-REMOVALS,  RE- 
DUCTIONS AND  SUSPENSIONS.  No 
person  shall  be  removed  from  the  classi- 
fied civil  service  nor  reduced  in  grade 
or  compensation,  except  as  hereinafter 
provided. 

Removals  from  the  classified  civil  ser- 
vice or  reduction  in  grade  or  compensa- 
tion, or  both,  may  be  made  in  any  de- 
partment of  such  service  by  the  appoint- 
ing power,  to  promote  the  efficiency  of 
the  service,  or  for  other  proper  cause,  in 
the  manner  following:  The  person 

sought  to  be  removed  shall  be  served 
with  a copy  of  the  order  of  removal  and 
notice  of  suspension  from  such  service 
and  also  written  specifications;  and 
such  person  shall  have  not  less  than 
three,  nor  more  than  seven  days,  to  an- 
swer the  same  in  writing.  A copy  of  the 
order,  specifications  and  answer,  if  any, 
shall  be  filed  with  the  Civil  Service  Com- 


1 mission,  which  shall  approve  or  disap- 
prove of  such  order.  Said  commission 
; may,  and  upon  the  written  request  of 
the  person  sought  to  be  removed,  shall 
investigate  any  removal  or  reduction,  or 
proposed  removal  or  reduction,  either  by 
or  before  itself,  or  by  or  before  some 
[ officer  or  board  appointed,  by  said  com- 
mission, to  conduct  such  investigation. 
Such  suspension  shall  be  without  pay, 

{ provided,  however,  that  said  commission 
in  case  of  a disapproval  may  direct  that 
pay  shall  be  restored.  All  findings  and 
decisions  by  said  commission,  or  of  the 
investigating  officer,  or  board,  when  ap- 
proved by  said  commission,  shall  be 
final,  and  shall  be  certified  to  the  ap- 
pointing officer  and  shall  be  forthwith 
enforced  by  such  officer. 

Reductions  in  grade  or  compensation, 
or  both,  shall  be  made  in  the  like  man- 
ner, as  near  as  may  be,  but  without  sus- 
pension, pending  such  approval  or  dis- 
approval. A copy  of  said  papers  in  each 
case  shall  be  made  a part  of  the  record 
of  the  division  of  the  service  in  which 
the  removal  or  reduction  is  made. 
Nothing  in  this  act  shall  limit  the  pow- 
er of  any  officer  to  suspend,  a subordi- 
nate without  pay  for  cause  assigned  in 
writing,  a copy  of  which  shall  be  de- 
livered to  such  subordinate.  Such  sus- 
pension shall  be  for  a reasonable  period 
not  exceeding  thirty  days,  and  any  sus- 
pension may  be  investigated  by  said 
Civil  Service  Commission.  In  the 
course  of  any  investigation  provided  for 
in  this  section,-  each  member  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commission,  or  of  any 
board  so  appointed  by  it,  and  any  inves- 
tigating officer  so  appointed,  shall  have 
the  power  to  administer  oaths,  and  said 
commission  shall  have  the  power  to  se- 
cure by  its  subpoena  both  the  attend- 
ance and  testimony  of  witnesses,  and 
the  production  of  books  and  papers  rele- 
vent  to  such  investigation. 

Nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  con- 
strued to  require  charges  or  investiga- 
tions in  the  case  of  laborers. 


December  28 


866 


1906 


(3.)  Section—. — PROMOTIONS.  The 
commission  shall,  by  its  rules,  provide 
for  promotions  in  such  classified  service, 
and  shall  provide  that  vacancies  shall 
be  filled  by  promotion,  in  all  cases 
where,  in  the  judgment  of  the  commis- 
sion, it  shall  be  for  the  best  interests  of 
the  service  so  to  fill  such  vacancy.  If, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  commission,  it 
is  not  for  the  best  interests  of  the  ser- 
vice to  fill  such  vacancy  by  promotion, 
then  such  vacancy  shall  be  filled  by  an 
original  entrance  examination;  provi- 
ded, however,  that  the  commission  shall 
in  its  rules  fix  upon  a credit  based  upon 
seniority  and  ascertained  merit  in  ser- 
vice to  be  given  to  all  employes  in  the 
classified  service  in  line  of  promotion 
who  submit  themselves  to  such  original 
examination.  All  promotional  examina- 
tions shall  be  limited  to  such  members 
of  the  next  lower  rank  or  grade  as  de- 


sire to  submit  themselves  to  such  exami- 
nation. The  method  of  examination 
and  the  rules  governing  the  same  and 
the  method  of  certifying  in  promotion 
shall  be  the  same  as  provided  for  appli- 
cants for  original  appointment. 

Section  — . — No  applicant  for  exami- 
nation for  any  office  or  place  of  employ- 
ment in  said  classified  service  shall  wil- 
fully or  corruptly,  by  himself  or  in  co- 
operation with  one  or  more  other  per- 
sons deceive  the  said  commission  with 
reference  to  his  identity,  or  wilfully  or 
corruptly  make  false  representations  in 
his  application  for  such  examination,  or 
commit  any  fraud  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
proving his  prospects  or  chances  in  such 
examination. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
LESSING  ROSENTHAL, 

Chairman. 


SPECIAL  ORDERS 

Proposition  of  Mr.  O’Donnell  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which  the  term  of  aider- 
men  was  fixed  at  four  years,  for  the  purpose  of  amending  it  to  read  two 
years.  * 


CORRECTIONS. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  At  page  782, 

second  column,  line  7,  after  word 
“city,”  insert  “I  am  therefore  opposed 
to  loading  up  the  charter  with  irrele- 


vant matter,  as  it  may  be  the  means  of 
its  defeat  when  submitted  to  a vote  of 
the  people.” 


December  28 


867 


190(5 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  the 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special);  and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


December  28 


868 


1906 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

SATURDAY,  FEBRUARY  16,1907 


\ 


(Elltrago  (Eljartrr  (Commit  ion 

Convened,  December  12,  i 90S 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

m.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Asst  Sec  y 


February  16 


871 


1907 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
Special  Meeting,  Saturday,  February  16,  1907 
2:00  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll,  and  the  Convention 
will  be  in  order. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart, 

J.  W.,  Eidmann;  Erickson,  Fisher, 
Gansbergen,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harri- 
son, Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittle- 
man,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Lundberg,  Mac- 
Millan, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
Michaelis,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Paullin, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Raymer,  Rin- 
aker,  Ritter,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shana- 
han, Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  Walker,  Werno,  White, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 57. 

Absent  — Badenoch,  Baker,  Carey, 
Clettenberg,  Crilly,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Gra- 
ham, Haas,  McCormick,  Oehne,  Powers,  I 


Revell,  Sethness,  Smulski,  Swift, 
Thompson,  Wilson — 16. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  the  minutes  of  the  last  meet- 
ing will  be  approved  without  being 
read,  and  corrections,  if  any,  may  be 
presented  to  the  Secretary  in  writing. 

The  Chair  is  in  receipt  of  communi- 
cations from  a number  of  societies.  Is 
it  desirable  to  have  them  read? 

A DELEGATE:  Let  them  be  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  from  the 

Chicago  Law  and  Order  League.  They 
will  be  printed,  in  the  minutes  of  the 
proceedings,  if  there  are  no  objections. 

The  first  business  before  the  Conven- 
tion is  a report  of  the  special  revenue 
committee,  Alderman  Bennett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  present  to  the  Convention  the 
report  of  the  committee  on  revenue.  I 
have  handed  it  to  the  clerk,  and  I would 
like  to  have  it  read  to  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it. 


February  16 


872 


1907 


THE  SECRETARY: 

February  16,  1907. 
Chicago  Charter  Convention. 

Gentlemen: — Your  committee  on  rev- 
enue having  considered  the  question  of 
tax  limit  referred  to  it,  begs  leave  to 
report  and  recommend  that  the  limit 
for  taxation  under  the  proposed  char- 
ter be  fixed  at  five  per  cent.,  and,  for 
the  information  of  the  Convention,  your 
committee  submits  the  following  com- 
parative statement: 

Income,  Exclusive  of  Interest  and 
Sinking  Funds,  Under  Proposed 
New  Charter  on  a Basis 
of  Five  Per  Cent. 

Five  per  cent.,  valuation 


$426,263,296  $21,313,164.80 

Miscellaneous  (estimated)  10,394,216.29 
Miscellaneous,  school  ....  943,920.07 


$32,651,301.16 

Present  Income,  Exclusive  of  Interest 
and  Sinking  Funds. 

City  valuation,  $426,263,- 

296  $ 6,081,937.02 

City,  miscellaneous  (esti- 
mated)   10,394,216.29 

Schools  (educational)  1.595  6,798,899.57 

Schools,  miscellaneous  (es- 
timated)'  943,920.07 

Parks  (average  rate  over 

entire  city,  .525) 2,237,882.30 

Library,  .065  277,071.14 


$26,733,926.39 

Increase  of  revenue  under 
new  charter,  exclusive 
of  interest  and  sinking 

funds  5,917,374.77 

Respectfully  submitted, 

FRANK  I.  BENNETT, 
Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Ben- 

nett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

committee  has  put  the  matter  in  this 


form  in  order  that  the  members  of  the 
Convention  may  see  at  a glance  just 
what  the  change  of  rate  under  the 
charter  will  do.  In  short,  it  will  give 
us  $5,917,374.77,  as  against  the  present 
figures,  using  the  valuation  of  1906  as 
a basis.  I have  had  copies  of  the  fig- 
ures placed  upon  the  desk  of  each  of 
the  .members  of  the  Convention,  so  that 
they  may  see  them  at  a glance.  I do  not 
know  whether  the  Convention  desires  to 
act  upon  this  matter  to-day,  but  in  or- 
der to  bring  it  before  the  house,  I move 
the  adoption  of  the  report. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  Do  you  wish 
to  say  anything  further  upon  it,  Aider- 
man  Bennett? 

MR.  BENNETT:  I think  that  is 

about  all  there  is  to  be  said  about  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  effect  of 

that  report  is  to  fix  the  tax  rate  limi- 
tation under  the  charter  at  five  per 
cent.  Wasn’t  that  the  recommendation 
of  the  committee? 

MR,  BENNETT:  That’s  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  “Question!”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor the  adoption  of  the  report  signify 
by  saying  Aye.  Opposed,  No. 

The  motion  prevailed. 

MR,  SHEPARD:  Supplementing  this 
report,  and  finishing  up  this  matter,  I 
have  had  rewritten  the  revenue  section, 
as  it  affects  this  report,  and  making 
some  clerical  or,  rather,  typographical 
corrections  that  were  directed  yester- 
day by  the  committee  on  general  plan. 
And  I have  also  drawn  a recommen- 
dation and  a bill  for  the  legislature 
repealing  Section  2 of  what  is  common- 
ly known  as  the  Juul  law. 

I bring  that  up  at  this  time  because 
under  this  subject  I desire  to  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  fact 
that  if  we  are  to  have  a 5 per  cent., 
which  has  now  been  determined  upon, 
it  will  now  bd  necessary  to  repeal  Sec- 


February  16 


873 


1907 


tion  2 of  the  Juul  law,  which  pro- 
vides that  the  aggregate  of  all  the  taxes 
applying  within  the  city  of  Chicago, 
including  the  Sanitary  District  and  the 
county  taxes,  shall  be  pro-rated  to  an 
aggregate  rate  of  5 per  cent.;  that 
would  result  in  this  5 per  cent,  which 
you  have  now  determined  upon  being 
scaled  down;  and  the  county  loses  its 
taxes  and  the  Sanitary  District  loses 
its  taxes. 

I have  accordingly  drafted  this,  and 
sent  it  up  with  the  recommendation 
that  it  be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  revenue 

law  contains  the  changes  agreed  upon 
yesterday,  I believe. 

Mr.  SHEPARD:  Yes,  sir,  and  the  ad- 
ditional one  that  the  word  “township” 
he  omitted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 

do  with  this,  gentlemen? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I move  its  adop- 

tion. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  This  being  one  of 

the  most  important  matters  that  we 
have  to  deal  with,  I ask,  with  Mr. 
Shepard’s  consent,  that  this  go  over 
until  the  next  meeting  of  this  Conven- 
tion. There  are  some  slight  changes 
in  the  resolution,  I understand. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Pardon  me;  I 

think  that  the  revenue  law  has  been 
printed  in  the  proceedings  as  adopted 
by  this  Convention,  I think  you  will 
so  find;  the  Secretary  might  read  that. 
That  is  the  quickest  way  to  get  at  it. 
It  was  adopted  once. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Does  Mr.  Shep- 

ard ’s  motion  also  include  the  draft  of 
the  bill  proposed  to  be  presented  to 
the  legislature? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes,  that  is  the  one 
adopted  and  slightly  changed  by  the 
sub-committee,  only  the  changes  made 
in  the  original  draft  adopted  by  the 
Convention  are  those  stated  by  me  be- 
fore. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I do  not  desire 


to  make  any  correction,  if  it  is  not  ma- 
terial, if  there  is  no  material  change. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  There  is  no  change 

that  is  material. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  un- 
der the  impression  that  it  is  the  same 
matter.  Are  you  ready  for  the  ques- 
tion? 

MR.  WHITE:  Does  the  change  con- 

templated affect  the  question  of  the 
so-called  building  fund  of  the  Board 
of  Education?  I have  not  been  able 
to  follow  the  details  of  either  of  these 
suggestions? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I would  sug- 
gest that  we  dispose  of  the  report  of 
the  committee  on  rules,  procedure  and 
general  plan  first,  and  that  we  adopt 
some  order  of  business,  and  then  we 
may  take  up  these  different  articles 
contained  in  the  proposed  charter  in 
their  order.  I think  if  we  do  that  the 
work  of  the  Convention  would  be 
easier. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  only  reason 

is  that  this  particular  matter  bore  re- 
lation to  the  report  of  the  committee 
on  revenue. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Under  the  new 

charter  * * * 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  White,  Mr. 

Bennett  is  replying  to  your  question. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Under  the  nqw 

charter  it  is  contemplated  permanent 
improvements,  including  the  building 
funds  of  the  schools,  naturally  would 
be  taken  care  of  out  of  bonds;  we  have 
a leeway  of  about  forty  millions  of 
bonds;  that  is  in  case  it  should  be 
found  in  any  one  year  that  the  amount 
will  not  be  sufficient,  the  amount 
gained  here  will  not  be  sufficient  to  take 
care  of  it.  All  public  permanent  im- 
provements will  be  taken  care  of  out 
of  bonds,  instead  of  as  at  present,  out 
of  the  annual  levy. 

MR.  WHITE : May  T ask  one  further 
question,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  WHITE:  Some  provision  has 


February  16 


874 


1907 


to  be  made  for  the  payment  of  those 
bonds;  if  you  incur  a debt  it  has  to  be 
paid.  From  what  particular  source  will 
the  sinking  fund  be  established  to  take 
care  of  those  school  building  bonds? 

MR.  BENNETT:  If  the  present  pol- 

icy is  carried  out,  serial  bonds  will  be 
issued,  one-twentieth  of  them  payable 
annually,  and  an  annual  tax  levied  with 
which  to  pay  the  bonds. 

MR.  WHITE:  A special  tax,  outside 

of  the  * * * 

MR.  BENNETT:  Outside  of  this— 

the  bonds  are  entirely  outside  of  this 
statement. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question 

now  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  entire 
revenue  report.  All  those  in  favor  sig- 
nify the  same 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I understand  the 

section  was  to  be  read  as  amended. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  that  event, 

the  Chair  will  recognize  Mr.  Eckhart, 
for  the  presentation  of  his  report,  and 
the  revenue  section  can  be  taken  up 
in  the  regular  order. 

MR.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chairman,  I de- 
sire to  submit  the  following  report,  and 
ask  the  Secretary  to  read  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  report. 

The  Secretary  read: 

Chicago,  111.,  Feb.  16,  1907. 
Chicago  Charter  Convention. 

Gentlemen:  — Your  committee  on 
rules,  procedure  and  general  plan,  to 
whom  was  referred  the  resolutions 
agreed  upon  and  adopted  by  the  Con- 
vention, with  directions  to  take  up  the 
discussion  of  details  and  proceed  with 
the  drafting  of  the  precise  terms  of 
the  different  charter  provisions  and  re- 
port the  same  to  the  Convention  for 
such  action  as  may  be  determined, 
herewith  respectfully  submits  a draft 
of  a bill  “for  an  act  to  provide  a char- 
ter for  the  city  of  Chicago,  to  con- 
solidate in  the  government  of  said  city 


the  powers  now  vested  in  the  local  au- 
thorities having  jurisdiction  within  the 
territory  of  said  city,  and  to  enlarge 
the  rights  and  powers  of  said  city.  ” 

In  the  drafting  of  the  bill  for  the 
new  charter,  the  committee  was  guided 
and  governed  by  the  resolutions  sub- 
mitted to  it  by  the  Convention.  Upon 
subjects  that  the  Convention  took  no 
action,  the  committee  supplied  the  nec- 
essary provisions  to  complete  and  per- 
fect the  draft  of  the  charter. 

Your  committee,  in  drafting  the  bill, 
modified  the  resolutions  of  the  Conven- 
tion in  the  following  particulars: 

1.  Resolution  IV.,  2,  provides  for 
arrangement  of  candidates  on  the  bal- 
lot in  alphabetical  order.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  securing  greater  impartiality 
the  draft  provides  that  the  order  of 
names  shall  be  alternated  on  different 
ballots.  (See  2 — 1 — 2.) 

2.  Under  the  present  law  the  mayor 
must  have  resided  in  the  city  one  year 
prior  to  his  election;  the  draft  extends 
the  period  to  five  years.  (See  3 — 1.) 

3.  Resolution  TTT.  ^.alls  for  the  des- 
ignation of  some  official  to  act  as  mayor 
during  the  mayor’s  absence.  In  the 
draft  the  presiding  officer  of  the  council 
is  designated  for  that  purpose. 

4.  Resolution  VI.  provides  for  re- 
districting the  city  for  an  equitable 
distribution  of  area  and  population; 
the  draft  provides  for  an  equitable  dis- 
tribution of  population  only.  (See 
4-3.) 

5.  Under  civil  service,  the  draft  em- 
bodies the  recommendations  of  the  com- 
mittee of  the  Convention  regarding  re- 
movals and  promotions  which  have  not 
yet  been  acted  upon  by  the  Convention. 
(See  7 — 8 and  7 — 12.) 

The  draft  provides,  for  a gradual  dis- 
placement of  the  present  civil  service 
commisioners.  It  makes  them  remov- 
able only  in  the  same  way  as  other  city 
officers.  (See  7 — 1.) 

6.  The  provisions  regarding  pension 
funds  are  left  out  of  the  charter. 


February  16 


875 


1907 


7.  The  term  of  the  city  treasurer  is 
extended  to  four  years,  as  otherwise 
an  election  would  have  to  be  held  mere- 
ly for  filling  his  office.  (See  11 — 14.) 

8.  Resolution  XIV.  will  apply  only 
where  the  work  to  be  done  is  not  to  be 
paid  for  by  special  assessment;  sepa- 
rate provision  is  made  for  the  latter 
work.  (See  15 — 4.) 

9.  The  provision  that  a street  once 
paved  shall  not  be  repaved  entirely  by 
special  assessment  is  to  apply  only 
where  a street  has  been  paved  after  the 
passage  of  the  charter  and  an  excep- 
tion is  allowed  where  the  repaving  is 
petitioned  for  by  a majority  of  the 
abutting  owners.  (See  15 — 2.) 

10.  The  members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  are  to  be  displaced  gradual- 
ly, the  number  being  reduced  from  21 
to  18,  and  then  from  18  to  15.  The 
Board  of  Library  Directors  is  likewise 
to  be  displaced  gradually.  (See  19 — 2.) 

11.  School  teachers  are  given  a hear- 
ing before  removal.  (See  19 — 30.) 

12.  Compulsory  education.  Resolu- 
tion XVIII.,  No.  11.  A further  ex- 
ception is  made  for  girls  between  14 
and  16  whose  services  are  needed  in 
their  homes.  (See  20 — 1.) 

13.  Resolution  XIX.  Provision  is, 
made  that  branch  libraries  and  branch 
reading  rooms  may  be  established  by 
the  library  board,  acting  independent- 
ly; the  control  of  the  City  Council  is 
secured  by  its  power  over  appropria- 
tions. (See  21 — 4.) 

14.  Amending  powers  are  provided 
for  under  Article  V.  (See  subject  of 
Powers  of  the  Council  in  General.) 

15.  The  provisions  regarding  Sunday 
observance  and  the  selling  of  liquor 
by  clubs  are  each  put  into  a separate 
act. 

****** 

Some  of  the  changes  and  modifica- 
tions were  necessary  for  a clearer  un- 
derstanding of  the  subject  matter  of 
the  resolutions,  and  we  would  respect- 
fully recommend  these  changes  and 


modifications  to  be  adopted  by  the  Con- 
vention. 

In  the  preparation  of  the  bill  here- 
with submitted,  your  committee  wishes 
to  express  its  obligation  and  thanks  to 
Professor  E.  Freund,  of  the  University 
of  Chicago,  for  his  energetic  and  intel- 
ligent work  of  days  and  weeks  in  per- 
fecting the  provisions  of  the  charter, 
under  the  supervision  of  the  sub-com- 
mittee. 

The  committee  also  wishes  to  express 
its  appreciation  to  Major  E.  B.  Tol- 
man,  who  has  met  with  the  committee 
from  time  to  time  in  an  advisory  ca- 
pacity. Respectfully  submitted, 

B.  A.  ECKHART, 
Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chairman 

would  suggest  that  those  modifications 
be  read  as  those  sections  are  reached, 
because  it  will  otherwise  be  impossible 
for  the  members  to  bear  them  in  mind. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Omitting  all  of 

that  part  of  the  report — sixteen  para- 
graphs. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  the  report  will  be  placed  on 
file. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  procedure 

will  follow,  I presume,  in  the  same 
manner  as  it  has  heretofore,  in  the  same 
manner  as  it  has  hitherto  been  followed 
by  the  convention.  The  subjects  will 
be  read  by  title.  The  Secretary  will 
read  those,  if  any  have  been  made  by 
the  committee,  and  the  matter  will  then 
be  open  for  change  by  the  convention. 
I presume  that  is  the  most  orderly 
manner.  I will  call  your  attention  to 
the  rules,  which  will  be  strictly  en- 
forced, namely,  that  the  speeches  will 
be  limited  to  ten  minutes  on  any  one 
subject;  and,  pending  a roll  call,  no 
member  will  speak  until  his  name  is 
reached. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  from  page  15  of  the  bill  to 
provide  a charter  for  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago, etc. 


February  16 


876 


1907 


(The  Secretary,  read  Article  I.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  it  the  desire 

of  this  Convention  that  this  section  be 
all  read  or  simply  read  by  title? 

(Cries  of  “Title!  ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Read  it  by  title. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Article  I.,  Con- 

solidation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

changes  in  that  reported  by  the  com- 
mittee? 

THE  SECRETARY:  No,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  suggestions 

or  amendments?  If  not,  the  Secretary 
will  read  Section  2,  Article  II. 

(The  Secretary  read  Article  II.) 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

was  not  present,  unfortunately,  when 
Article  II.,  Chapter  1,  was  voted  upon. 
I desire  to  say  just  a few  words  with 
reference  to  that  part  of  Chapter  18, 
page  18,  that  is  the  beginning  of  that 
section,  19,  20  and  21. 

It  seems  to  me  that  they  are  starting 
in  early  to  change  an  act  that  has  just 
been  passed  by  the  legislature  a short 
time  ago  creating  municipal  courts  and 
prescribing  the  rules  and  laws  govern- 
ing them.  I notice  here  that  in  one 
section  you  say  that  the  elections  will 
take  place  on  the  first  Monday  in  June, 
1913,  for  the  clerk  and  for  the  bailiff. 
Speaking  for  the  bailiff,  I do  not  think 
that  this  body  had  any  right  to  make 
them  serve  five  months  longer  than 
the  people  elected  them  to  serve;  nor 
do  I think  it  a proper  thing  to  be  in 
this  charter.  It  may  be  all  right  to 
eliminate  the  party  circle,  but  I don’t 
think  there  is  either  a genuine  Dem- 
ocrat or  genuine  Republican  that  will 
stand  for  it  for  a minute  unless  he  has 
some  sinister  motive  in  view.  I am 
against  that. 

I move  you,  Mr.  Chairman,  without 
taking  up  your  time,  but  desiring  to  call 
attention  to  the  fact  that  you  are  now 
interfering  with  something  that  does 
no  belong  to  you,  and  that  you  have 
no  right  to  touch,  seeing  that  it  is  a 


distinct  act  for  the  purpose  of  installing 
these  courts,  and  that  they  have  been 
installed,  and  are  now  running  to  the 
satisfaction  of  the  people — I do  not 
think  it  belongs  to  this  body  to  say 
that  an  election  shall  be  held  in  June. 
Why  in  June?  They  have  no  right  to 
say  that  a man  elected  by  the  people 
shall  serve  five  months  longer  than  the 
term  as  expressed  by  the  people  at  the 
election.  I wish,  therefore,  to  move 
that  all  of  that  section,  all  of  Article 
II.,  Chapter  1,  in  general,  the  bottom 
of  pages  18  and  19,  20  and  21,  be 
stricken  from  the  record  or  from  the 
charter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion.  Mr.  Hunter 
moves  that  Chapter  1,  Article  II.,  en- 
titled Elections  in  General,  be  stricken 
out. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I ask  for  a roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

give  you  one.  Is  there  any  discussion 
on  this  question?  If  not,  the  Secre- 
tary will  call  the  roll  on  Mr.  Hunter’s 
motion. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

do  I understand  this  strikes  out  the 
entire  article,  or  merely  strikes  out  that 
portion  in  regard  to  the  party  circle? 

MR.  HUNTER:  The  whole  article. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Chapter  1.  The 

Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  There  are  some 

very  good  things  in  this  article,  and 
one  of  them,  according  to  Mr.  Hunter ’s 
statement,  is  that  it  increases  his  term 
five  months.  I,  therefore,  vote  No. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I objected  to  that, 

you  know;  I had  not  had  enough  of  it 
already. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Hun- 

ter’s motion  to  strike  out  Chapter  1,  the 
motion  is  lost. 

Yeas — Erickson,  Hunter,  MacMillan, 
Shanahan,  Wilkins — 5. 

Nays  — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann, 


February  16 


877 


1907 


Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Greenacre,  Guerin, 
Harrison,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Latkrop, 
Linehan,  Lundberg,  McGoorty,  McKin- 
ley, Merriam,  Michaelis,  O ’Donnell, 
Owens,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Ray- 
mer,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shedd, 
Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Taylor,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  White,  Young,  Zimmer — 43. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I now  move  to 

strike  out  all  that  part  of  this  section 
pertaining  to  the  arrangement  of  the 
ballot;  that  is,  in  regard  to  the  party 
circle  and  the  party  column. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  change? 

Have  you  designated  it,  Mr.  Shana- 
han? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Well,  I suppose 

the  whole  section  will  have  to  be  re- 
written on  that  account. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now,  will  you 

state  your  motion  again? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I now  move  you, 

Mr.  Chairman,  to  strike  out  all  of 
Chapter  1 in  general,  pertaining  to  the 
party  column,  and  the  party  circle, 
about  the  arrangement  of  the  ballot. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion. 

MR.  POST:  Can  we  not  have  the  mo- 
tion specified  in  sections?  It  seems  to 
me  a motion  of  that  kind  ought  to  be 
put  so. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I would  like  to 

have  Mr.  Shanahan  read  the  paragraph 
to  which  he  refers. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Well,  starting 

on  page  19,  2 — 1 — 2,  “The  names  of  all 
candidates  for  each  office  to  be  voted 
on” — that  is  it,  from  there  on. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  no- 

tation from  the  committee? 

The  Secretary  then  read  from  the  re- 
port of  the  committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  that  will 
be  covered  by  the  objections  raised  by 
Mr.  Shanahan.  Mr.  Shanahan,  pro- 
ceed. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  That  is  all;  that 
is  my  motion. 


MR.  POST:  That  is  the  motion — to 

strike  out  2 — 1 — 2,  or  what? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Strike  out,  as  I 

understand  it,  the  motion  is  to  strike 
out  the  second  paragraph  of  Chapter  1 
of  Article  II.  Is  that  correct,  Mr. 
Shanahan? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Well,  I have  not 
had  time  to  read  this  bill;  I just  got  it. 
But  my  idea  is  to  strike  out  that  portion 
of  this  chapter  which  applies  to  the  ar- 
rangement of  the  ballot,  so  that  we  will 
be  allowed  to  print  the  ballot  as  we 
do  at  the  present  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  then,  the 

Chair  will  state  that  Sections  3,  4,  5 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  if 

it  will  simplify  matters  any,  I would 
move  to  introduce  as  a substitute  that 
the  ballot  be  printed  the  same  as  it  is 
at  the  present  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  was 

going  to  suggest  that  the  second,  third, 
fourth,  fifth  and  sixth  paragraphs,  in- 
cluding the  schedule  of  forms  there  on 
page  20,  will  cover  Mr.  Shanahan’s  mo- 
tion, the  second,  third,  fourth  and  fifth 
paragraphs  on  page  19,  and  the  top 
paragraph  on  page  20,  and  all  that  form 
of  ballots  there. 

MR.  POST:  Down  to  the  figures 

2 — 1 — 3 on  page  20? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  that  is  not 

it.  Not  2—1—3. 

MR.  POST:  Down  to  2—2—1. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  that 

we  are  here  now  making  a very  serious 
mistake  in  this  matter — in  the  first  in- 
stance, with  regard  to  making  a change 
of  as  much  importance  as  this  is,  by  at- 
tempting to  pick  out  the  particular 
parts  of  the  charter  that  we  are  going 
to  amend;  that  is  to  say,  an  attempt 
by  a member  of  this  Convention  who 
has  not  read  the  charter  to  amend  the 
charter  by  picking  out  or  attempting  to 
pick  out  certain  sections  or  parts  of 
sections,  is  going  inevitably  to  lead  to 
a lot  of  confusion  here.  As  a matter 
of  procedure,  it  seems  to  me  we  should 


February  16 


878 


1907 


reconsider  the  previous  vote;  then  that 
should  be  referred  back  to  the  com- 
mittee for  re-drafting,  if  it  is  carried; 
otherwise  we  cannot  tell  what  sort  of  a 
draft  we  are  going  to  get  out  of  this. 

THE,  CHAIRMAN:  The  paragraphs 

that  I have  pointed  out  refer  to  a 
specific  subject,  and  if  they  were  strick- 
en out  it  would  not  interefere  with  any 
of  the  rest  of  the  chapter;  it  is  not 
as  though  those  paragraphs  were  being 
amended;  they  are  being  stricken  out. 

MR.  FISHER:  Are  we  perfectly 

sure  by  striking  those  out  that  we  do 
not  or  will  not  affect  any  of  the  others? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  states 

that  in  its  opinion  we  are  not. 

MR.  FISHER:  Now,  it  seems  to  me 

we  are  taking  chances  on  that,  and 
instead  of  taking  chances  on  that  it 
seems  to  me  that  there  should  be  a res- 
olution adopted  instructing  the  commit- 
tee to  redraft  it. 

MR.  JONES:  As  I understand  this 

motion  of  Mr.  Shanahan,  it  is  practical- 
ly a motion  to  reconsider  the  action  of 
the  Convention  with  respect  to  the  bal- 
lot. Now,  would  it  not  be  better  for 
Mr.  Shanahan  to  present  the  resolution 
by  a brief  resolution,  that  is,  and  that 
the  committee  be  instructed  to  redraft 
this  particular  section  so  as  to  embody 
the  party  circle  and  party  column,  and 
let  us  have  that  done  in  this  proceed- 
ing, so  that  we  will  understand  what 
we  are  voting  about,  and  then  we  can 
either  vote  it  up  or  vote  it  down;  and 
then,  if  that  is  carried,  this  matter  can 
be  brought  back,  and  then  redrafted. 
It  seems  to  me  practically  a reconsid- 
eration of  a complete  resolution  that 
we  discussed  some  time  ago.  We  ought 
to  have  it  before  us  in  some  matter 
clear  and  concise — in  a clear  and  con- 
cise form. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  un- 

derstands that  that  is  the  intent  of  Mr. 
Shanahan's  motion. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Exactly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  the  Chair 


will  state  it  as  his  understanding  that 
the  intent  of  Mr.  Shanahan's  motion 
is  to  strike  out  all  which  is  relating  to 
the  form  of  the  ballot,  and  to  substi- 
tute in  lieu  thereof  the  form  of  ballot 
as  now  used. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Exactly. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

to  a point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I rise  to  this 

point  of  order:  If  we  are  going  to  fol- 

low this  form  of  proposition  in  refer- 
ence to  this  particular  chapter  and 
this  particular  proposition,  the  same 
thing  can  be  done  with  reference  to 
every  single  proposition  that  this  Con- 
vention has  adopted.  Now,  where  a 
concrete  motion  -has  been  adopted,  can- 
not the  form  of  procedure  be  this:  Re- 

consider the  motion  adopting  that  prop- 
osition. If  there  is  no  vote  to  recon- 
sider, or  if  a majority  does  not  vote  in 
favor  of  reconsidering,  that  ends  that 
matter.  Otherwise  we  can  move  to 
amend  this  charter  in  every  possible 
way  on  propositions  already  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  the  gentlemen 
move  to  offer  a substitute  for  the  mat- 
ter under  consideration,  that  will  be  the 
proper  method. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  make  this  suggestion,  in  order 
to  expedite  matters:  That  we  pass  tem- 
porarily this  section  and  give  Mr.  Shan- 
ahan an  opportunity  to  prepare  his  reso- 
lution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  that  satis- 

factory, Mr.  Shanahan? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  No,  I think  this 

is  the  time  to  take  it  up,  right  now. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I will 

ask  Mr.  Shanahan  to  move  reconsidera- 
tion of  the  vote  by  which  the  original 
resolution  was  passed,  and  if  that  vote 
was  carried,  have  the  resolution  to  re- 
draft that  in  conformity  with  the  sug- 
gestions. That  will  be  the  proper  order, 
it  seems  to  me,  and  we  will  get  along 
better. 


February  16 


879 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN : I think  prob- 

ably that  is  the  most  expeditious  man- 
ner to  arrive  at  it.  Does  Mr.  Shanahan 
make  such  a motion? 

MR.  YOUNG:  I wish  to  ask  whether 
it  is  necessary  to  take  a formal  vote 
to  reconsider  every  proposition  that 
comes  up.  If  you  look  at  the  original 
rules  you  will  find  certain  things  have 
to  be  done.  The  proposition  was  sent 
to  a committee,  and  it  was  reported 
and  referred  back  to  the  committee  for 
final  action.  Everything  that  is  com- 
ing before  us  to-day  is  new  matter,  and 
we  can  do  just  what  we  please.  We 
can  adopt,  or  substitute,  or  amend.  It 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  useless  waste 
of  time  to  move  reconsideration,  and 
call  for  a roll  call,  and  decide  to  re- 
consider, and  then  to  take  up  the  sub- 
ject matter.  I think  Mr.  Shanahan’s 
motion  is  perfectly  clear  to  every  mem- 
ber of  this  Convention,  and  what  he  de- 
sires to  accomplish  by  it,  and  as  far  as 
any  technical  consideration  is  con- 
cerned, this  matter,  of  course,  will  go 
back  to  the  drafting  committee  to  be 
drafted  in  proper  and  legal  phraseology. 

MR.  COLE:  It  seems  to  me  there  is 

no  purpose  in  splitting  hairs  in  this 
thing.  Mr.  Shanahan’s  motion  is  clean 
cut.  It  provides  that  those  who  vote — 
they  will  vote  on  the  present  form  of 
the  ballot  with  the  party  circle,  as 
against  the  new  and  modern  form  of 
ballot  that  we  have  adopted.  Those 
who  vote  aye  would  be  in  favor  of  go- 
ing back  to  the  old  method,  and  those 
who  vote  no  would  vote  in  favor  of 
staying  where  we  are  here. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I think  the 

proper  course  to  pursue  would  be  arbi- 
trarily to  rule  that  there  must  be  a 
motion  to  reconsider  a subject,  else 
every  proposition  of  every  member  of 
this  committee  will  be  up  before  us  and 
we  will  get  an  affirmative  vote  on  the 
proposition  without  moving  a vote  to 
reconsider.  I think  the  proper  method 
to  pursue  in  this  case  is  for  the  Con- 


vention to  follow  the  parliamentary 
practice  and  rules  and  to  follow  the 
suggestion  made,  that  Mr.  Shanahan 
moves  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which 
the  resolution  was  originally  adopted. 
I do  not  think  we  can  pursue  any 
other  course  than  that. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

understand  there  is  no  hard  and  fast 
rule  of  this  Convention.  I think  Gen- 
eral Young  and  Mr.  Cole  have  stated 
the  proposition  correctly.  Now,  the 
great  trouble  in  presenting  most  mo- 
tions here  is  that  members  have  always 
said:  “How  are  we  voting  on  this? 

What  is  the  proposition?  Why  don’t 
you  divide  it?”  and  so  on.  This  is  a 
clean-cut  proposition  now  as  to  whether 
you  want,  as  Mr.  Cole  said,  this  new 
form  of  ballot,  or  whether  the  Conven- 
tion is  in  favor  of  the  party  column 
and  the  party  circle.  I want  it  present- 
ed so  that  nobody  in  this  Convention 
can  go  on  and  say:  “I  didn’t  under- 

stand how  we  were  voting.”  On  the 
last  motion,  on  Mr.  Hunter’s  motion, 
which  has  been  decided,  it  included 
three  or  four  different  propositions. 
Now,  under  my  motion,  you  vote  direct 
as  to  whether  you  want  the  party  col- 
umn and  the  party  circle,  or  whether 
you  want  this  new  method  that  is  in- 
corporated in  this  bill.  When  I move 
to  substitute  this  form  of  ballot  those 
who  vote  aye  vote  in  favor  of  the  party 
column  and  the  party  circle,  and  those 
who  vote  no  in  favor  of  this  new  idea, 
and  I hope  the  motion  will  be  presented 
in  that  form. 

MR.  FISHER:  I want  to  say  this: 

It  seems  to  me,  instead  of  losing  time, 
we  will  save  time  by  the  method  sug- 
gested by  Mr.  Eckhart.  We  are  going 
to  have  other  questions  come  up  here, 
undoubtedly,  and  if  a majority  of  this 
Convention  does  not  wish  to  reconsider, 
that  settles  the  proposition;  if  it  does, 
then  it  is  open  to  this  suggestion  of 
Mr.  Shanahan,  or  any  other  suggestion; 
there  may  be  quite  a few  of  them  be- 


February  16 


880 


1J07 


fore  we  get  through  with  these  proceed- 
ings, and  there  can  be  no  question  about 
the  parliamentary  law.  We  had  a for- 
mal rule,  and  a vote  by  roll  call,  and 
adopted  a certain  proposition.  This  is 
a proposition  to  amend  or  to  substitute 
something  else  for  that  proposition, 
without  reconsideration  and  a formal 
vote.  If  we  should  desire  to  do  this 

THE  CHAIRMAX:  I want  to  say, 

for  the  benefit  of  Mr.  Fisher,  that  the 
vote  had  was  taken  upon  an  informal 
proposition,  that  it  was  not  taken  on 
any  formal  matter,  so  that  these  mat- 
ters are  now  before  this  convention 
originally  and  not  after  adoption. 

MR.  MacMILLAX:  I rise  to  a point 

of  order.  Any  man  that  makes  a mo- 
tion to  reconsider  should  follow  the  rule 
laid  down,  and  should  be  called  upon 
to  state  whether  he  voted  in  the  affirm- 
ative on  the  question  or  not.  I do  not 
understand  that  the  Chair  has  stated 
that  any  of  these  things  have  been 
closed  irrevocably. 

THE  CHAIRMAX:  Xo,  sir. 

MR.  MacMILLAX:  They  are  still 

before  the  body;  they  are  open  to 
amendments.  If  that  is  the  case,  what 
is  the  use  of  going  over  the  stuff,  of 
reproducing  and  reconsidering,  and  all 
that  sort  of  thing?  Let  us  get  at  the 
meat  of  this  matter  at  once,  and  we  can 
dispose  of  it  for  all  subsequent  pro- 
ceedings in  some  way. 

MR.  ROSEXTHAL:  In  order  that 

we  may  get  this  method  of  procedure 
settled,  which,  it  seems  to  me,  is  vital 
to  the  “future  progress  of  this  conven- 
tion, I have  a rule  to  submit,  and  I 
would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Shanahan  to 
withdraw  his  motion  just  for  a minute 
until  we  settle  this  particular  ques- 
tion. 

MR.  SHAXAHAX:  I don’t  think, 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  should  take  up 
again  the  rule  question.  We  have  rules 
before  the  Convention;  if  it  is  a ques- 
tion of  parliamentary  procedure,  we  can 


stay  here  six  months  and  tear  this 
charter  all  to  pieces. 

THE  CHAIRMAX:  The  Chair  will 

put  the  motion  as  offered  by  Mr.  Shana- 
han; that  is  the  motion  before  the 
house. 

MR.  JOXES:  I should  like  to  offer 

an  amendment  to  Mr.  Shanahan’s  mo- 
tion. Mr.,  Shanahan ’s  motion,  as  I un- 
derstand it,  takes  out  of  the  charter  the 
alphabetical  arrangement  of  the  names 
and  puts  into  the  charter  a circle  and  a 
column,  so  that  if  we  should  adopt  his 
motion,  as  I understand  it,  we  might 
never  do  away  with  the  circle  and  the 
column,  without  a referendum  to  the 
people.  I voted  against  this  form  of 
ballot  originally,  on  the  ground  that  the 
general  election  laws  have  no  business 
in  a city  charter,  that  they  are  for  the 
general  statutes  of  the  state;  but  I 
would  vote  in  favor  of  Mr.  Shanahan’s 
motion,  if  it  were  amended  to  provide 
that  the  ballot  should  be  in  the  form 
now  or  hereafter  provided  by  general 
law.  That  is,  I don ’t  want  to  have 
this  buttoned  into  the  charter — the  cir- 
cle and  the  column — if  the  legislature 
should  hereafter  choose  to  amend  all  the 
election  laws  of  the  state.  I think, 
therefore,  that  if  Mr.  Shanahan  would 
accept  my  amendment  that  it  would  put 
the  matter  into  shape  where  more  of  us, 
perhaps,  might  vote  squarely  on  the 
proposition. 

MR.  SHAXAHAX:  I certainly  ac- 

cept the  suggestion  of  the  Senator,  that 
if  the  legislature  passes  a general  elec- 
tion law  that  it  should  be  applicable  to 
the  City  of  Chicago  as  well  as  to  the 
rest  of  the  state. 

THE  CHAIRMAX:  Xow  we  have 

got  a clear-cut  proposition  before  this 
Convention,  and  in  a moment  the  Secre- 
tary will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  FISHER:  Before  the  roll  is 

called,  I think  we  ought  to  discuss  this 
matter,  and  I think  there  will  be  quite 
a little  discussion  on  it. 

We  are  now  about  to  consider  one 


February  16 


881 


1907 


of  the  subjects  to  which  this  Conven- 
tion devoted  a large  portion  of  its  time, 
as  large  a portion  of  its  time  as  was 
given  to  any  other  subject. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss  the 
matter  at  any  great  length.  I merely 
wish  to  say  this,  that  there  are  a few 
things  in  this  charter,  and  only  a few 
things,  in  which  substantial  progress 
in  municipal  matters  has  been  made, 
and  apparently  it  is  the  purpose  to  start 
out  by  striking  out  each  of  those  things 
as  we  go  along;  at  any  rate,  it  is  pro- 
posed to  strike  out  the  one  section  with 
regard  to  election  reform  that  this  Con- 
vention did  make  any  progress  with  re- 
gard to.  We  adopted  a principle  to 
which  no  intelligent  member  of  any  po- 
litical body,  disorganized  or  organized 
upon  national  matters  or  municipal  mat- 
ters, can  possibly  object.  We  desire 
to  place  on  the  ballot  the  name  and  the 
emblem  of  the  party.  We  provided, 
simply,  that  the  party  circle  and  the 
party  column  should  be  "abolished,  so 
that  when  the  voter  comes  to  vote  he 
must  at  least  exercise  that  degree  of 
intelligence  which  requires  .him  to  read 
the  names  and  express  his  opinion  as  to 
the  man  for  whom  he  wishes  to  cast 
his  ballot;  and  if  we  do  not  put  the 
independent  candidate  to  a disadvan- 
tage that  he  shall  be  subjected  to,  any 
candidate,  no  matter  what  he  repre- 
sents on  a municipal  proposition,  should 
be  allowed  to  go  upon  the  ballot  and 
have  the  same  opportunity  before  the 
people  that  any  other  candidate  has  or 
would  have. 

Now,  all  you  have  to  do,  if  there  are 
five  or  six  candidates  for  a particular 
place,  is  simply  to  read  the  names  of 
the  candidates.  Any  man  who  is  in- 
telligent enough  to  read  can  decide  for 
whom  he  wishes  to  vote.  He  can  vote 
for  Jones  because  he  is  Jones,  or,  if 
he  so  desires,  he  can  vote  for  Jones 
because  he  is  a Democrat  or  because  he 
is  a Republican,  but  he  must  at  least 


exercise  that  degree  of  intelligent  inde- 
pendence. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  making  a 
tremendous  step  backward,  "and  that 
you  are  striking  out  of  this  charter,  if 
you  strike  it  out,  one  of  the  things  that 
is  most  popular  in  it,  and  which  has  re- 
ceived the  most  unqualified  approval 
of  the  masses  of  the  people,  more  so 
than  anything  put  in  it. 

I think  it  will  be  a great  mistake 
if  the  measure  is  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  fur- 

ther discussion  upon  this  question?  The 
question  is  upon  Senator  Jones’  substi- 
tute for  Mr.  Shanhan’s  motion,  that  the 
ballot  shall  be  as  it  is  now  provided 
by  the  general  law,  or  as  it  may  be 
hereafter  provided  by  general  law.  Is 
that  correct? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Exactly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  here  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown,  Dixon, 
G.  W.,  Eidmann,  Erickson,  Hunter, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lundberg,  MacMil- 
lan, Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Rin- 
aker,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow, 
Sunny,  Wilkins,  Young — 22. 

Nays  — Beilfuss,  Brosseau,  Burke, 
Cole,  Dever,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart, 
J.  W.,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Greenacre, 
Guerin,  Harrison,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Mc- 
Goorty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  Michaelis, 
O ’Donnell,  Owens,  Post,  Rainey,  Rob- 
ins, Rosenthal,  Taylor,  Yopicka,  Werno, 
Zimmer — 28. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BEEBE:  What  is  the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  effect  of  the 
motion  is  to  strike  out  those  portions 
of  Chapter  1,  Article  II.,  which  provide 
for  the  new  form  of  ballot.  The  aboli- 
tion of  the  party  circle,  and  to  substi- 
tute therefor  a section  which  shall  pro- 
vide that  the  general  election  laws 
now  in  force  shall  be  applicable  to 
Chicago,  and  also  such  general  laws  as 
may  be  hereinafter  enacted  by  the  gcn- 
x;ral  assembly. 


February  16 


882 


1907 


ME.  SHEDD:  I desire  to  vote  aye, 

for  the  reason  that  I wish  to  substitute 
— if  Mr.  Shanahan's  motion  will  pre- 
vail— providing  for  a party  column,  but 
not  of  a party  circle.  I am  in  favor  of 
the  party  column,  but  not  the  party 
circle.  I,  therefore,  vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Shan- 

ahan’s motion,  as  amended  by  Senator 
Jones,  the  yeas  are  22  and  the  nays  28, 
and  the  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  SHEDD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I now 

move  you  to  amend  the  section  as  it  ap- 
pears in  this  report  by  a provision  that 
we  strike  out  the  circle  from  the  ticket 
and  leave  the  party  eolumn.  I move 
you  that  we  amend  this  section  to  that 
effect. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr.  Shedd, 
that  the  circle  be  stricken  out,  but  not 
the  column — that  the  section  be  so 
amended.  Do  you  desire  the  roll  call 
now? 

Yeas — Beebe,  Bennett,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Gansbergen,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kit- 
tleman,  Lundberg,  MacMillan,  McKin- 
ley, Michaelis,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Ray- 
mer,  Rinaker,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shep- 
ard, Snow,  Sunny,  Wilkins,  Young — 26. 

Nays  — Beilfuss,  Brosseau,  Brown, 
Burke,  Cole,  Dever,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harrison, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoortv,  Merriam, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Post,  Rainey,  Rob- 
ins, Rosenthal,  Taylor,  Yopieka,  Werno, 
Zimmer — 25. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I wish  to  ex- 

plain my  vote.  This  mater  was  fully 
considered  by  our  committee  on  elec- 
tions and  appointments,  and  it  was  also 
fully  considered  by  this  Convention, 
and  each  time  the  Convention  voted  in 
favor  of  the  proposition,  and  our  com- 
mittee, after  the  fullest  consideration, 
voted  in  favor  of  the  proposition  as 
adopted  here.  Now,  it  sems  to  me,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  it  is  a mere  sham  and 


the  height  of  nonsense  to  simply  abol- 
ish the  circle  and  leave  the  party  col- 
umn, because  the  circle  in  itself  does 
not  amount  to  much,  but  the  party 
column,  in  the  manner  in  whieh  we  have 
the  arrangement  at  the  present  time, 
means  a good  deal,  and  if  all  this  Con- 
vention can  do  in  the  way  of  real  pro- 
gressive reform  in  the  matter  of  elec- 
tions is  simply  to  abolish  the  circle  and 
not  abolish  the  party  column,  we  are 
stepping  backwards,  we  are  not  making 
any  real  progress  at  all  in  this  charter, 
because  there  are  a few  progressive  pro- 
visions in  it.  I,  therefore,  vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Shedd ’s 

motion  the  yeas  are  26  and  the  nays  25, 
and  the  motion  is  carried. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : Good  enough. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any 

further  amendments  or  substitutes  to  the 
election  law? 

MR.  POST : I wish  to  add  a section 

to  this  chapter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Post  offers 

a section  to  this  chapter.  Is  it  this  chap- 
ter, Mr.  Post? 

MR.  POST:  Chapter  1,  article  2,  sec- 

tion 9. 

THE  SECRETARY : This  is  a new 

section,  Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST : A new  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

The  Secretary  read  the  amendment, 
2 — 1 — 9,  to  follow  the  last  paragraph  at 
the  bottom  of  page  21. 

MR.  POST : I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Gentlemen,  you 
heard  the  motioh. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

of  course,  the  purpose  of  the  motion  is 
not  stated,  but  I assume  it  is  in  order 
to  open  up  again  the  question  of  woman 
suffrage,  a matter  which  I thought  was 
once  settled  by  this  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  did 

not  get  you.  Will  you  raise  your  voice? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I said  the  pur- 

pose of  this  was  not  stated  in  the  mo- 


February  16 


883 


1907 


tion,  but  the  evident  object  of  it  is  to 
.open  up  again  the  question  of  woman 
suffrage,  which  I thought  was  once  set- 
tled by  this  Convention.  It  does  not 
state  that  and  I want  to  ask — before  I 
say  anything  further  on  the  question — 
I want  to  ask  the  gentleman  who  made 
this  motion  whether  that  is  the  purpose? 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  my  rea- 

son for  not  stating  the  purpose  was  that 
I supposed  every  intelligent  lawyer  in 
the  state  of  Illinois  would  understand 
that  when  the  word  “male”  was  left 
out  in  such  a connection  that  it  would 
enable  women  to  vote  the  same  as  men, 
when  they  are  of  age. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  as  offered  by  Mr. 
Post. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I move  to  amend  by 

inserting  the  word  “male.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN : May  we  not  have 

a direct  vote  on  this? 

MR.  POST:  I want  a roll  call,  Mr. 

Chairman.  I do  not  care  to  take  up  the 
time  of  the  Convention  by  further  dis- 
cussing this  question,  but  if  the  Chair- 
man will  permit  one  suggestion,  I think 
I must  object  to  these  protests  against 
reviving  questions.  There  is  one  point 
that  has  not  been  raised  yet,  in  sup- 
port of  the  Chairman’s  ruling,  and  that 
is,  the  rules  themselves.  The  rules  them- 
selves, you  will  find  if  you  will  consult 
page  19  of  the  rules,  provide  that  when 
the  committee  reports  back  the  form  of 
the  Charter  it  shall  be  before  the  Con- 
vention for  such  action  as  the  Conven- 
tion then  shall  decide  to  take. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  Chair- 
man ’s  understanding,  and  for  the  time 
being  the  rules  will  control.  The  Secre- 
tary will  call  the  roll  and  the  Chair  will 
state  the  question.  The  effect  of  this 
motion  is  to  strike  out  of  the  ballot  the 
privilege  or  word  “male. ” 

MR.  ROBINS:  I am  greatly  interest- 

ed in  this  motion,  and  I hope  that  the 
motion  will  prevail.  I hope  it  will  pre- 
vail, because  if  it  does  it  will  then  evi- 


dence to  the  world  that  the  men  in  this 
Convention  believe  that  the  women  of 
Chicago  are  as  well  equipped,  as  capable, 
to  take  part  in  the  administration  of 
this  city  as  the  women  of  every  city  in 
Australia,  of  most  of  the  cities  in  Great 
Britain,  of  many  of  the  cities  in  Canada, 
and  in  most  other  civilized  parts  of  the 
world. 

A great  deal  has  been  said  by  the  op- 
ponents of  women  suffrage  upon  the 
question  of  home-making,  and  I submit 
to  this  Convention  that  the  making  of  a 
decent  home  is  more  related  in  our  great 
cities  to  the  character  of  the  administra- 
tion at  the  city  hall  than  it  can  possibly 
be  to  any  one  individual  home  in  so  far 
as  many  of  the  most  important  consid- 
erations are  concerned. 

In  olden  times  the  women  of  the  home 
could  see  about  her  water,  see  about  the 
sanitation  and  garbage,  could  see  about 
the  cleaning  of  her  own  yards,  could  see 
about  the  condition  of  the  milk  and  the 
bread  and  the  food,  and  could  attend 
to  the  light,  if  you  please,  could  attend 
to  the  condition  of  the  building  itself, 
could  attend  to  the  clothes  she  was  going 
to  wear  and  what  she  was  going  to  have 
her  children  wear;  and  in  a great  city 
such  as  Chicago,  under  the  conditions  that 
prevail  today,  this  great  consideration  of 
the  home  is  absolutely  beyond  her  con- 
trol. I happen  to  live  in  a four-story 
flat  on  the  West  Side,  and  from  the 
hours  of  nine  o ’clock  at  night  until  six 
o ’clock  in  the  morning  only  can  we  get 
any  water  there,  and  that  is  the  time 
when  we  need  it  least,  as  may  be 
supposed,  working  in  the  day  time  and 
not  at  night,  being  the  vocation  of  our 
family.  Mr.  Chairman,  I venture  the  as- 
sertion that  if  the  women  of  Chicago 
had  a vote  we  would  have  water  on 
every  fourth  story  of  every  flat  building 
in  this  city.  Men  cannot  give  the  con- 
sideration to  small  matters  of  that  sort 
that  women  necessarily  can  give  them, 
and  the  women  bear  the  entire  burden  of 
the  misadministration  in  those  matters. 


February  16 


884 


1907 


There  is  no  reason  that  cannot  be  met 
wisely  and  easily  and  cheaply  for  the 
condition  that  you  cannot  get  water  in 
the  fourth  story  flats  in  which  a large 
portion  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  city 
have  to  spend  a large  portion  of  their 
time. 

What  about  sanitation  and  garbage? 
Suppose  the  wife  tells  the  husband, 

‘ 1 They  did  not  call  for  our  garbage  this 
week  and  the  condition  is  terrible  down 
there.”  He  has  not  the  time  to  attend 
to  it,  and  he  don’t  attend  to  it;  but  the 
women  of  the  city'  would  attend  to  it, 
and  that  garbage  would  be  taken  care 
of;  and  that  affects  the  health  and  well 
being  of  the  homes  of  the  poor  in  this 
city,  the  actual*  physical  condition  of 
the  people  of  the  homes  as  much  as  any 
other  one  thing. 

Nowr,  what  about  our  milk  and  our 
bread,  and  our  food?  Do  you  mean  to 
say  for  a minute  that  if  the  women,  had 
votes  that  we  would  have  the  kind  of 
milk  that  has  been  dispensed  in  certain 
quarters  of  this  city  lately — that  it  could 
be  dispensed  for  twenty-four  hours?  You 
know  perfectly  well  about  the  epidemic 
that  we  have  had,  and  you  know  that  the 
vote  power  as  expressed  in  the  city  ad- 
ministration and  echoed  in  the  city  hall 
would  change  every  one  of  those  condi- 
tions; and  they  are  among  the  most  im- 
portant concerning  the  life  and  well  be- 
ing of  these  people. 

And  the  scarlet  fever  epidemic,  what 
about  that?  That  is  upon  the  statement 
of  certain  authorities,  largely  due,  in 
certain  quarters  at  least,  to  the  dispens- 
ing of  certain  milk,  a protection  which 
should  have  been  afforded  and  not  having 
been  afforded  to  the  people  of  this  city. 
I wish  to  say  to  you  that  that  condition 
should  not  have  prevailed,  and  an  epi- 
demic such  as  the  one  we  have  just  passed 
through  could  not  exist  in  this  city  if 
the  proper  sort  of  care  were  taken  in 
these  matters  of  municipal  housekeeping, 
a point  of  municipal  administration  where 
municipalities  have  failed  in  the  last 


thirty  years  in  this  country  most  sig- 
nally. On  the  matter  of  street  cleaning, 
there  is  not  a man  in  this  room  that 
suffers  from  that  condition  equal  to 
the  women  of  this  city.  The  mere 
clothes  women  have  to  wear  make  them 
peculiar  sufferers  from  the  condition  of 
our  streets  and  crossings,  and  we  would 
give  more  concern  to  the  conditions  of 
the  streets  and  crossings  if  a body  of 
200,000  women  with  their  votes  was  able 
to  be  heard,  and  if  their  votes  echoed 
at  our  doors;  and  you  know  it  and  I 
know  it. 

And  in  the  matter  of  light,  for  in- 
stance. In  the  old  days  the  mother  could 
look  after  the  kerosene  oil;  she  could 
keep  her  lamps  trimmed  and  burning; 
but  there  is  no  mother  in  Chicago  that 
can  protect  herself  against  high  rate 
meters  and  low  rate  gas  that  goes  through 
the  meters  of  the  company  in  this  city. 
You  know  it  and  I know  it.  It  has 
become  a municipal  function,  and  she 
cannot  light  her  home  satisfactorily  un- 
less she  can  get  influence  at  the  City 
Hall. 

In  the  matter  of  the  building,  in  its 
construction,  and  its  fire  protection,  that 
was  a matter  that  used  to  be  under  the 
control  of  the  individual  householder,  the 
mother.  That  is  no  longer  under  that 
control;  it  is  a matter  that  the  women 
are  concerned  in  more  than  the  men,  and 
it  is  a matter  that  because  men  are  not 
so  much  concerned  in,  there  are  count- 
less violations  over  this  city.  And  those 
violations  fall  heavily  upon  the  poor  of 
the  city. 

In  the  matter  of  social  concern — it  is 
a sad  story,  and  it  gives  witness  to  the 
intelligent  interest  of  the  women  in  pub- 
lic affairs  in  Chicago,  the  stand  that  has 
been  made  by  them,  which  has  been  recog- 
nized, not  only  in  this  country  but  in 
Paris,  France.  I heard  a publicist  there 
say  that  the  greatest  woman  in  public 
life  that  he  knew  of  lived  in  the  City 
of  Chicago,  and  I do  not  think  I need 


February  16 


885 


190' 


mention  her  in  this  presence,  for  you  all 
know  to  whom  I refer. 

Gentlemen,  the  police  department  in 
this  eity  in  its  administration,  and  its 
relation  to  the  life  and  well  being,  to 
the  law  and  order,  to  the  moral  condi- 
tions of  the  home,  is  more  potent  to  make 
for  righteousness,  or  to  make  for  wick- 
edness, than  any  individual  mother  can 
be  in  the  control  of  her  children  in  the 
poorer  districts,  and  you  know  it  and  I 
know  it. 

You  know  that  the  conditions  that 
are  permitted  in  certain  of  the  dance 
halls  in  this  city — certain  conditions  that 
are  laughed  at  and  winked  at — make  the 
moral  condition  of  the  children  and  of 
the  homes,  and  the  moral  character  of 
children  an  impossibility,  and  this  is  the 
witness  that  the  Juvenile  Court  and  Pon- 
tiac, and  all  of  the  child-saving  agencies 
bear  to  this  great  question,  to  a decent — 
not  a Sunday  school — but  a decent,  moral 
life  among  the  children  of  the  poor.  And 
so  I say  that  the  social  concern  of  the 
women  in  this  city,  in  the  administration 
of  the  police  department,  is  of  first  mo- 
ment to  the  people  of  this  city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentleman’s 

time  has  expired. 

(Cries  of  “Leave.”) 

THE  Ci— ..it MAN:  Leave  is  granted 

by  unanimous  consent. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I thank  you,  gentle- 

men. 

In  the  last  thirty  years  there  has 
grown  up  in  the  common  conscience  of 
men  in  dealing  with  municipal  problems, 
an  understanding  that  preventive  meas- 
ures are  better  than  repressive  measures; 
that  there  is  no  measure  of  cure  equal 
to  preventing  the  beginnings  of  the 
disease.  Playgrounds,  schools,  Juvenile 
Court  societies,  all  of  the  epochs  that’ are 
making  the  life  of  the  childhood  of  this 
city  more  tolerable,  have  been  advocated, 
fostered,  and  slowly  forced  upon  us,  and 
sometimes,  notwithstanding  public  ser- 
vants in  the  City  Council  and  in  the  leg- 
islature. Now,  I do  not  want  to  say  that 


that  is  an  indictment  of  either  body.  I 
do  not  mean  to  say  that  this  is  an  in- 
dictment of  either  body.  I do  mean  to 
say  that  the  quick  conception  of  the 
mere  consciousness  of  the  need  now  ex- 
isting won’t  exist  on  the  part  of  them 
as  compared  with  this  existence  in  the 
minds  of  the  city. 

And  I have  to  say  to  you  that  the 
reason  that  Chicago  is  not  better 
equipped,  the  reason,  for  instance,  that 
she  bears  a bad  comparison  with  Mel- 
bourne, Australia,  in  those  particulars  is, 
in  my  judgment,  due  to  the  fact  that 
nearly  the  entire  administration  of  that 
city  of  Melbourne  is  in  the  hands  of  a 
board,  of  among  the  ablest  women  I have 
ever  had  the  privilege  and  pleasure  to 
know. 

And,  gentlemen,  modern  life  has  made 
such  great  demands  upon  men  in  busi- 
ness ; who,  chasing  after  the  almighty  dol- 
lar, which  has  held  us  all  so  steadily  that 
it  has  not  been  possible  for  us  to  keep 
up  with  municipal  housecleaning  and 
that  we  have  not  kept  up. 

You  know  absolutely  that  it  is  the 
worst  part  of  our  civilization,  and  it 
speaks  to  all  the  world,  in  terms  of  dis- 
regard and  in  terms  of  failure  in  the 
great  administration  of  a great  city. 

And  so  it  seems  to  me  that  woman 
must  be  brought  into  the  city  life  to  save 
the  homes  of  the  city;  to  give  the  homes 
of  the  city  that  power  and  that  strength 
which  you  say  you  want  them  to.  have 
and  then  which,  by  your  votes,  you  take 
aAvay  from  the  women,  in  their  exer- 
cise. 

Don’t  be  afraid  that  women  will  lose 
their  sweetness  and  their  bloom  if  they 
are  given  a chance  to  vote.  You  do  not 
think  it  takes  away  her  sweetness  and 
her  bloom  for  her  to  go  into  the  sweat- 
shops of  this  great  city.  No!  That  is 
all  right.  They  are  being  exploited  in 
the  factory,  the  mill  and  the  workshop 
without  anybody  complaining  about  the 
bloom  that  is  being  taken  from  the  fair 
rose  of  womanhood.  And,  it  seems  to 


February  16 


886 


1907 


me,  that  if  they  go  into  the  ballot  box 
one  day  and  vote  their  sentiments  upon 
the  issues  of  municipal  housecleaning, 
you  won’t  be  the  losers,  but  you  will  be 
the  gainers  in  a mighty  fashion. 

Just  one  word  more  and  I am  through. 
It  is  a mistake  to  think  that  women  are 
not  conservative.  Those  of  you  who  fear 
some  of  the  issues  for  which  I personally 
stand  will  possibly  find  your  largest  force 
in  conservative  government  in  the  women 
of  this  city;  they  are  always  more  con- 
servative than  the  men,  they  change,  less 
quickly;  they  are  more  eager  to  con- 
serve what  they  have  of  good  than  the 
men  are.  In  the  very  nature  of  things 
they  think  about  the  home  and  the  chil- 
dren, rather  than  the  particular  issue; 
and  from  that  point  of  view  it  seems  to 
me  it  is  well  to  pass  this  resolution. 

Now,  I am  not  concerned  about  ab- 
stract justice;  if  I was,  I could  leave  the 
issue  on  that  point.  But  I believe  that 
substantial  gain  for  the  entire  municipal 
life  of  this  city,  the  keeping  of  this  city 
in  touch  with  the  glowing  life  and  hope 
of  municipal  administration  everywhere 
rests  in  some  measure,  at' least,  upon  the 
adoption  of  this  resolution. 

ME  GBEENACEE:  More  by  way  of 

explanation  than  otherwise,  I wish  to 
call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to 
the  fact  that  this  resolution,  or  amend- 
ment, and  the  action  to  be  taken  thereon 
vitally  affects  us  all. 

In  a half  a dozen  sentences  I think 
I can  say  what  I wish  to  say:  We  all 

recognize  that  it  is  not  the  individual 
that  is  the  unit  of  society — not  at  all. 
If  that  were  so  society  would  cease  in  one 
generation;  it  is  the  fabric  of  our  home. 

Now,  we  read  a great  deal  of  criticism 
as  to  the  different  qualifications  of  the 
two  sexes.  I do  not  say  that  they  are 
alike  in  all  respects ; perhaps  one  sex 
may  excel  in  one  thing  and  another  in 
many  others.  But  I see  no  objection  to 
having  all  sides  participate  in  those 
things  in  which  they  excel  and  take  part 


and  enter  into  our  civic  life  in  our  mu- 
nicipal affairs. 

They  say  women  do  not  want  to  vote.  1 
I will  ask  you  if  you  were  allowed  to  vote 
once  in  four  years  for  one  officer — trustee 
of  the  state  university — how  often  do  you 
think  you  would  register  or  go  to  the 
polls?  I do  not  think  the  conditions  here 
warrant  us  in  drawing  any  conclusion 
on  it.  If  you  do  not  think  it  would  be 
a good  thing  for  the  women  to  vote, 
then  let  me  ask  you  this:  Is  it  a good 

thing  for  you?  Do  you  believe  a man 
is  better  or  worse  in  every  way  because 
the  ballot  has  been  conferred  upon  him? 
If  it  has  been  a good  thing  for  you  in 
broadening  you  and  making  you  a better 
man  and  a better  citizen,  why  shouldn’t 
it  be  a better  thing  for  the  women?  If 
you  make  the  men  better  in  that  way  why 
shouldn ’t  you  make  the  women  better, 
and  as  a result  make  the  children  better 
children?  I will  not  go  over  what  Mr. 
Kobins  has  ably  stated.  Each  member  of 
the  family  that  constitutes  the  unit  of  or- 
ganized society  has  his  or  her  own  par- 
ticular sphere  and  only  as  all  spheres 
have  recognition  and  the  influence  felt, 
can  we  approach  to  that  which  is  obtain- 
able and  the  best — and  that  which  can 
be  had. 

Now,  why  not,  if  it  is  a benefit  to  us 
to  vote,  why  not  give  the  lkdies  the 
same  benefit?  Why  not  broaden  them? 
Why  not  make  our  children  better?  That 
is  the  result  of  the  end.  Why  not  make 
the  city  better  in  these  things? 

I saw  this  in  one  of  these  states  where 
women  vote:  You  may  think  it  cuts  no 

figure  in  politics,  but  let  me  tell  you 
this:  In  one  city  in  our  country  I was 

talking  to  the  city  attorney.  It  falls  to 
him  there  as  it  does  to  the  chief  of  police 
here  to  attend  to  gambling  and  other 
evils  of  that  nature;  and  I talked  with 
him  about  it.  He  said,  ‘ ‘ I am  getting 
to  be  leary  about  that.  On  account  of 
the  gambling  they  are  charging  me  with 
giving  a ‘hand  down,’  and  if  that  gets 
out  the  women  won’t  let  me  be  elected 


February  16 


887 


1907 


again.  ’ ’ N.ow,  on  account  of  that  the 
man  was  doing  more  than  he  otherwise 
would  have  done,  because,  not  that  he 
was  afraid  of  the  men,  but  because  the 
women  voted  there.  That  was  a prac- 
tical officeholder  talking  about  the  prac- 
tical duties  of  his  office,  and  it  is  a 
fact. 

Now,  then,  tell  me;  what  is  there  to 
be  said  against  women  voting?  If  there 
is  a man  here  that  can  think  of  anything 
against  her  voting,  except  there  would 
be  more  ballots  cast,  I would  like  to 
hear  what  it  is.  And,  if  that  is  the 
only  reason,  then  it  is  time  for  us  to 
confess  or  admit,  if  we  are  not  willing 
to  have  the  expense,  to  allow  an  honest 
consideration  of  opinion  from  all  who 
are  interested  and  who  would  so  ably  con- 
tribute to  the  bettering  of  conditions. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I do  not  know 

how  the  votes  are  going.  The  last  vote, 
you  know,  I did  not  know  how  it  was, 
and  simply  for  fear  that  this  particular 
amendment  may  pass  I want  to  say  a 
word  supplementing  what  I have  said 
heretofore  on  this  question; 

I am  heartily  in  accord,  and  necessa- 
rily every  man  must  be  in  accord  with 
everything  that  Mr.  Robins  has  said.  He 
has  unquestionably  paid  a most  beautiful 
tribute  to  women  in  which  every  one  of 
us  here  will  join.  But  the  mere  fact  that 
that  is  so  does  not  make  it  necessary  that 
women  should  be  entitled  to  vote. 

Mr.  Robins’  whole  argument  is  based 
on  the  fallacious  assumption  that  women 
will  only  take  an  interest  in  municipal 
affairs  and  in  such  things  as  concern  her 
household  and  her  family,  herself  and 
her  children,  if  she  is  entitled  to  vote. 
Now,  I think  that  women. have  the  sense 
and  the  brains  which  Mr.  Robins  says 
they  have  and  they  will  take  the  same 
interest  in  our  household  and  in  our  fam- 
ily and  in  our  municipal  affairs  if  they 
may  participate  in  handling  them  which 
they  now  accord  to  the  families  and  to 
the  children. 


And  the  activity  of  women  here  has 
shown  that  they  take  that  interest. 

Now  I will  say  this:  That  when  our 

political  affairs  are  as  they  are  today, 
with  politics  as  they  are  today,  I do  not 
believe  that  it  is  a good  thing  for  a 
woman  to  be  mixed  up  in  municipal 
politics  at  the  present  time;  and  the  in- 
fluence of  municipal  polities  on  certain  of 
our  women  who  have  been  denatured  by 
that  influence  has  been  shown  time  and 
again.  There  are  advocates  of  this  prin- 
ciple among  women  who  are  in  favor  of 
voting,  who  are  in  favor  of  extending 
suffrage  to  women;  but  I claim  also  that 
the  majority  of  the  women  of  this  town' 
are  not  in  favor  of  extending  suffrage  to 
women,  and  until  we  find  that  a majority 
of  the  women  in  the  City  of  Chicago, 
of  the  intelligent  women  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  are  in  favor  of  having  that 
suffrage  extended  to  them,  I claim  it 
would  be  a mistake  to  vote  on  that 
proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  JONES:  I do  not  know  that 

the  speaker  wishes  to  cut  off  discussion 
on  this  subject;  it  seems  to  me  it  is 
a very  important  matter,  and  I,  for  one, 
would  like  to  speak  upon  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  was 

under  the  impression  that  this  had  been 
pretty  thoroughly  threshed  out  once  be- 
fore, but  Senator  Jones  has  the  floor. 

MR.  JONES:  I do  not  wish  to  inter- 

rupt the  roll  call.  It  seems  to  me  the 
argument  we  have  listened  to  this  after- 
noon has  been  all  on  one  side.  Now,  per- 
sonally, I do  not  see  that  anyone  can 
deny  that  all. human  beings  have  equal 
civil  rights,  and  so  far  as  the  abstract 
question  is  concerned,  I believe  that  all 
voters  concede  that  woman  suffrage,  as 
a theoretical  proposition,  is  perhaps  all 
right.  It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  it 
is  a question  of  policy  as  presented  at 
this  particular  time.  Our  political  insti- 
tutions have  been  going  through  the  most 
severe  strain  during  the  past  ten  or  fif- 


February  16 


1907 


teen  years  that  they  have  ever  encoun- 
tered during  the  existence  of  our  repub- 
lic. We  have  been  passing  through  a 
period  when  we  have  been  trying  to  elim- 
inate so-called  boss  rule.  Now  we  are 
beginning  to  see  the  light,  and  the  ques- 
tion which  I wish  to  raise  is  whether 
it  is  expedient  at  this  time  to  introduce 
a new  and  untried  element  into  the  poli- 
tics of  our  large  aggregations  of  popu- 
lation. 

I took  occasion  this  summer  to  visit 
a Western  state  where  they  have  woman 
suffrage,  and  I am  prepared  to  say  that 
in  the  small  communities,  in  the  small 
towns,  and  in  the  country  districts,  I be- 
lieve that  woman  suffrage  has  resulted 
in  great  advantage,  and  I was  so  advised 
in  several  specific  instances. 

I also  found,  by  talking  to  men  in 
various  walks  of  life,  that  in  the  large 
cities — that  two  of  the  large  cities  in  that 
Western  state — in  two  of  those  large 
cities  woman  suffrage  was  a curse,  and  it 
was  so  pronounced  by  men  and  women, 
because,  in  the  large  city  where  the  mu- 
nicipal influence  don’t  get  down  to  the 
individual  as  it  does  in  a small  city,  the 
women  do  not  take  the  interest  they 
should  in  political  affairs,  and  do  not 
vote;  so  that  my  personal  investigation, 
while  I am  a believer  in  the  right  of 
woman  suffrage,  my  personal  investiga- 
tion led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
last  place  where  woman  suffrage  should 
be  extended  is  in  the  large  congrega- 
tions of  population,  and  that  the  first 
place  where  the  expedient  should  be  tried, 
is  in  the  country  districts,  and  in  the 
small  cities. 

That  is  my  view  of  this  -situation,  and 
I believe  it  would  be  a great  mistake  if 
in  Illinois,  in  the  first  great  state  where 
this  experiment  should  be  tried,  it  should 
be  tried  out  under  the  uncertain  condi- 
tions of  a large  population. 

I believe,  moreover,  that  this  is  a 
matter  which  belongs  to  the  legislature; 
I believe  it  is  a matter  of  general  elec- 
tion laws,  and  that  the  legislature  of 


this  state  should  decide  whether  or  not 
the  time  has  arrived  for  the  people  of 
Illinois  in  their  wisdom  to  extend 
suffrage  to  women. 

I believe  that  when  the  time  does 
come — and  there  are  some  bills  in  the 
legislature  now,  and  we,  as  members  of 
the  legislature,  will  be  called  upon  to 
decide  that — I believe  that  the  question 
we  are  to  consider  is  whether  it  is  safe 
at  the  present  time,  in  the  present  un- 
certain condition  of  the  politics  in  our 
large  cities,  that  this  new  element 
should  come  into  the  problem.  For  this 
reason — although  I have  for  many  years 
believed  that  as  an  abstract  right  a 
woman  has  the  same  right  to  vote  that 
I believe  the  colored  man  has  to  vote — 
I believe  that  this  goes  to  the  question 
of  expediency,  because  I believe  that 
this  nation  has  been  passing  through 
one  of  its  great  tests  in  trying  to  ad- 
just conditions  in  city  populations  with 
the  peculiar  problems  that  are  there 
presented.  I believe  it  is  unwise  at  this 
time  to  attempt  this  experiment  in  the 
city  of  Chicago,  and  for  that  reason  I 
shall  vote  against  this  proposition. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  an  amendment  to  this  motion,  that 
it  be  referred  to  the  drafting 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  will  have  to 
write  out  your  motion,  Dr.  Taylor. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I will  write  it,  but 

in  order  to  save  time,  I will  state  it 
orally:  that  it  be  referred  to  the  draft- 
ing committee  to  submit  as  a separate 
measure,  and  apart  from  the  charter, 
as  a separate  bill. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  Chair 

will  have  to  rule  that  that  is  not  ger- 
mane. The  motion  of  Mr.  Post  is  to 
add  a section  to  the  sections  on  elec- 
tions. 

MR.  POST:  Can  I accept  that  as  a 

substitute,  Mr.  Chairman? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I will  move  it  as  a 

substitute. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  There  is  no  roll  call 
yet. 


February  16 


889 


1907 


ME.  TAYLOE:  It  seems  to  me 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  calls 

for  it. 

ME.  FISHEE:  It  seems  to  me  that 

we  should  adopt  rules  that  will  not  pre- 
vent progress.  It  seems  to  me  that 
Mr.  Post ’s  motion  could  be  accom- 
plished by  changing  that  part  of  it 
which  says  it  is  specially — shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  a certain  process.  It  is  ger- 
mane, and  is  ah  important  matter,  and 
we  ought  not  to  adopt  a rule  which 
would  prevent  prompt  action. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Chair  will 

try  and  give  just  as  much  latitude  to 
the  Convention  as  will  accomplish  the 
greatest  result.  Mr.  Post  proposed  to 
accept-^ 

ME.  POST:  I would  accept  the  sub- 

stitute, if  the  house  will  permit  me. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  Chair  is  un- 

der the  impression  that  it  is  not  ger- 
mane to  this  particular  subject.  We 
have  a section  here  applying  to  sepa- 
rate bills.  If  Mr.  Post  wants  to  hold 
that,  he  might  give  notice  after  the 
subject  matter  of  elections  is  disposed 
of. 

ME.  POST:  Is  it  not  correct  that  I 

made  a motion  that  it  be  adopted  as 
an  additional  section  in  the  charter? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

ME.  POST:  Is  it  not  entirely  ger- 

mane— isn’t  a motion  entirely  germane 
that  proposes  to  amend  my  motion  by 
presenting  it  as  a separate  bill  instead 
of  as  an  addition  to  the  charter? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  If  you  will  turn 

to  the  last  pages,  you  will  find  that 
there  are  two  separate  bills,  and  in- 
asmuch as  we  are  considering  the  char- 
ter as  a charter,  this  would  not  be  em- 
bodied in  the  charter,  but  be  a separate 
bill,  to  be  submitted  outside  the  char- 
ter. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  may  I 

ask  this? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  POST:  That  Dr.  Taylor’s  mo- 


tion may  have  a place  before  the  house 
at  the  proper  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes;  let  it  be 

printed. 

If  there  is  no  objection,  we  will  pass 
to  the  next  heading. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

what  is  the  result  of  your  ruling?  I 
rise  to  a point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I rise  to  this 

point  of  order:  This  is  an  amendment 

to  the  pending  motion.  Now,  the  re- 
sult of  the  Chair’s  ruling  will  be  to  de- 
fer this  matter  to  a subsequent  time, 
and  to  re-open  the  discussion  again, 
and  we  would  have  to  go  over  the 
whole  thing  again. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I understood 

that  Doctor  Taylor  and  Mr.  Post  de- 
sired to  submit  it  as  a separate  bill. 

MR.  POST:  The  proposition  is  that 

it  be  outside  the  charter.  My  proposi- 
tion was,  and  I moved,  an  addition  to 
the  charter.  Professor  Taylor  wishes 
to  amend,  but  the  Chair  has  ruled  that 
he  is  out  of  order.  I wish  simply  to 
ask  that  Professor  Taylor  may  have 
his  day  in  court  to  propose— to  make 
the  proposition  indicated  in  the  proper 
time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  I understood 

it,  you  withdrew  your  motion. 

MR.  POST:  I am  willing  to  accept 

it,  as  amended,  if  the  Chair  rules  that 
it  is  out  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Chair 

suggest  that  you  withdraw  your  mo- 
tion and  the  Chair  will  preserve  the 
rights  of  Doctor  Taylor  to  proceed  with 
it  in  the  proper  time. 

MR.  POST:  That  is  the  question 

I am  speaking  to. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I ask,  without 

going  into  the  matter  very  closely,  it 
will  take  but  a moment, — I suggest 
that  this  Convention,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  Mr.  Post  has  withdrawn  his 
amendment — that  this  Convention  vote 
upon  Professor  Taylor’s  proposition. 


February  16 


890 


1907 


With  that  disposed  of,  as  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal suggests,  it  goes  no  more  after- 
wards into  our  proceedings;  it  will 
not  be  discussed  or  re-discussed.  I sub- 
mit, therefore,  that  we  should  take  a 
vote  on  it  now  and  close  it  out,  and 
have  the  whole  matter  treated  in  the 
proper  way. 

MR.  POST:  There  is  no  motion. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Let  us  have  no 

more  talk,  and  no  further  discussion; 
let  the  matter  be  finally  disposed  of. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  is  of 

the  opinion,  that  it  being  outside  the 
charter,  it  should  not  be  taken  up  while 
a section  is  under  consideration. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I ask  unani- 

mous consent  for  the  consideration  of 
that  matter  at  the  present  time. 

(Cries  of  leave.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Is  there  any 

further  discussion  upon  the  matter? 

MR.  HUNTER:  He  is  drafting  it 

now. 

MR.  POST:  What  is  the  state  of 

the  matter? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  unan- 

imous leave  to  consider  the  matter  of 
Doctor  Taylor’s  substitute  now.  The 
Secretary  will  read  it  and  call  the  roll. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I believe  the  in- 
tent is  to  have  the  Convention  con- 
sider it  as  a separate  bill,  which  should 
be  presented  to  the  General  Assembly, 
and  be  separately  submitted  to  the 
voters  of  Chicago.  It  will  be  outside 
the  charter.  Is  there  any  further  dis- 
cussion on  the  matter?  The  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll  on  that. 

Yeas — Brosseau,  Brown,  Cole,  Dever, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eck- 
hart,  J.  W.,  Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin, 
Kittleman,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Goorty,  McKinley,  O ’Donnell,  Owens, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Rainey,  Rinaker,  Rob- 
ins, Shanahan,  Taylor,  Walker,  Werno, 
Wilkins.— 27. 

Nays — Foreman,  Chairman,  Beebe, 
Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Burke,  Church,  Eid- 
man,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Harrison, 


Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Jones,  Lathrop, 
Lundberg,  Merriam,  Michaelis,  Paullin, 
Raymer,  Rosenthal,  Shedd,  Shepard, 
Snow,  Swift,  Yopicka,  Young,  Zimmer 
—28. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I un- 

derstand that  an  affirmative  vote  per- 
mits this  Convention  to  bring  in  a sep- 
arate bill  for  the  legislature  in  favor 
of  female  suffrage  to  be  submitted  to 
the  people  for  their  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  COLE:  I therefore  vote  Aye. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I was 

called  out  before  the  roll  call  began, 
and  therefore  I take  this  opportunity 
to  say  briefly  what  I have  to  say  on 
this  question  in  explanation  of  my 
vote. 

It  seems  to  me  that  in  this  matter 
that  the  important  thing  is  the  ques- 
ion  as  to  whether  or  not  the  women 
of  Chicago  really  wish  to  vote.  Not 
whether  all  of  them  shall  vote,  but 
whether  the  substantial  womanhood  of 
this  city  does  desire  it;  or  whether  it 
desires  it  or  not,  whether  it  will  in 
fact  participate  in  municipal  affairs  if 
opportunity  is  given  it  to  do  so.  That 
is  the  question  about  which  the  debate 
had  ranged  most  fiercely,  and  at  all 
times  the  question  as  to  who  would 
vote,  and  to  what  extent.  I understand 
that  the  question  has  been  in  some  of 
the  other  states  submitted  to  a vote  of 
the  women  themselves,  as  a test  upon 
that  proposition.  I confess  that  there 
are  two  sides  to  the  question,  as  it  ap- 
pears to  me,  and  that  that  is  the  ques- 
tion that  I have  referred  to  which 
seems  to  me  to  be  the  controlling  ques- 
tion. 

There  are,  among  the  women  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  a great  many  women 
who  are  more  fortunately  situated  who 
take  a very  active  and  intelligent  part 
in  all  municipal  matters.  There  are  a 
great  many  women  who  belong  to  a 
class  in  this  community,  that  it  would 
be  a disadvantage  to  the  community  if 


February  16 


891 


1907 


they  ever  participated  in  municipal  af- 
fairs, and  that  would  also  unquestion- 
ably take  part  in  municipal  elections. 
The  crucical  question  isj  whether  or 
not  the  women  who  belong  to  the  in- 
termediate classes,  whether  the  wives  - 
of  the  intelligent  artisans  and  work- 
ing men  of  this  city,  and  the  wives  of 
the  middle  class  of  people  of  the  city, 
would  or  would  not  participate  in  these 
elections.  Personally  I think  that  a 
test  on  that  proposition  would  be  the 
most  enlightening  test  that  we  could 
have. 

1 understand  this  resolution  was 
made  in  my  absence — that  it  does 'not 
commit  the  committee  on  general  plan 
to  the  precise  form  of  the  question 
which  they  will  submit,  nor  the  precise 
manner  in  which  it  will  be  committed; 
and  if  that  plan  is  open,  as  I under- 
stand it  is,  I should  like  to  hear  that 
question  discussed  here  in  a general 
waj%  and,  if  feasible,  I would  move 
now  that  such  a test  be  made.  I be- 
lieve it  would  have  more  weight  in 
considering  this  question  than  any 
other  one  thing,  and  for  that  reason, 

I vote  Aye. 

MR.  HILL:  My  name  was  passed, 

and  I want  to  be  recorded  as  voting. 

I understand  that  this  applies  to  the 
eitv  only;I  think  if  the  bill  goes  in 
it  should  apply  to  the  whole  state.  I, 
therefore,  vote  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hill  votes 

No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Dr.  Tay- 

lor’s motion  that  a separate  bill  be 
submitted,  the  Yeas  are  27  and  the 
Nays  are  27  and  the  motion  is  lostr 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  is 

Chapter  2. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  Mr.  Chairman— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  what  pur- 

pose does  Mr.  Pendarvis  rise? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I rise  to  make 

a motion  with  regard  to  this  chapter.. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  title,  please,  first. 


D! 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Wait  a minute, 

Mr.  Chairman.  The  motion  I desire  to 
make  is  with  reference  to  the  chapter 
you  just  had  under  consideration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  chapter 

pending? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Yres,  sir.  I 

would  like  to  raise  the  point — I would 
rather  not  raise  the  question  at  this 
time,  but,  Mr.  Chairman,  I do  not  want 
to  be  foreclosed  on  the  proposition; 
T,  therefore,  move  that  Sections  3 to 
6 of  Chapter  1 of  Article  2 be  stricken 
out. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I second  the  mo- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  page  is 
that  on,  Mr.  Pendarvis? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Pages  20  and  21. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  sections  that  Mr.  Pendar- 
vis moves  to  strike  out. 

MR.  BURKE:  A point  of  informa- 
tion: What  has  become  of  Mr.  Post’s 

motion?* 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  with- 

drew his  motion  and  Dr.  Taylor’s  mo- 
tion was  put  in  in  place  of  it. 

MR.  POST:  I want  it  understood 

that  I withdrew  my  motion  for  the 
purpose  of  allowing  Dr.  Taylor  to  pre- 
sent his. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  the  record 

will  so  show.  Will  the  Secretary  con- 
tinue to  read? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  My  motion  will 

apply  as  to  Section  3 only  as  to  the 
words  in  parenthesis. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Can  you  not  re- 

duce that  to  writing,  please? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I would  have 

been  glad  to  have  prepared  the  mo- 
tion, but  we  are  taking  this  up  sud- 
denly, so  sudenly  that  a majority  of 
the  members  of  this  Convention  have 
not  had  time  to  prepare  their  motions; 
therefore,  in  order  not  to  lose  any  time 
I consented  to  go  ahead  today;  but  in 
justice  to  the  great  majority  of  the 
members  of  this  Convention  I would 


February  16 


892 


1907 


say  that  we  are  placed  in  an  unfair 
position  in  taking  up  these  subjects 
to  consider  them,  if  we  are  required 
to  reduce  our  motions  to  writing.  I 
can  state  very  readily  the  purpose  of 
my  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  only  pur- 

pose the  Chair  has  in  getting  these 
resolutions  in  writing  is  that  in  order 
the  Secretary  and  the  stenographer 
may  have  something  from  which  to 
make  up  a record.  That  is  about  the 
only  way;  it  is  almost  impossible  to 
make  up  a record  any  other  way. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  It  seems  to  me 

— I haven ’t  any  paper  here  to  write 
on;  there  is  nothing  prepared  here  for 
us  on  which  to  prepare  any  written  mo- 
tion. I will  make  my  motion  in  this 
way,  that  Section  3 stay  in,  and  make 
the  motion  that  Sections  4 to  6 in- 
clusive be  stricken  out.  I can  state 
very  briefly  the  purpose  of  my  making 
this  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sections  4 to  6 

inclusive,  is  that  your  motion,  Mr. 
Pendarvis? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Yes,  Chapter  1, 

Article  2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Page  20,  the 

lower  part  of  page  20  the  last  two 

paragraphs  on  page  20  and  the  first 

six  paragraphs  on  page  21.  The  Sec- 

retary will  read  what  Mr.  Pendarvis 
wants  stricken  out. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I would  like 

to  ask  for  information,  were  not  these 
sections  voted  upon  Mr.  Hunter’s  mo- 
tion, I would  like  to  inquire? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Was  not 

this  subject  matter  passed  upon  with 
Mr.  Hunter’s  motion,  at  the  same  time? 

MR.  HUNTER:  I moved  to  strike 

out  the  whole  of  that  section,  the  whole 
of  that  article,  that  was  my  motion, 
to  strike  out  the  whole  article.  Now, 
you  have  taken  up  one  part  of  that 
and  disposed  of  it  and  now  you  are 
going  to  dispose  of  the  other. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Two  other  parts 

passed  on  before,  Mr.  Eckhart;  one  was 
upon  Mr.  Shanahan ’s  motion,  which 
was  lost,  and  the  second,  was  Mr 
Shedd’s  motion,  which  was  carried; 
now,  Mr.  Pendarvis  moves  to  strike 
out  in  that  section  all  relating  to  the 
Municipal  Courts,  as  I understand  it; 
isn’t  that  the  intent  of  your  motion? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  That  is  the  in- 

tent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Sec- 

retary please  read  that. 

The  Secretary  then  read  as  follows: 
‘ 1 Page  20,  Article  2,  Chapter  1,  Sec- 
tion 4.” 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Pendarvis 

has  the  floor. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman, 

and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  I 

do  not  make  this  motion  for  the  pur- 
pose of  discussing  the  merits  or  de- 
merits of  any  question  that  may  be  in- 
volved in  these  questions,  but  solely 
in  the  interest  of  having,  when  the 
draft  of  this  charter  is  made,  an  or- 
derly draft  that  will  not  be  confus- 
ing, nor  subject  us  to  any  question  of 
construction. 

My  contention  is,  and  if  it  was  not 
for  bringing  in  matters  not  now  before 
us,  I should  have  put  the  motion  in  the 
form  of  a motion  to  strike  out  from 
this  charter  all  provisions  relating  to 
the  Municipal  Courts,  and  the  reason 
for  making  that  motion  is  this:  Two 

years  ago  as  a part  of  the  draft  of  the 
charter  legislation  we  had  submitted 
to  the  legislature  an  act  relative  to 
a Municipal  Court  in  Chicago,  an  act 
that  was  complete  in  itself,  and  one 
that  to  me  upon  its  initial  introduc- 
tion to  the  legislature  seemed  to  be  the 
most  perfect  and  complete  piece  of 
architectural  legislation  I ever  saw  in- 
troduced, to  say  nothing  of  the  merits 
or  demerits  of  the  act  itself.  After  a 
great  deal  of  work  that  act  was  passed 
and  was  submitted  to  a vote  of  the 


February  16 


893 


1907 


people  and  was  adopted,  and  is  now  in 
operation.  Now,  in  the  preparation  of 
this  charter,  in  the  consideration  of  all 
the  subjects  you  have  treated  them 
separately;  you  have  a separate  article 
upon  revenue,  you  have  a separate  ar- 
ticle upon  education,  and  so  on  every 
other  subject,  but  for  some  reason  or 
other  it  has  seemed  desirable  to  some 
to  put  into  this  charter  various  pro- 
visions with  reference  to  the  Municipal 
Courts,  and  the  effect  of  that  is  going 
to  be  to  make  confusion,  to  make  a 
provision  that  will  be  necessary  to  sub- 
mit it,  to  be  submitted  for  construc- 
tion. 

You  have  here  a position  regarding 
the  question,  and  that  question  being 
whether  that  provision  repeals  another 
charter  provision  which  provides  for 
the  election  of  those  officers.  There  is 
nothing  in  this  charter  itself  which 
specifically  repeals  those  acts.  You 
have  in  another  place  in  this  charter 
a provision  regarding  the  eligibility  of 
municipal  officers  which  is  in  direct 
contrast  with  the  question  of  the  eligi- 
bility of  the  judges  of  the  municipal 
court. 

There  is  now  pending  before  the 
legislature  acts  relative  to  that  court. 
There  is  pending,  as  I understand  it, 
one,  that  is,  a complete  revision,  a com- 
plete re-writing  of  that  act,  and,  if 
there  is  to  be  any  amendment  to  the 
municipal  court  act,  it  should  be 
through  that  act  itself,  and  should  not 
be  inserted  in  another  portion  of  the 
charter. 

MR.  McOORTY : Will  the  gentle- 

man yield  to  a question? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Certainly. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  In  what  way  does 
this  change  or  affect  the  eligibility 
of  the  municipal  court  act? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Under  this  act 

any  officer  of  the  municipal  court  must 
be  a citizen  of  the  City  of  Chicago  for 
one  year.  Now — a judge  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  is  not  required  to  be  a 


citizen  of  the  City  of  Chicago  for  one 
year;  that  raises  a question. 

Now,  you  have  here  a repealing  law, 
but  it  repeals  any  general  acts  that 
may  be  in  contemplation  with  this 
charter.  My  position  is  this:  That  if 

this  Convention  desires  to  make  any 
recommendation  to  the  legislature  with 
reference  to  the  municipal  court,  it 
should  go  to  that  act  itself. 

The  legislature  has  requested  that 
and  has  appointed  a separate  commit- 
tee in  both  houses.  Now,  why  should 
we  not  get  this  charter  in  working 
order  so  that  it  would  both  be  an  ap- 
peal to  the  legislature  and  a direct 
appeal  to  the  people?  And  this,  for 
that  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  what- 
ever change  we  make  in  the  municipal 
court  act,  we  shall  make  in  the  act 
itself  and  not  make  it  indirectly  in 
some  other  provision  of  the  charter. 

MR.  COLE:  1 wanted  to  say  just 

this:  that  it  strikes  me  in  my  simple 
way,  without  knowing  anything  about 
the  legal  part  of  the  question,  that 
there  is  only  one  point  about  this  con- 
troversy, and  that  is:  Shall  we  have 

our  election  in  June  when  it  will  be 
strictly  a local  election,  or  have  it  in 
November  when  we  will  have  it  mixed 
up  in  state  and  national  affairs?  Now, 
it  seems  to  me  that  is  the  only  ques- 
tion before  us  to  vote  on  now.  It  is 
clean  cut;  it  is  clean  cut,  an  issue  be- 
tween the  November  election  and  the 
June  election,  therefore,  I am  in  favor 
of  retaining  conditions  as  they  are  now. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman, 

and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I 
have  not  heard  any  one  make  any  ex- 
planation or  give  a reason  any  more 
germane  to  the  case  why  the  municipal 
court  judges  should  be  elected  at  a 
time  other  than  when  county  officers 
are  elected,  than  that  given  by  Mr. 
Pendarvis,  other  than  the  specious  rea- 
son, which  bears  no  relation  to  it. 

The  committe  of  which  Mr.  Pendarvis 
is  chairman,  to  reconsider  the  mu- 


February  16 


894 


1907 


nieipal  court  act,  decided  that  in  the 
interests  of  keeping  the  judiciary  out 
of  politics  that  these  judges  should 
be  elected  in  April  when  only  the  alder- 
men were  to  be  elected;  that  is  to  say, 
in  the  even-numbered  years. 

And  if  this  Charter  Convention 
should  finally  provide  that  the  aider- 
men  are  to  be  elected  for  the  term  of 
two  years,  then  in  the  interests  of 
economy  I would  favor  the  election  of 
the  municipal  court  judges  at  that 
time;  but  never,  Mr.  Chairman,  or  gen- 
tlemen of  this  Convention,  have  I heard 
any  man  who  had  the  temerity  to  urge 
before  any  body  of  men,  whether  it  was 
in  a legislature  or  a body  of  this  kind, 
that  the  judiciary  should  be  elected 
at  a time  when  other  extraneous  mat- 
ters and  considerations  enter  into  the 
issues  of  such  an  election. 

The  framers  of  the  Constitution  de- 
cided that  the  judges  of  the  Supreme 
Court  and  the  Circuit  Court  of  this 
state  should  be  elected  in  June,  and  so 
they  are  throughout  the  state.  It  is 
true  that  our  Superior  Court  judges  are 
elected  in  November,  because  the  legis- 
lature took  advantage  of  the  fact  that 
the  Constitution  did  not  expressly  pro- 
hibit the  election  of  such  judges,  al- 
though having  concurrent  jurisdiction 
with  the  judges  of  the  Circuit  Court. 

Now,  at  a vote,  which  as  I recall  it 
was  practically  unanimous,  this  Con- 
vention decided  on  a principle  that  the 
judiciary  should  not  be  dragged  into 
the  mire  of  politics;  that  they  should 
be  kept  apart  and  elected  at  a .time 
when  no  other  officers  are  to  be  elected. 

And,  therefore,  Mr.  Chairman,  with- 
out attempting  to  be  personal,  the 
argument  of  Mr.  Pendarvis  is  specious 
and  fallacious  for  the  reason  Mr.  Cole 
has  stated;  that  this  has  no  bearing 
on  the  act  itself;  it  does  not  affect  the 
action  of  the  court;  it  only  affects  the 
time  of  the  election  of  the  judges  and 
certainly  we  would  be  taking  a very 
serious  retrogressive  step  after  de- 


termining that  these  judges  should  be 
elected  in  June  or  a time  when  no  other 
officers  are  elected,  except  the  clerk 
and  the  bailiff  of  the  court,  to  say  at 
this  time  that  these  judges  should  be 
elected  in  November,  because  that  is 
the  effect  of  the  motion,  and  I insist 
that  it  is  proper  for  this  Convention 
to  determine  on  the  policies  relating  to 
the  municipal  court,  as  well  as  its  de- 
partments relating  to  any  other  form 
of  our  government. 

Now,  if  the  time  should  come  when 
the  public  loses  confidence  in  our  ju- 
diciary we  can  then  feel,  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  gentlemen  of  this  Conven- 
tion, that  our  institutions  are  not  all 
that  they  should  be  and  that  our  plan 
of  government  is  a failure. 

I think  this  Convention  ought  to  set 
the  standard  high  and-  adhere  to  the 
position  taken  when  they  said  that 
these  judges  should  be  elected  in  June. 

ME.  HUNTEE:  I want  to  ask  just 

a question,  if  you  please? 

ME.  McGOOETY : Certainly. 

ME.  HUNTEE:  Would  it  not  be 

necessary  to  repeal  the  act  as  it  stands 
now,  before  you  can  make  this  change? 

ME.  McGOOETY:  Not  at  all. 

ME.  HUNTEE:  By  what  right  have 

you  to  create  an  office  which  will  run 
some  months  longer  than  the  term  spec- 
ified in  the  act? 

ME.  McGOOETY : The  officer  holds 

. his  office  for  the  time  which  he  is 
elected  and  until  his  successor  is 
elected. 

ME.  POST:  May  I ask  Mr.  Hunter 

a question? 

ME.  HUNTEE:  Certainly. 

ME.  POST:  I would  like  to  know 

whether  Mr.  Hunter  feels  this  would 
prevent  his  resigning? 

MB.  HUNTEE:  I do  not  know  that 

there  is  any  chance  to  resign.  I will 
answer  Mr.  Post  in  this  way — 

THE  CHATEM AN : The  gentleman 
is  out  of  order. 


895 


1907 


February  16 

MR.  HUNTER:  May  I answer  Mr. 

Post? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Well,  all  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentleman 

will  address  himself  to  the  subject,  his 
time  is  about  all  up. 

MR.  HUNTER:  All  right. 

I am  not  sure  that  the  legal  opinion  that 
has  just  been  rendered  on  this  subject 
is  correct.  Of  course,  I have  no  legal 
knowledge,  but  I have  talked  with  men 
who  have  been  to  see  me  and  they 
tell  me  you  have  no  right  to  have  this 
in  the  charter  at  the  present  time. 

I for  one  was  not  here  when  this 
was  passed,  I could  not  be  here.  I 
could  probably  give  you  reasons  for  not 
being  present — but,  I kept  still  through 
the  meetings  and  I did  attend  with  the 
promise  that  I would  get  this  oppor- 
tunity at  some  future  time,  to  tell  you 
what  I thought  about  this,  and  prob- 
ably offer  things — and  this  in  particu- 
lar. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I do  not  think  that 
it  is  proper  to  attempt  to  change,  in 
a city  charter  a special  act  that  was 
passed  by  the  legislature  creating 
courts  and  various  officers. 

I do  not  want  you  or  anyone  else 
to  tell  me  that  I have  got  to  serve 
longer  than  my  term.  The  question  has 
been  asked  and  I have  not  been  al- 
lowed to  answer  it. 

I do  not  answer  it  here,  but  I will, 
Mr.  Post,  when  we  get  outside. 

MR.  POST:  I hope  you  will  answer 

it  peaceably. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Very  peaceably; 

very  peaceably. 

I desire  to  say  that  in  my  opinion 
and  in  the  opinion  of  many  men,  many 
thinking  men  in  the  City  of  Chicago 
who  are  equally  well  versed  with  the 
situation,  or  as  equally  well  versed 
as  those  who  are  assembled  here  to- 
day, do  not  believe  that  this  is  right; 
and,  it  is  not  in  my  opinion  right. 


I do  not  care  anything  about  when 
you  elect  anybody.  If  I want  to  be 
elected  I will  be  elected,  no  matter 
what  the  date  is;  but,  I want  to  say 
that  this  thing  here  is  passing  strange 
that  you  should  have  such  a measure 
in  the  charter. 

You  may  think  it  very  strange  that 
I should  be  opposed  to  it,  but  I am 
opposed  to  it  and  for  several  reasons. 
I would  have  stated  if  the  Chair  would 
let  me,  but  he  will  not  let  me. 

I hope  this  will  be  removed  from  the 
prospective  charter;  if  not  here,  else- 
where. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I think  Mr.  Pen- 

darvis  ’ view  is  right.  There  should  be 
no  reference  in  the  charter  to  the  muni- 
cipal court  act  and  no  attempt  made  to 
change  the  municipal  court  act  through 
the  charter. 

We  have  before  the  legislature  now, 
as  has  been  stated  here,  a bill  that 
provides  for  the  revision  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court  act  and  in  that  bill  is  this 
provision,  almost  identical  to  what  you 
have  here  in  this  article,  changing  the 
time  of  the  election  of  the  judges,  and, 
that  being  considered  there,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  have  it  here. 

I think  it  should  be  taken  out. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  If  such  a bill 

as  the  last  speaker  referred  to  is  actu- 
ally before  the  legislature,  it  seems  to 
me  it  is  very  important  to  also  have 
the  sentiment  of  this  Convention  be- 
fore them,  and  to  furnish  adequate  rea- 
sons as  to  why  this  particular  section 
should  be  passed  at  this  session.  Mr. 
Pendarvis  referred  to  the  bill  as  orig- 
inally drafted  and  presented. 

There  was  a great  deal  of  opposition 
to  the  original  bill,  but  all  the  gentle- 
men who  opposed  that  bill  before  the 
legislature,  as  well  as  those  who  sup- 
ported the  bill  were  agreed  on  one 
proposition;  and  that  is,  that  the  elec- 
tion of  judges  for  the  municipal  court 
should  not  occur  at  the  time  of  the  gen- 
eral (‘lection  and,  that  was  one  of  the 


February  16 


896 


1907 


few  provisions  that  everybody  agreed 
on  and  that  the  legislature  struck  out 
of  the  bill. 

Now,  this  does  not  affect  the  trial 
of  cases  before  that  court;  it  does  not 
affect  the  court’s  system.  It  controls 
merely  the  subject  of  elections,  which 
is  a general  subject  which  this  Con- 
yention  now  has  under  consideration, 
and  it  seems  to  me  under  those  circum- 
stances, and  if  we  are  to  divorce  our 
judges  from  politics  and  keep  our  ju- 
dicial elections  separate  and  apart,  it 
is  essential  that  we  should  have  these 
provisions  in  this  charter. 

MR.  WALKER:  It  seems  to  me,  Mr. 
Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, that  the  sentiment  of  this.  Con- 
vention as  to  when  the  election  of 
judges  of  the  municipal  court  should 
be  held  might  be  expressed  by  a resolu- 
tion without  incorporating  this  section 
in  the  charter. 

I quite  agree  with  the  position  taken 
by  Mr.  Pendarvis  on  that  point.  At 
the  same  time  I agree  thoroughly  with 
the  proposition  that  it  would  be  better 
if  the  judges  of  the  municipal  court 
were  elected  at  that  time  -when  the 
other  judges  are  elected,  and  be  re- 
moved from  other  political  questions. 
Therefore,  I favor  the  election  of  the 
municipal  court  judges  in  June. 

But  I think  that  all  of  the  laws  re- 
lating to  the  municipal  court  should 
be  in  the  municipal  court  act.  One 
place  to  which  we  may  go  and  learn 
what  the  law  is  governing  the  muni- 
cipal court  judges,  and  I think  we  can 
express  to  the  legislature  our  view 
about  when  these  elections  should  be 
held  and  cause  it  to  be  incorporated  in 
the  municipal  court  act  without  insert- 
ing it  as  a part  of  the  charter. 

MR.  JONES:  I should  like  to  move 

as  an  amendment  to  the  motion  before 
the  house  that  Sections  4,  5 and  6 be 
stricken  out  of  this  charter,  and  em- 
bodied in  a separate  act  to  be  pre- 


sented to  the  legislature.  And  I should 
like  to  speak  to  that  motion. 

My  point  is  this:  That  in  the  legis- 

lature, in  both  the  house  and  the  sen- 
ate, as  Mr.  Pendarvis  said,  there  is  a 
Charter  Committee  and  there  is  a Mu- 
nicipal Court  Committee.  Now,  if  this 
charter,  or  this  one  act  contains  pro- 
visions affecting  the  municipal  court 
act  as  this  does,  it  means  that  there  will 
be  a conflict  between  those  two  com- 
mittees; a least  you  will  have  them 
somewhat  mixed  up  and  there  is  hardly 
an}r  question  but  the  legislature  will 
pass  certain  amendments  to  the  mu- 
nicipal court  act.  I believe  those 
amendments  must  be  presented  to  the 
people;  so  you  will  have  two  amend- 
ments to  present  to  the  people.  One,  the 
amendment  to  the  municipal  court  act, 
and  the  other,  the  charter  here,  which 
also  contains  certain  amendments  to  the 
municipal  court  act. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  there  are  a number 
of  bills  already  before  the  legislature 
undertaking  to  amend  the  municipal 
court  act,  it  seems  to  me  that  a separate 
act  embodying  these  provisions,  having 
the  sanction  of  this  Convention,  will 
receive  as  much  consideration  before 
the  Municipal  Court  Committee  as  it 
will  before  the  Charter  Committee. 

Therefore,  I think  it  should  be  strick- 
en from  the  charter  bill  and  from  the 
body  and  be  embodied  in  a separate  mo- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion,  that  the  section  that  relates 
to  the  municipal  court  act  be  stricken  out 
and  embodied  in  a separate  bill  to  be 
presented  to  the  general  assembly.  The 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Brown,  Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G. 
W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Eidman,  Erickson,  Fisher,  Gansbergen, 
Guerin,  Hill,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Latlirop,  Lundberg,  McGoorty,  Mer- 
riam,  Michaelis,  Paullin,  Pendarvis, 
Post,  Rainey,  Raymer,  Rinaker,  Rosen- 


February  16 


897 


1907 


thal,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Snow, 
Sunny,  Taylor,  Walker,  Werno,  Wilkins 
-^0. 

Nays — Burke,  Dever,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Greenacre,  Harrison,  Hoyne,  Linehan, 
McKinley,  O’Donnell  Owens,  Robins, 
Yopica,  Young,  Zimmer — 14. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  COLE:  I am  decidedly  in  favor 

of  making  the  elections  come  in  June 
and  making  them  entirely  local  elec- 
tions. I think  it  would  be  a great  mis- 
fortune at  least  if  the  election  should 
be  held  in  November  as  now;  but,  in 
order  to  simplify  the  situation  and  per- 
haps make  it  easier  for  our  friends 
in  the  legislature,  and  understanding 
that  this  will  be  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple finally  for  their  vote  on  the  ques- 
tion, I vote  Aye. 

MR.  DEYER:  I think  one  of  the 

great  necessities  is  to  give  us  some  re- 
lief from  the  conditions  that  exist  here 
in  this  city,  made  so  by  ineffective  po- 
litical law,  if  I may  so  call  it;  and, 
one  of  them  is  the  municipal  court  law. 

That  provides  for  the  election  of  27 
municipal  court  judges  and  at  a time 
when  the  whole  community  is  aflame 
with  politics, — politics  which  touch 
others  than  which  should  burden  the 
judges  or  the  courts  of  law. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  motion  is 
an  effort  to  emasculate  the  charter 
amendment  so  that  it  cannot  be  said 
later  on  that  the  legislature  at  Spring- 
field  emasculated  the  charter.  It  is  an 
easy  way  to  get  rid  of  a troublesome 
question — to  send  out  a troublesome 
provision  of  this  sort — to  take  a sep- 
arate bill,  and  it  will  probably  be  lost. 

Send  it  out  as  a part  of  the  charter 
and  they  will  at  least  have  to  send  it 
back  under  the  aspersion  that  the 
charter  has  been  emasculated.  I do  not 
think  it  is  a fair  way  to  get  rid  of  the 
question. 

The  baliff  and  the  municipal  court 
clerk  is,  notwithstanding  the  general 
trend  of  public  opinion  existing  upon 


the  placing  of  all  the  officials  under 
them,  under  the  appointive  system,  and 
under  what  we  are  in  the  habit  of 
calling  the  spoils  system. 

The  city  government,  for  reasons,  do 
not  seem  to  understand  that;  they  are 
thought  to  be  under  the  spoils  system, 
and  we  hear  a great  deal  of  criticism 
about  the  spoils  system  from  certain 
reform  organizations,  but  very  little 
criticism  and  tame  criticism  from  the 
immense  patronage  of  these  two  great 
offices. 

The  purpose  of  having  this  question 
taken  up  as  part  of  the  subject  matter 
of  the  charter,  is  to  get  away  from 
the  vices  of  the  system,  and  to  compel, 
first,  that  the  judges  be  elected  at  a 
time  when  we  are  not  confused  with 
the  consideration  of  other  great  pub- 
lic questions,  that  we  may  be  able  to 
give  our  thought  and  attention  to  the 
selection  of  good  men  for  that  high 
office;  the  second  purpose  is  to  have 
our  administrative  election  for  office 
under  the  civil  service  law,  as  it  is  now, 
touching  the  city  government. 

For  that  reason,  I think  we  ought 
not  to  send  this  matter  down  in  the 
form  of  a separate  bill;  we  ought  to 
kill  it  altogether,  rather  than  that,  or 
else  make  it  a part  of  this  charter, 
where  it  belongs.  For  that  reason  I 
vote  No. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  'Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  we  are  put  in  a very 
ambiguous  position  here  on  this  ques- 
tion. I think  the  fundamental  ques- 
tion that  we  want  to  pass  here  is  one 
that  has  been  touched  upon  by  prac- 
tically every  speaker.  So  far,  every- 
body has  risen  in  this  convention  to 
favor  the  election  of  judges  at  the 
time  at  which  that  election  is  now 
fixed.  What  I would  like  to  see  is 
some  expression  of  that,  if  it  is  as 
unanimous  as  that,  and  to  put  through 
the  legislature  a bill  which  would  take 
| care  of  the  election  of  judges  and  take 
I it  out  of  partisan  politics.  It  seems 


February  16 


898 


1907 


to  me  by  this  resolution  offered  now  be- 
fore the  house  that  we  are  creating 
an  apparent  division  of  sentiment 
which  should  not  exist.  If  voting  in 
favor  of  this  resolution  is  a vote  to 
carry  the  proposition  through,  and 
means  that  the  sentiment  of  this  as- 
sembly is  unanimous,  I should  want 
to  vote  Aye.  If,  on  the  other-  hand, 
that  is  not  its  significance,  I should 
want  to  vote  no;  and  it  seems  to  me 
that  we  have  got  into  that  situation 
where  certain  people  are  voting  pro  or 
con  on  this  proposition  and  not  express- 
ing their  real  sentiments.  If  it  is  un- 
derstood that  that  is  the  purpose  of 
this  motion,  why,  I should  want  to 
vote  Aye  on  the  question,  and  for  that 
reason  I vote  Aye  at  this  time,  be- 
lieving that  that  is  the  construction 
which  must  be  put  upon  it,  although 
the  debate  appears  to  proceed  on  the 
opposite  hypothesis. 

MR.  JONES:  May  I,  as  mover  of 

the  motion,  reply  to  the  gentleman  wrho 
has  asked  the  question? 

(Cries  of  leave.) 

MR.  JONES:  My  motion,  as  I under- 

stand it,  carries  with  it  the  subject 
matter  of  this  section,  and  merely  puts 
this  in  another  bill.  I personally  favor 
the  June  election.  I understand  that 
it  will  be  lifted  out  of  this  charter 
and  put  in  a separate  act,  and  that 
act  will  be  submitted  in  the  usual  way. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed,  Mr. 

Secretary. 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  one 

speaker  on  the  other  side  of  the  house 
seems  to  carry  the  idea  that  a bill  of 
this  kind,  if  it  went  down  as  a separate 
bill,  would  probably  not  pass.  Why 
not?  Apparently  for  the  reason  that 
it  has  not  sufficient  merit;  at  least, 
we  would  suppose  that.  I have  heard 
that  so  many  times,  that  I want  to  say 
a word  in  explaining  my  vote. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  any  ques- 
tion that  has  not  sufficient  merit  in  it- 
self to  pass  as  a separate  bill  to  be 


referred  to  the  proper  committee  to  be 
considered,  should  not  be  so  put  be- 
fore us.  It  should  not  be  put  before 
us  in  this  way,  so  that  in  some  way 
or  other  it  may  be  carried  into  a meas- 
ure that  would  not  be  made  if  it  went 
down  there  with  open  face,  so  that 
everybody  could  understand  what  it 
means.  My  understanding  of  the 
charter  is,  that  we  are  asking  the  legis- 
lature to  delegate  certain  powers  and 
rights  to  the  City  of  Chicago,  to  be  de- 
termined and  regulated  by  the  City 
Council.  I do  not  understand  that  it 
is  proper  to  sandwich  into  this  charter, 
by  various  indirect  amendments,  va- 
rious acts  that  would  require  to  go  be- 
fore a dozen  different  committees  to 
be  properly  considered.  It  seems  to 
me  that  it  is  an  improper  way  to  get 
an  amendment  to  an  existing  act  to 
sandwich  it  into  this  charter. 

We  are  asking  the  legislature  to 
delegate  to  the  City  of  Chicago  certain 
powers  and  certain  rights  in  regard  to 
controlling  itself,  and  the  City  Council 
should  determine  that  in  _the  same  act 
there  should  be  strung  into  it  a lot  of 
amendments  that  have  not  sufficient- 
merit  to  be  passed  upon  without  being 
referred  to  the  proper  committees  to 
be  properly  considered.  For  that  rea- 
son I vote  Aye.  I think  this  should 
be  deferred  to  the  proper  committee, 
ard  be  considered  in  the  usual  way. 

MR.  MERRIAM  I desire  to  vote  No 
on  this  question.  But  I think  what  we 
are  doing  here  in  the  last  analysis,  is 
playing  hide  and  seek  in  the  matter  of 
general  elections  in  the  Municipal  Court 
of  judges  and  chief  clerk  and  bailiffs, 
and  if  this  should  go  down,  in  my  opin- 
ion, it  w’ill  never  be  enacted  into  law.  Mr. 
Jones,  at  a prior  session,  in  regard  to 
the  judges  being  elected  in  the  June  elec- 
tion, according  to  my  recollection,  voted 
x\ye  on  this  proposition.  If  I under- 
stood it  was  the  intention  of  this  Con- 
vention that  the  Municipal  Court  judges, 
the  bailiff  and  chief  clerk,  be  elected  in 


February  16 


899 


1907 


June,  I should  certainly  vote  Aye,  but 
as  I look  at  the  situation,  it  seems  to 
me  wo  should  defeat  the  election  of  mu- 
nicipal judges  in  June,  and  therefore  I 
shall  vote  No. 

ME.  PENDARYIS : I don ’t  know  that 
I should  apologize  for  saying  anything, 
but  I think  I have  been  possibly  inad- 
vertently put  in  the  wrong  position  in 
bringing  up  this  matter.  Reference  has 
been  made  by  one  or  two  gentlemen  to 
something  here,  which  1 w’ould  like  to 
speak  about.  I said,  when  I made  my 
motion,  that  I was  not  doing  it  for  the 
purpose  of  going  into  the  merits  or  de- 
merits of  the  question  involved  in  these 
resolutions,  but  only  for  the*  purpose  of 
questioning  this  method  of  amending  the 
Municipal  Court  Act.  That  was  the  sole 
purpose  of  the  original  motion. 

I also  said  that  if  this  Convention  had 
any  recommendations  to  make  upon  the 
Municipal  Court  Act,  those  recommenda- 
tions should  go  to  that  act  itself,  as  the 
natural  and  only  method  of  getting 
legislation  that  would  be  in  itself  the 
most  simple  and  understandable  form. 

Now,  then,  I cannot  see  by  what 
manner  of  analysis  or  reasoning,  the  gen- 
tleman who  has  last  spoken,  said  that  a 
recommendation  from  this  body,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Municipal  Court  Act, 
should  be  any  less  liable  to  pass  than 
as  a provision  in  this;  there  is  no  reason 
for  making  any  such  statement  as  that; 
and  that  the  support  of  this  body,  if 
worth  anything  to  these  provisions,  wTill 
be  worth  just  as  much  to  it  as  to  the 
amendment  of  the  Municipal  Court  Act 
— as  an  amendment  to  the  Municipal 
Court  Act  as  a provision  of  this  Char- 
ter; and  there  is  no  real  reason,  when 
we  have  a way  of  amending  the  Munici- 
pal Court  Act,  for  putting  the  amendment 
to  that  act  into  other  provisions  of  the 
charter;  and  I think  that  the  same  action 
that  is  to  be  taken  now  in  the  Convention, 
if  this  motion  should  pass  upon  these 
suggestions,  should  be  taken  with  refer- 
ence to  other  provisions  in  this  charter 


with  relation  to  the  Municipal  Court. 
Any  other  way  I don ’t  know  of,  and  that 
reasoning  is  not  right.  Now,  another 
point  I do  not  know  by  what  method  of 
reasoning,  by  what  authority  or  right 
the  gentleman  who  has  last  spoken  has 
referred  to  the  members  of  the  legisla- 
ture who  oppose  the  June  election. 
I know  I could  not  understand  why  he 
made  that  statement  with  reference  to 
any  member  of  the  last  general  assembly 
who  voted,  as  to  how  he  voted  upon  that 
proposition,  two  years  ago. 

I want  to  say  this,  that  the  change  that 
was  made  in  the  bill  at  that  time,  so 
far  as  I know,  was  made  upon  grounds 
of  policy,  largely,  rather  than  upon 
grounds  of  political  expedients;  that  the 
original  draft  of  the  bill,  when  it  went 
into  the  legislature  provided  for  the 
election  of  some  twenty  odd  judges  in 
June  and  every  sixth  year  it  would  come 
at  the  time  of  the  election  of  the  Circuit 
Court  judges,  so  that  we  would  be  elect- 
ing 42  judges  at  one  time;  and  when  that 
proposition  was  put  to  the  proposers  of 
the  measure,  everybody  said  that  was  a 
situation  that  was  not  desirable. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  May  I ask  the 

gentleman  a question? 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  Yes. 

'MR.  MERRIAM:  You  understand 

that  hereafter  they  will  elect  only  one- 
tliird  of  those,  so  that  you  could  not 
possibly  have  42. 

MR.  PENDARVIS;  I am  talking 
about  the  situation  that  existed  two 
years  ago,  not  about  the  present  situa- 
tion. 

MR,  McGOORTY:  May.  I ask  a ques- 

tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed,  Mr. 

Pendarvis. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I would  like  to 

ask  Mr.  Pendarvis  a question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  this 

putting  of  questions  strings  along  the 
debate  to  a great  extent;  Mr.  Pendar- 
vis, the  Chair  would  like  to  discourage 
questioning.  Go  ahead. 


February  16 


900 


1907 


MR.  PENDARVIS:  I will  submit  to 

the  ruling  of  the  Chair;  I am  subject  to 
the  Chair’s  wish,  whatever  the  Chair  sees 
fit  to  do. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I rise  to  a 

point  of  order.  Mr.  Pendarvis  is  ex- 
plaining his  vote,  and  it  is  entirely  out 
of  order  for  these  interruptions  to  be 
made,  or  to  have  discussion  on  the  gen- 
eral proposition.  I am  getting  tired  of 
this  interminable  interruption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

rule  that  Mr.  Pendarvis  be  not  inter- 
rupted. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I was  going  to 

explain  what  my  understanding  was,  and 
one  or  two  of  the  most  important  reasons 
for  the  change  of  the  original  date  from 
June.  When  the  situation  that  would 
have  been  created  by  the  election  of  all 
these  Municipal  Court  judges  at  one  time 
with  the  Circuit  Court  judges,  was  made 
known,  it  was  fouqd  that  there  would  be 
42  judges  in  one  election 

MR.  MERRIAM:  That  would  be  im- 

possible. 

MR,  PENDARVIS:  It  would  not  be 

impossible;  every  sixth  year;  then  it  was 
suggested — here  was  the  point,  that  the 
Municipal  Court  judges 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

have  to  insist  that  Mr.  Pendarvis  be 
given  an  opportunity  to  continue  his 
remarks,  as  his  time  is  expiring. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman, 

when  the  suggestion  was  made  of  divid- 
ing these  judges  into  three  classes,  in 
order  to  avoid  that  contingency,  it 

meant  a special  election  every  two  years 
in  June,  and  that  was  one  of  the  strong- 
est considerations  for  dropping  the  ques- 
tion of  the  election  of  the  judges  in 
June.  When  that  bill  reached  the  con- 
ference committee,  the  matter  was  pre- 
sented and  discussed  in  the  conference 
committee,  and  I do  not  feel  that  it  is 
my  privilege,  or  that  I should  disclose 
anything  that  happened  there,  but  I 
know  that  some  of  the  gentlemen  there 
voting  in  that  conference,  that  a few 


took  the  position — took  a position — which 
probably  might  surprise  Professor  Mer- 
riam  if  he  knew  the  position  they  took 
on  the  question  of  June  elections. 

But  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  politics 
alone  decided  the  question,  so  far  as  the 
Municipal  Court  Act  was  concerned,  is 
going  entirely  too  far.  I want  to  say, 
in  justice  to  the  gentlemen  who  acted 
for  that  bill  at  that  time  that  they  gave 
that  bill  the  most  serious  and  faithful 
consideration  in  a desire  to  get  a com- 
plete act  that  would  prove  a beneficial 
act  to  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  it  has, 
I believe,  to-day,  demonstrated  that  it 
was  a wise  piece  of  legislation. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I believe  not  only 
that  that  section,  but  every  other  pro- 
vision relating  to  the  Municipal  Court, 
should  be  submitted  to  the  vote  of  this 
Convention,  and  not  create  the  conten- 
tion that  will  arise  of  having  that  act 
amended  by  implication  or  provisions 
strung  along  under  this  charter.  I vote 
Aye. 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  seems  to  me  that 

we  have  reached  a point  in  this  Con- 
vention where  we  are  about  to  decide 
whether  we  are  going  to  have  a charter 
for  the  City  of  Chicago,  a comprehen- 
sive charter  providing  for  home  rule  for 
the  city,  or  whether  we  are  going  to 
have  split  up  and  divided  the  jurisdic- 
diction  and  control  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago in  just  about  the  same  form  that 
it  has  cursed  us  in  the  past.  For  my 
own  part,  it  seems  to  me  there  is  no 
part  of  this  municipal  government  that 
is  of  more  moment  than  is  the  Munici- 
pal Court.  I believe  the  wise  provisipns 
for  election  and  control  of  that  court  are 
of  as  much  importance  in  the  honest, 
economic  and  fair  administration  of  this 
city  government  as  any  other  part,  if  not 
more  than  any  other  part.  This  charter 
should  control  that  court;  the  legislature 
should  be  glad  to  give  to  the  people  of 
this  city  the  right  to  control  their  own 
Municipal  Court,  and  the  separation  of 
these  provisions  from  the  general  pro- 


February  16 


901 


1907 


visions  of  this  charter  cannot  mean  any- 
thing else,  it  seems  to  me,  to  the  people 
who  are  clear-minded  and  are  able  to  see, 
that  it  is  an  effort  to  preserve  this 
particular  part  of  the  administration  in 
Chicago  for  party  advantage. 

I cannot  help  but  seeing  it  in  that 
light,  and  therefore  1 vote  No. 

MB.  O’DONNELL:  I rise  to  a point 

of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  point 
of  order? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I did  not  want 

to  interrupt  Mr.  Robins  while  speaking, 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a time 
in  this  Convention  to  debate  these  mat- 
ters, and  there  is  a time  to  vote.  If  we 
are  going  to  allow  the  individual  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention  to  debate  these 
questions  every  time  they  vote,  we  will 
never  get  through  with  the  work,  and 
I want  to  raise  that  as  a point  of  order 
at  this  time,  and  get  the  decision  of  the 
Chair  as  to  the  impropriety  of  debating 
these  questions,  when  a member  takes  the 
floor  to  speak  in  regard  to  his  vote,  and 
when  he  should  be  on  the  flor  only  as 
to  his  vote,  and  I ask  the  ruling  of  the 
Chair  on  that  at  this  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair 

knows  of  no  way  by  which  he  can  pre- 
vent a delegate  to  this  Convention  from 
explaining  his  vote. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Roberts’  rules 

provides  that  when  the  time  to  vote 
comes,  all  a member  shall  do  is  to  ex- 
plain his  vote — I mean  all  he  shall 
do  is  to  vote  — unless  with  the 
unanimous  consent  of  the  Convention,  un- 
less he  has  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  Convention  before  making  the  ex- 
planation in  regard  to  his  vote  and  not 
in  any  legislative  body  of  this  country 
that  has  been  resorted  to  before. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been  the 

custom  of  this  Convention;  the  Secretary 
will  continue  the  roll  call. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Do  I understand 

that  if  this  vote  is  carried,  a separate 
bill  will  be  drafted  embodying  these  pro- 


visions and  submitted  to  the  legislature? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Then,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, believing  in  these  provisions,  or  sub- 
stantially these  provisions,  and  thinking 
that  everything  relating  to  the  Municipal 
Court  should  be  under  a separate  act, 
because  that  should  be — especially  if  it 
extended  the  jurisdiction — I am  not  in 
favor  of  the  extended  jurisdiction,  but 
thinking  the  extended  jurisdiction  should 
be  a part  of  the  government,  and  not  of 
the  executive  or  legislative  department, 
and  all  acts  relating  to  it  ought  to  be 
separate,  I therefore  vote  Aye. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I don’t  like  to 

ask  consent  to  explain  my  vote,  but  it 
may  be  a question  of  personal  privilege. 

I take  exception  to  some  of  the  re- 
marks made  in  the  course  of  the  motions 
explaining  their  votes,  in  regard  to  try- 
ing to  emasculate  the  charter  and  that 
certain  individuals  are  trying  to  take 
advantage  of  things  for  political  rea- 
sons, that  they  want  certain  things  done 
here,  so  that  they  won’t  have  to  do  them 
down  at  Springfield.  I stated  very  early 
in  the  proceedings  of  this  Convention 
that  I intended  to  vote  in  this  Conven- 
tion as  I intended  to  vote  in  Springfield. 

I -will  say,  further,  that  I am  in  favor 
of  electing  these  judges  in  June;  and  if 
there  was  any  political  significance  in 
framing  the  bill  originally  to  elect  judges 
in  November,  that  that  time  has  passed. 
If  these  judges  who  are  republicans,  are 
good  judges,  and  desire  to  be  re-elected, 
why,  they  will  be  re-elected  on  their 
record;  and  if  they  are  bad  judges,  and 
are  up  for  re-election,  they  will  not  be 
re-elected;  and  the  same  is  true  with 
reference  to  the  chief  clerk  and  the 
bailiff.  Mr.  .Jones  w^as  entirely  right 
when  he  said  that  there  were  two  com- 
mittees at  Springfield,  the  Charter  Com- 
mittee and  the  Municipal  Court  Commit- 
tee. The  Municipal  Court  Committee  is 
made  up  of  lawyers  from  Cook  county; 
and  certain  amendments  to  the  Municipal 
Court  Act  have  been  sent  down  there  and 


February  16 


902 


1907 


recommended  by  the  court,  and  it  is  en- 
tirely proper  that  anything  pertaining 
to  the  Municipal  Court  should  be  sent 
to  that  committee  and  not  to  the  Char- 
ter Committee.  For  that  reason  I vote 
Aye. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  With  the  assurance 

of  Mr.  Shanahan,  the  maker  of  this 
motion,  that  he  favors  June  elections,  1 
desire  to  be  recorded  as  voting  Aye. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I did  not  make 

the  motion. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  You  did  not  make 

the  motion? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I think  Senator 

Jones  made  the  motion. 

MR.  RAINEY : I wish  to  change  my 

vote  from  No  to  Aye. 

MR.  McGOORTY : For  the  same  rea-, 

sons,  I desire  to  be  recorded  as  voting 
Aye. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  There  is  a 

bill  pending  in  the  legislature  providing 
for  the  amendment  of  the  Municipal 
Court  Act,  and  it  will  not  have  to  be  left 
to  an  indirect  or  implied  amendment — 
being  in  favor  of  June  elections;  I 
change  my  vote  to  Aye. 

MR.  POST:  With  the  assurance  that 

June  elections  will  be  provided  for,  I 
change  my  vote  to  Aye. 

MR.  GUERIN : I change  my  vote  to 

Aye. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I think  this  provision 

should  be  in  the  charter ; therefore  I 
leave  my  vote  as  No. 

MR.  RINAKER:  If  I may  be  in- 

uulged  a little,  I would  like  to  state  to 
the  Convention  what  took  place  in  that  ■ 
Conference  Committee  when  the  time  of 
election  of  municipal  judges  was  fixed 
for  November,  if  you  are  interested  in 
that  subject. 

(Cries  of  “Leave.’’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  de- 

sires to  announce  the  vote.  The  Yeas 
are  40  and  the  Nays  14.  Senator  Jones’ 
substitute  is  carried.  By  unanimous  con- 
sent Judge  Rinaker  has  the  floor. 

MR.  RINAKER:  I want  to  say  that 


I was  a member  of  that  committee;  and 
I want  to  say  further  that  in  that  com- 
mittee it  was  urged,  not  that  the  elec- 
tion be  held  in  June,  but  that  it  be  held 
in  the  month  of  April;  and  it  was  a 
question  in  that  committee  whether  the 
election  should  be  held  in  the  month 
of  April,  or  in  the  month  of  November, 
and  that  was  all  the  question  that  was 
before  that  committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  Chapter  2,  upon  which  the  Chair 
believes  there  is  unanimous  sentiment. 

MR.  POST:  No,  sir. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  22,  Chap- 

ter 2. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  was 

there  a committee  amendment  to  go  to 
that  section! 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Was  there  a com- 
mittee amendment? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Yes,  there 

is  a committee  amendment,  and  I think 
Mr.  Fisher  has  the  amendment  in  his 
possession. 

MR.  FISHER:  I have  a copy  of  it; 

I supposed  it  had  been  sent  to  the  Chair. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  Mr.  Fisher 

read  it? 

MR.  FISHER:  The  substitute  was 

handed  to  me  and  reads  as  follows: 

Substitute  for  last  sentence  of  2-2-9, 
foot  of  p.  23: 

Each  signature  to  the  petition  shall 
be  verified  by  a statement  (which  may 
refer  to  a number  of  specified  signa- 
tures), made  by  a qualified  voter  under 
oath  before  some  competent  official  to 
the  effect  that  he  believes  the  signer  to 
be  a qualified  voter,  and  either  that  he 
knows  the  signature  to  be  genuine,  or 
that  the  same  was  made  in  his  presence 
and  he  verily  believes  the  same  to  be 
genuine.  Such  statement  or  statements 
shall  be  attached  to  and  filed  with  the 
petition. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me,  while  that  is 
not  quite  as  clear  as  it  should  be,  yet 
the  main  purpose  of  it  is  clear  and  con- 
forms with  the  action  of  the  committee. 


February  16 


903 


1907 


But,  as  I read  it,  the  parenthesis  which 
refers  to  the  number  of  signatures  may 
possibly  lead  to  some  ambiguity.  It 
refers  to  the  25  signatures  as  to  whether 
they  are  genuine  or  not. 

MB.  JONES:  That  takes  the  place 

of  the  last  sentence. 

MR..  FISHEB : That  is  so.  The  last 

sentence  refers  to  conditions  which  half 
the  consideration  we  thought  to  be  im- 
practicable and  impossible.  It  is  that 
one  of  the  signers  of  each  paper  must 
take  affidavit  that  it  is  the  signature  of 
the  person  whose  name  purports  to  be 
subscribed.  Now,  that  is  a statement  as 
to  an  absolute,  positive  fact,  and  it  was 
thought  that  it  ought  not  be  required; 
it  ought  to  require  an  alternative;  first, 
either  that  the  person  making  the  affi- 
davit saw  the  signatures  made  and  be- 
lieves them  to  be  genuine  signatures  to 
the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  belief; 
or,  as  a matter  of  fact,  knows  that  it 
was  and  saw  them  signed.  That  is  the 
purpose  of  the  amendment,  and  if  it  is 
changed  so  that  the  ambiguity  as  to 
whether  it  refers  to  the  25  or  not  is 
cleared  up  it  should  be  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Do  you  move  its 

adoption? 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman 

MR.  FISHER:  If  that  will  be 

changed  by  the  draftsmen  clearing  up 
the  ambiguity,  I move  its  adoption.  The 
chairman  of  the  committee  should  move 
its  adoption;  I want  to  be  heard  in  the 
discussion. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  the  mo- 

tion is  now  made  as  I understand. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I believe  Mr. 

Fisher  moves  this  be  substituted  for  the 
last  paragraph,  and  that  the  ambiguity 
in  the  last  paragraph  be  cleared  up. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  move  post- 

ponement of  the  consideration  of  Section 
ft,  Chapter  2,  Article  2,  until  we  come 
to  consider  Section  2,  Article  16,  on 
page  115,  and  that  we  consider  the  two 
together.  My  reason  for  making  that 
motion,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  this:  Section 


2 of  Article  16  is  the  only  use  of  the 
referendum  provided  for  in  the  section 
now  under  consideration.  Under  Section 
2,  Article  16,  it  is  provided,  and  this 
Convention  has  so  voted  by  a majority 
of  one,  that  the  City  Council  shall  have 
full  power  to  grant  any  public  utilities 
franchise  that  it  may  consider  for  the 
public  good;  and  under  such  circum- 
stances and  conditions  as  it  may  con- 
sider for  the  public  good;  and  that  any 
such  ordinance  shall  be  ineffective  for 
sixty  days,  and  if  at  the  end  of  sixty 
days  petition  for  referendum  shall  not 
have  been  filed,  that  petition  to  be  signed 
by  20  per  cent  of  the  voters  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  then  that  action  of  the 
council  shall  forthwith  be  effective. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we  at  this  time 
proceed  to  make  stringent  regulations 
with  regard  to  the  petition  they  will,  in 
my  judgment,  not  conflict,  provided  that 
the  City  Council  at  any  time,  by  a ma- 
jority vote,  may  give  away  any  public 
franchises  on  any  condition  that  it 
pleases  and  the  people  will  not  be  al- 
lowed to  vote  upon  it;  because,  if  you 
have  any  such  stringent  regulations  as 
are  in  the  original  section  we  are  now 
considering,  and  as  I believe  under  the 
amendment,  it  will  be  practically  impos- 
sible to  get  a petition  with  70,000  to 
80,000  names  in  order  to  bring  the  at- 
tention of  the  people  to  this  question.  I 
do  not  wish  to  discuss  the  merits  any 
further.  I have  gone  far  enough  to  call 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the 
fact  that  this  proposal  now  before  us  is 
connected  with  the  one  we  are  to  con- 
sider later ; and  we  ought  to  consider 
them  together.  Because  if  we  are  to 
have  stringent  regulations  with  regard  to 
the  petition,  then  the  number  of  signers 
ought  to  be  affected  by  that.  If  our 
rules  are  to  be  very  stringent  we  should 
require  but  a small  number  of  signatures. 
The  more  liberal  the  requirements  are  to 
the  petition,  the  larger  number  of  sig- 
natures we  should  require.  But  we 
should  consider  those  two  ques- 


February  16 


904 


1907 


tions  together.  I do  not  wish  to 
discuss  the  merits  of  the  proposition,  but 
simply  to  state  the  main  reasons  for 
asking  postponement  of  consideration  of 
this  section,  and  this  proposed  amend- 
ment, until  we  come  to  the  consideration 
of  the  other  question  in  the  other  sec- 
tion I have  mentioned. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion;  that  the  consid- 
eration of  this  section  be  taken  up  when 
Section  16  is  taken  up.  Are  there  any— 

MR.  FISHER:  Article  16? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  Article  16. 

Is  there  any  further  discussion? 

(Cries  of  “Question. ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor say  Aye.  Opposed,  No.  The  mo- 
tion prevailed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Chapter  3. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Chapter  3, 

primary  elections. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Next  chapter. 

There  being  no  amendment  the  Secretary 
will  read  the  next  section. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

for  a matter  of  information.  I haven’t 
had  time  to  read  this  bill.  I would  like 
to  ask  somebody  to  explain  this  primary 
election  chapter,  what  the  provisions  are, 
etc. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  the 

changes  are? 

MR.  SHANAHAN : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Prof.  Merriam 

will  explain  the  changes  in  the  primary 
law. 

MR.  MERRIAM;  Practically,  Mr. 
Chairman,  there  is  only  one  change,  Mr. 
Shanahan,  of  any  great  importance,  as 
the  section  provides  that  a direct  vote 
shall  be  had.  In  the  nomination  of  can- 
didates, if  any  candidate  receives  35  per 
cent  of  the  entire  vote  cast  for  such  of- 
fice by  his  party,  and  if  any  candidate 
receives  a plurality  of  35  per  cent,  then 
he  shall  be  declared  nominated.  But 
that  if  a candidate  does  not  receive  a 
plurality  amounting  to  the  total  vote  and 
35  per  cent,  that  the  nominations  shall 


then  be  made  by  the  Convention,  and 
the  delegates  are  instructed  on  his  bal- 
lot to  vote  for  a candidate  to  receive  the 
largest  number  of  votes  for  that  office  in 
any  primary  district.  The  changes  are 
intended  to  cover  one  section.  It  was 
Section  50  under  the  old  law,  and  is  now 
under  this — well,  otherwise  the  provisions 
of  the  law  are  the  provisions  of  the 
present  primary  act.  There  are  very 
few  minor  changes. 

MR.  ROBINS:  What  is  the  page  on 

wrhich  this  change  is  made? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Sir? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  page  is  the 

change  made  on,  Mr.  Merriam? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Just  a moment. 

The  change  is  here  on  page  47. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Forty-seven? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Articles  2-3-44. 

“If  upon  the  completion  of  the  canvass 
of  such  returns  it  appears  that 
any  candidate  of  any  party  for 
the  nomination  for  any  office 
has  received  a plurality  and  not  less 
than  35  per  cent  of  all  the  votes  cast  for 
candidates  for  nomination  for  such  of- 
fice, such  candidate  shall  be  deemed  to 
be  nominated  for  such  office  by  such 
party,  and  a certified  copy  of  the 
record  of  the  result  of  the  vote  shall 
serve  as  the  certificate  of  nomination.  ’ ’ 

Otherwise,  the  provisions  are  substan- 
tially those  of  the  existing  law,  with  the 
exception  of  a very  few  minor  changes 
which  were  suggested  by  Mr.  Powell,  the 
chief  clerk  of  the  election  commissioners. 

There  is  one  section  in  particular  that 
I guess  you  might  be  directed  to,  which 
authorizes  an  individual  vote  in  the 
primary,  where  there  has  been  no  regis- 
tration. Page  38.  That  simply  accom- 
plishes the  provision  of  the  existing  law 
referring  to  the  general  election.  As 
matters  Avere  last  summer  a man  might 
vote,  for  instance,  in  the  judicial  election 
in  the  first  month  of  June  and  not  vote 
at  the  primary  election.  It  is  suggested 
that  this  provision  is  somewhat  doubtful 
as  to  its  constitutionality,  and  in  order 


February  16 


905 


190  r 


to  cure  that  defect  it  was  suggested  by 
Mr.  Powell  that  this  provision  be  inserted 
in  the  law  regarding  general  elections. 
It  is  copied  verbatim  on  page  38,  the 
first  paragraph,  beginning:  “Any  legal 
voter  of  a precinct’ ’ 

ME.  SHANAHAN;  I would  like  to 
ask  what  the  provisions  are  for  a man 
getting  his  name  on  the  primary  ballot. 

ME.  MEEBIAM : The  same  as  at 

present,  Mr.  Shanahan.  By  petition  of 
two  per  cent  of  the  voters  in  the  district 
in  which  he  is  a candidate.  The  only 
material  change  is  the  one  on  page  47 
as  to  the  35  per  cent  minimum  percent- 
age. If  he  doesn’t  receive  35  the  choice 
of  a candidate  goes  to  the  Convention. 

ME,  SHEPABD;  He  must  have  a 
plurality. 

MB.  MEEBIAM:  A plurality  of  35 

per  cent. 

MB.  EAYWEB:  That  is  a pretty  im- 

portant question,  it  seems  to  me,  and  I 
do  not  know  that  we  are  warranted  in  tak- 
ing action  this  afternoon.  This  Conven- 
tion is  nearly  exhausted,  and  I suggest 
that  we  take  adjournment  until  Monday 
afternoon. 

THE  CHAIMAN : Cannot  we  finish 

this  chapter?  The  Convention  has  heard 
Prof.  Merriam,  and  this  is  the  only  ques- 
tion, and  we  have  only  one  more  section 
in  this  chapter  on  corrupt  practices,  on 
which  we  are  unanimous. 

MB.  SHANAHAN:  All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any 

objections  to  the  matter  as  explained  by 
Mr.  Merriam? 

MB.  McMILLAN : I wish  to  ask 

Prof.  Merriam  if  this  section  on  page 
47  was  the  section,  or  substantially  that, 
which  was  adopted  by  the  Convention? 

THE  CHAIBMAN : Will  Mr.  Mer- 

riam answer  the  question,  please? 

MB.  MEEBIAM:  The  Convention 

sent  it  to  the  sub-committee.  It  was 
the  intention  of  the  Convention  to  pro- 
vide for  a direct  primary. 

MB.  McMILLAN:  Was  this  section, 

the  section  so  framed,  was  that  the  sec- 


tion adopted  by  the  Convention.  I do 
not  ask  whether  it  was  the  purpose  of 
the  committee,  but  whether  the  Conven- 
tion actually  did  it.  I don’t  remember 
the  Convention  ever  taking  action  in  re- 
spect to  this  matter. 

THE  CHAIBMAN ; My  recollection 
is  that  the  Convention  went  on  record 
for  the  direct  primary  and  directed  the 
committee  to  draft  a section  providing 
for  it. 

MB.  MEEBIAM:  There  was  no  ques- 

tion for  the  35  per  cent. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  No,  sir;  that 

matter  is  before  the  house  now. 

MB.  McMILLAN:  I submit,  as  Aid. 

Baymer  suggested,  that  we  should  con- 
sider whether  we  are  proceeding  prop- 
erly; whether  this  is  receiving  due  de- 
liberation and  consideration,  and 
whether  we  are  not  hastening  too  rapidly 
on  the  matter.  I should  like  to  hear 
from  this  sub-committee  some  of  the 
reasons  why  that  35  per  cent  limitation 
is  placed  in  this  section.  I would  like 
to  have  the  Convention  discuss  it.  I do 
not  know  whether  or  not  I am  in  favor 
of  it. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  It  is  up  to  the 

Convention;  if  it  wants  the  matter  de- 
ferred there  is  no  objection. 

MB.  FISHEE:  Mr.  Chairman,  as  I 

understand,  there  are  two  suggestions : 
One  defer,  and  the  other  discuss.  We 
should  decide  which  of  those  two  ques- 
tions we  should  adopt.  Nobody  has  made 
a motion  for  it. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  No,  sir. 

MB.  FISHEE:  Having  adopted  a 

particular  proposition  that  the  sub-com- 
mjttee  should  draft  a provision  for  a 
direct  primary  you  should  consider  that 
when  you  do  that  you  are  up  against  one 
or  two  limitations:  You  must  either 

have  a simple  plurality  nomination,  so 
that  if  at  the  direct  primary  more  than, 
say,  11  per  cent  shall  be  adopted  so  that 
the  man  getting  11  per  cent  would  be 
the  nominee;  that  whatever  the  per- 
centage might  be  there  would  be  no  re- 


February  16 


906 


1907 


striclion  whatever.  The  objection  to  that, 
as  urged  from  the  point  of  view  of 
politicians  who  are  interested  in  party 
organizations,  as  well  as  people  who  have 
no  interest  in  party  organizations,  is  that 
the  percentage  may  be  so  small,  that  it 
would  not  be  fair  to  have  Smith,  Brown 
or  Robinson  go  on  the  ticket  as  a repre- 
sentative of  the  party  when  he  may  have 
only  received  9 or  10  or  11  per  cent; 
and  in  having  the  system  of  governing 
elections  which  prevails  in  other  places 
the  party  would  be  committed  to  that 
particular  nominee.  When  this  subject 
was  discussed  before  the  other  bodies — 
wThen  it  was  discussed,  it  was  felt  by  a 
good  many  people  that  there  should  be 
some  percentages,  that  a man  should  get 
at  least  a certain  percentage  of  votes 
before  he  is  declared  to  be  a nominee. 
And  it  was  apparently  believed,  and  the 
theory  was,  that  35  per  cent  has  been 
so  common  in  all  the  discussion  that  we 
have  had  here  about  direct  primaries, 
that  35  per  cent  was  adopted  as  the  rule. 
If  in  practice  it  is  found  that  percentage 
should  be  altered  it  would  be  a simple 
matter  to  have  a bill  making  it  30,  or 
whatever  else  wras  found  to  be  satisfac- 
tory. If  it  was  found  advisable  to  in- 
crease it  it  should  be  increased,  but  35 
per  cent  is  more  than  one-third  of  the 
total  vote.  If  there  are  three  candidates 
a man  must  get  at  least  35  per  cent. 
If  there  are  more  he  must  still  get  35 
per  cent.  If  there  were  only  two  candi- 
dates he  must  have  51  per  cent. 

Next,  of  course,  if  there  are  two,  then 
he  must  get  35  per  cent.  If  experience 
teaches  us  that  there  should  be  an  alter- 
ation, it  can  be  made.  But  there  is  no 
other  way  of  proceeding  except  by  strik- 
ing out  the  35  and  making  it  read  some- 
thing else. 

THE  CH  AIK  MAN ; What  is  the 
pleasure  of  this  Convention.  All  those 
in 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  mo- 

tion? The  question  is  upon  the  adop- 


tion of  the  section.  All  those  in  favor 
of  the  section  say  Aye.  Now  Chapter  4, 
corrupt  practices. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man— 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Just  a moment. 

Before  we  get  to  that.  All  those  in 
favor  of  a section  on  corrupt  practices 
saye  Aye.  Opposed,  No.  Carried. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I desire  to  ask  unanimous  consent 
to  giving  a report  by  Mr.  Shepard,  as  I 
understand  Mr.  Shepard  cannot  be  here 
later,  and  he  would  like  to  have  the 
matter  finished  up  before  we  adjourn. 

(Cries  of  “Leave.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right.  The 

report  of  Mr.  Shepard  is  before  the 
house.  The  Chair  understands  that  the 
revenue  section,  as  a section,  is  already 
adopted  by  the  Convention  with  some 
phraseological  changes  that  are  made 
necessary  by  his  knowledge  of  the  rev- 
enue law. 

These  sections  are  hereinafter  printed. 

MR.  SHEPARD : And  the  5 per  cent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  the  tax  lim- 

itation written  in. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Is  that  taking  up 

the  matter  of  the  Juul  law? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  another 

proposition. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  follows. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I will  put  that 

proposition.  All  those  in  favor  saye  Aye. 
Those  opposed,  No. 

MR.  FISHER:  Is  the  Convention 

agreed  upon  the  matter  referred  by  it 
to  Mr.  Shepard  and  Prof.  Freund  as  to 
the  question  of  the  township  collector? 
If  Mr.  Fisher  is  right  we  are  all  right, 
but  if  he  is  wrong  we  are  all  wrong, 
and  it  is  a serious  matter.  I don’t  know 
whether  that  is  being  considered. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Shepard  will 

make  his  own  statement. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I know  of  nothing 

to  add  to  what  I said  to  Mr.  Fisher  yes- 
terday and  today  regarding  the  difference 
between  myself  and  Prof.  Freund. 


February  16 


907 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher  asks 

a question. 

MR.  FISHER : As  I understand  it, 

Prof.  Freund  agreed  later,  didn’t  he? 

MR.  SHEPARD : He  has  not. 

MR.  FISHER:  Prof.  Freund  is  not 

a member  of  this  Convention  and,  there- 
fore, he  has  not  the  privilege  of  the 
floor,  and  although  this  is  a technical 
matter  I think  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention should  be  drawn  to  it.  If  Mr. 
Shepard’s  point  is  not  well  taken,  in 
striking  it  out  we  will  be  in  a serious 
position. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  ' There  is  no  use 
wasting  time.  You  should  be  as  anxious 
to'  get  it  correct  as  anybody. 

• MR.  FISHER;  Yes,  I am. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  This  committee  has 

been  at  work  on  this  for  one  year  and 
has  given  serious  consideration  to  it,  and 
you  should  at  least,  in  fairness,  say 
why  it  should  not  be  approved. 

MR.  FISHER : Let  us  be  fair  with 

each  other  in  this  Convention.  Mr. 
Shepard  raises  a question  in  this  chap- 
ter. It  provides  that  the  city  treasurer 
shall  act  as  the  township  collector  in  col- 
lecting taxes. 

MR.  SHEPARD : What ’s  that  ? 

MR.  FISHER : The  bill  as  now  drawn 

makes  a provision  in  regard  to  the  county 
treasurer  acting  instead  of  the  collector. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  The  Chair- 

man, I understand  that  Prof.  Freund  and 
Mr.  Shepard  are  not  agreed  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  I think  the  matter  should  be 
referred  for  further  report.  Since  they 
are  not  able  to  agree,  would  it  not  be 
well  to  refer  this  matter?  It  is  a tech- 
nical question  on  law. 

MR.  FISHER:  That’s  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Chair 

make  a suggestion  that  the  matter  be 
adopted  subject  to  that  question,  and 
that  question  be  referred  back  to  this 
Convention? 

MR.  POST:  I think  we  should  object 

to  that.  We  haven ’t  reached  that  part. 
We  haven’t  heard  it  yet,  and  while  I 


know  of  no  objection  I am  likely  to 
make,  yet  it  seems  to  me  we  should 
proceed  with  more  care ; I think  Mr.  Eck- 
hart’s  motion  is  a proper  one  and  that 
the  matter  should  be  referred  back  for 
report. 

MR.  FISHER : Mr.  Chairman,  I do 

not  think  this  should  be  considered 
lightly.  Mr.  Shepard  may  be  entirely 
right,  but  if  it  is  a technical  objection 
he  should  have  no  objection  to  having  it 
considered.  Now,  we  have  a committee 
on  law,  a law  committee,  and  this  is  per- 
fectly technical,  and  a legal  point,  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  a matter  of  that  kind 
should  be  considered  by  the  committee. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I suggest,  Mr. 

Chaiman,  that  this  bill  be  adopted,  and 
if  necessary  leave  out  something  the 
sub-committee  injected  into  it;  that  is, 
about  township  collectors.  With  that  out 
and  with  one  or  two  other  minor  changes 
made  by  the  sub-committee  the  bill 
is  identical  with  the  bill  adopted 
by  the  Revenue  Committee,  of 
which  you,  Mr.  Post,  are  a member,  and 
subsequently  by  the  Convention.  I think 
that  meets  your  point.  As  to  Mr. 
Fisher’s  suggestion,  there  is  no  use 
wasting  time  getting  up  objections  on  a 
statement  of  a proposition  that  has 
been  considered  by  a committee  for  a 
year  and  which  has  been  adopted  by  this 
committee,  unless  you  have  some  specific 
reason  for  it.  I am  perfectly  willing  it 
should  go  to  the  law  committee. 

MR.  FISHER  : Let  it  go. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I submit,  however, 

it  should  be  adopted  and  that  proposition 
should  go  to  the  Law  Committee. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I move  this  mat- 
ter should  be  referred  to  the  Law  Com- 
mittee for  report. 

MR.  WERNO:  I wish  to  amend  by 

adding  that  the  report  be  received  and 
printed. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Will  you  tell  me 

why  it  is  important? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  gentle- 

man address  the  Chair.  The  motion  is 


1907 


February  16  908 


to  refer  the  matter  to  the  Law  Commit- 
tee. 

ME.  GREENACRE:  I want  this  to 

go,  too ; that  the  committee  shall  con- 
sider this  so  as  to  save  time.  We  want 
to  save  all  the  time  we  can. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Greenacre 

has  something  to  go  with  it. 

All  those  in  favor  say  Aye.  Opposed, 
No.  Carried. 

MR.  SHEPARD : Does  this  matter 

go  to  the  Law  Committee?  I object  to  it. 

MR.  GREENACRE;  That  matter  will 
be  shown  on  the  record  that  it  goes  to 
the  committee,  will  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  will 

be  read  and  will  have  its  proper  refer- 
ence after  it  has  been  read. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

rule  that  the  matter  should  go  over  till 
the  subject  of  the  library  section  is  con- 
sidered. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Well,  if  the 

Chairman  pleases  it  relates  to  the  whole 
revenue  question.  It  should  go  to  the 
committee.  I don’t  want  to  take  time 
to  argue  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

rule  that  the  matter  shall  be  referred  to 
the  Law  Committee  and  it  will  be  printed 
in  the  record. 

MR.  GREENACRE : Mr.  Chairman, 

if  you  are  acquainted  with  its  contents 
you  would  not  refer  it  to  that  committee. 


THE  CHAIR:  Sir? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  If  you  knew 

what  it  contained  you  would  not  refer 
it  to  that  committee.  It  relates  to  all 
revenue,  whether  for  library,  schools,  or 
other  municipal  purposes.  It  belongs  to 
the  Revenue  Committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  do  you 

want  done  with  it? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  That  it  should 

go  to  the  Revenue  Committee,  instead  of 
taking  up  time  in  this  Convention. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I rise 

to  a point  of  order.  It  cannot  possibly 
be  referred  to  the  Revenue  Committee  at 
this  time.  We  are  now  considering  the 
general  draft  of  the  charter.  It  should 
go  to  the  Rules  Committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  will 

be  published  and  taken  up  in  its  proper 
order. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I move  we  adjourn 

till  Monday  at  two  o ’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  that  we  adjourn  till  Monday  at 
two  o ’clock.  It  is  so  ordered. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Monday,  February  18,  1907,  at 
2 o’clock  p.  m. 


i 


February  16 


909 


1907 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention. 


BY.  ME.  SHEPAED: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicle. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XVI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


February  16 


910 


1907 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1 1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  YOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  YOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  PEND ARYIS : 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 


district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  II,  on  page  593,  pro- 
viding that  “members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation ’*  was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 
laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  the  present  pension  law 
providing  for  a pension  system  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Chicago  Public  Library  be 
included  in  the  proposed  charter  for  the 
City  of  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  McCORMICK: 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually,  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
city,  and  the  report  thereof,  together 
with  any  recommendation  of  such  ac- 
countants, as  to  change  in  the  business 
methods  of  the  city,  or  of  any  of  its  de- 
partments, officers,  or  employes,  shall 
be  made  to  the  mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, and  be  spread  upon  the  records  of 
the  latter.  The  expenses  of  such  audit 
shall  be  paid  by  the  city. 


February  16 


911 


1907 


Report  of  the  COMMITTEE  on  MU- 
NICIPAL ELECTIONS,  APPOINT- 
MENTS and  TENURE  of  OFFICE: 

Lessing  Rosenthal,  Chairman  Chicago 

Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen — Your  Committee  on  Mu- 
nicipal Elections,  Appointments  and 
Tenure  of  Office,  to  which  was  referred 
the  subject  of  Civil  Service,  begs  leave 
to  report: 

That  the  provisions  of  the  present 
Civil  Service  Act  shall  be  incorporated 
in  .the  charter  with  the  following 
changes  or  additions: 

(1.)  That  the  term  of  office  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commissioners  shall  be 
six  (6)  years,  one  to  be  appointed 
every  two  (2)  years. 

(2.)  Section  -.-REMOVALS,  RE- 
DUCTIONS AND  SUSPENSIONS.  No 
person  shall  be  removed  from  the  classi- 
fied civil  service  nor  reduced  in  grade 
or  compensation,  except  as  hereinafter 
provided. 

Removals  from  the  classified  civil  ser- 
vice or  reduction  in  grade  or  compensa- 
tion, or  both,  may  be  made  in  any  de- 
partment of  such  service  by  the  appoint- 
ing power,  to  promote  the  efficiency  of 
the  service,  or  for  other  proper  cause,  in 
the  manner  following:  The  person 

sought  to  be  removed  shall  be  served 
with  a copy  of  the  order  of  removal  and 
notice  of  suspension  from  such  service 
and  also  written  specifications;  and 
such  person  shall  have  not  less  than 
three,  nor  more  than  seven  days,  to  an- 
swer the  same  in  writing.  A copy  of  the 
order,  specifications  and  answer,  if  any, 
shall  be  filed  with  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission, which  shall  approve  or  disap- 
prove of  such  order.  Said  commission 
may,  and  upon  the  written  request  of 
the  person  sought  to  be  removed,  shall 
investigate  any  removal  or  reduction,  or 
proposed  removal  or  reduction,  either  by 
or  before  itself,  or  by  or  before  some 
officer  or  board  appointed  by  said  com- 
mission, to  conduct  such  investigation. 


Such  suspension  shall  be  without  pay, 
provided,  however,  that  said  commission 
in  case  of  a disapproval  may  direct  that 
pay  shall  be  restored.  All  findings  and 
decisions  by  said  commission,  or  of  the 
investigating  officer,  or  board,  when  ap- 
proved by  said  commission,  shall  be 
final,  and  shall  be  certified  to  the  ap- 
pointing officer  and  shall  be  forthwith 
enforced  by  such  officer. 

Reductions  in  grade  or  compensation, 
or  both,  shall  be  made  in  the  like  man- 
ner, as  near  as  may  be,  but  without  sus- 
pension, pending  such  approval  or  dis- 
approval. A copy  of  said  papers  in  each 
case  shall  be  made  a part  of  the  record 
of  the  division  of  the  service  in  which 
the  removal  or  reduction  is  made. 
Nothing  in  this  act  shall  limit  the  pow- 
er of  any  officer  to  suspend  a subordi- 
nate without  pay  for  cause  assigned  in 
writing,  a copy  of  which  shall  be  de- 
livered to  such  subordinate.  Such  sus- 
pension shall  be  for  a reasonable  period 
not  exceeding  thirty  days,  and  any  sus- 
pension may  be  investigated  by  said 
Civil  Service  Commission.  In  the 

course  of  any  investigation  provided  for 
in  this  section,  each  member  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commission,  or  of  any 
board  so  appointed  by  it,  and  any  inves- 
tigating officer  so  appointed,  shall  have 
the  power  to  administer  oaths,  and  said 
commission  shall  have  the  power  to  se- 
cure by  its  subpoena  both  the  attend- 
ance and  testimony  of  witnesses,  and 
the  production  of  books  and  papers  rele- 
vent  to  such  investigation. 

Nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  con- 
strued to  require  charges  or  investiga- 
tions in  the  case  of  laborers. 

(3.)  Section— .—PROMOTIONS.  The 
commission  shall,  by  its  rules,  provide 
for  promotions  in  such  classified  service, 
and  shall  provide  that  vacancies  shall 
be  filled  by  promotion,  in  all  cases 
where,  in  the  judgment  of  the  commis- 
sion, it  shall  be  for  the  best  interests  of 
the  service  so  to  fill  such  vacancy.  If, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  commission,  it 


February  16 


912 


1907 


is  not  for  the  best  interests  of  the  ser- 
vice to  fill  such  vacancy  by  promotion, 
then  such  vacancy  shall  be  filled  by  an 
original  entrance  examination;  provi- 
ded, however,  that  the  commission  shall 
in  its  rules  fix  upon  a credit  based  upon 
seniority  and  ascertained  merit  in  ser- 
vice to  be  given  to  all  employes  in  the 
classified  service  in  line  of  promotion 
who  submit  themselves  to  such  original 
examination.  All  promotional  examina- 
tions shall  be  limited  to  such  members 
of  the  next  lower  rank  or  grade  as  de- 
sire to  submit  themselves  to  such  exami- 
nation. The  method  of  examination 
and  the  rules  governing  the  same  and 
the  method  of  certifying  in  promotion 
shall  be  the  same  as  provided  for  appli- 
cants for  original  appointment. 

Section  — . — No  applicant  for  exami- 
nation for  any  office  or  place  of  employ- 
ment in  said  classified  service  shall  wil- 
fully or  corruptly,  by  himself  or  in  co- 
operation with  one  or  more  other  per- 
sons deceive  the  said  commission  with 
reference  to  his  identity,  or  wilfully  or 
corruptly  make  false  representations  in 
his  application  for  such  examination,  or 
commit  any  fraud  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
proving his  prospects  or  chances  in  such 
examination. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
LESSING  ROSENTHAL, 
Chairman. 


The  following  have  been  referred  to 
the  Law  Committee: 

XII.  REVENUE. 

BY  MR.  SHEPARD: 

12-1.  The  City  Council  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  shall  annually  in  the  first  quar- 
ter of  its  fiscal  year  by  ordinance  levy 
a general  tax  on  all  real  and  personal 
property  not  exempt  from  taxation  for 
all  corporate  purposes,  including  gen- 
eral city,  school,  park  and  library  pur- 
poses, not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate, 
exclusive  of  the  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  five  per 


centum  of  the  assessed  value  of  the  tax- 
able property  of  said  city  as  assessed 
and  equalized  according  to  law  for  cor- 
porate purposes.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  said  annual  levy  shall  specify  the 
respective  amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
the  'amount  4evied  for  educational  pur- 
poses, the  amount  levied  for  school 
building  purposes,  the  amount  levied  for 
park  purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for 
library  purposes.  A certified  copy-  of 
such  ordinance  shall  be  filed  in  the 
county  clerk’s  office.  The  county  clerk 
shall  extend  upon  the  collector ’s  war- 
rant all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the 
limitation  herein  contained,  in  a single 
column  as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall 
exceed  five  per  centum  of  such  assessed 
value,  such  excess  shall  be  disregarded, 
and  the  residue  only  treated  as  certified 
for  extension.  In  such  cases  all  items 
in  such  tax  levy,  except  those  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be 
reduced  pro  rata.  The  tax  so  extended 
shall  be  collected  and  enforced  in  the 
same  manner  and  by  the  same  officers 
as  state  and  county  taxes,  and  shall  be 
paid  over  by  the  officers  collecting  the 
same  to  the  city  treasurer.  The  city 
treasurer  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall 
keep  separate  funds  in  conformity  to 
said  tax  levy,  which  funds  shall  be  paid 
out  by  him  upon  order  of  the  proper  au- 
thority for  the  purposes  only  for  which 
the  same  were  levied. 

12-2.  The  Board  of  Education,  the 
Board  of  Park  Commissions  and  the 
Board  of  Library  Directors,  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  respectively,  shall  each, 
yearly,  upon  the  request  of  the  City 
Council,  prepare  and  transmit  to  it  a 
statement  of  its  receipts  and  expenditures 


February  16 


913 


1907 


for  the  current  or  preceding  fiscal  year 
{as  the  case  may  be),  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expenditures. 
It  shall  also,  upon  such  request,  prepare 
and  transmit  to  the  City  Council  an  esti- 
mate of  its  expenditures  for  the  ensuing 
fiscal  year,  stating  therein  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  such  expendi- 
tures. 


BY  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Whereas,  the  charter  for  the  city  con- 
tains provisions  for  the  levy  and  exten- 
sion of  city,  school,  park  and  library 
taxes,  and  the  provisions  contained  in 
section  two  of  an  act  entitled  “An  act 
for  the  levy  and  extension  of  taxes,  ” in 
force  July  1,  1905,  are  no  longer  neces- 
sary and  are  in  conflict  with  the  purposes 
of  the  charter  provisions  aforesaid, 
Therefore  be  it  Resolved  that  this  Con- 
vention recommend  to  the  General  As- 
sembly the  enactment  of  the  following 
bill  into  law: 

A BILL. 

For  an  act  to  repeal  Section  two,  an 
act  entitled,  “An  act  concerning  the  levy 
and  extension  of  taxes,”  approved  May 
9,  1901,  in  force  July  1,  1901,  as  amend- 


ed by  an  act  approved  March  29,  1905, 
in  force  July  1,  1905. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the 
People  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  repre- 
sented in  the  General  Assembly,  that  Sec- 
tion two  of  an  act  entitled,  “An  act  con- 
cerning the  levy  and  extension  of  taxes,  ’ ’ 
approved  May  9,  1901,  in  force  July  1, 
1901,  as  amended  by  an  act  approved 
March  29,  1905,  in  force  July  1,  1905, 
be  and  the  same  hereby  is  repealed. 


BY  MR.  GREENACRE: 

Amend  Section  1 of  Article  12  (page 
104)  by  inserting  therein  immediately 
after  the  words  “levied  for  library  pur- 
poses’ ’ and  before  the  words  “certified 
copy  of  such  ordinance,”  the  following 
sentence : 

Said  City  Council  shall  have  power  to 
set  aside  from  any  such  specified  amount 
levied  for  any  of  said  purposes,  parts 
thereof,  together  not  exceeding  one  per 
cent  thereof,  and  contribute  the  same  to 
pension  funds  for  disabled,  retired  or 
superannuated  public  servants  of  any  de- 
partment toward  the  maintenance  of 
which  such  specified  amount  levied  ap- 
plies. 


February  16 


914 


1907 


Communications  addressed  to  the  Charter  Convention. 


To  the  Honorable  the  Members  of  the 
New  Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen : 

The  undersigned,  the  Chicago  Law  and 
Order  League,  a delegate  body  composed 
of  representatives  from  law  enforcement 
and  kindred  organizations  and  minister- 
ial bodies,  and  in  this  behalf  representing 
the  following  organizations : 
Anti-Cigarette  League, 

Catholic  Total  Abstinence  Union  of  Il- 
linois, 

Chicago  Baptist  Ministers’  Conference, 
Citizens’  League  of  Chicago, 
Congregational  Ministers’  Union  of  Chi- 
cago and  Vicinity, 

Disciples  of  Christ, 

Englewood  Law  & Order  League, 
Garfield  Park  Protective  Ass’n-, 

Hyde  Park  Protective  Ass’n, 

Law  Enforcement  League  of  the  North- 
west Side, 

Methodist  Preachers’  Meeting, 

North  Protective  Ass’n, 

North  Side  Law  & Order  League, 
Presbytery  of  Chicago, 

Thirty-third  Ward  Protective  Ass’n, 
West  Pullman  Protective  Ass’n, 

West  Side  Civic  League, 
respectfully  presents  to  your  honorable 
body  some  considerations  regarding  the 
provisions  of  the  proposed  charter  which 
relate  to  Sunday  laws  and  special  bar 
permits. 

First.  As  to  the  proposition  to  leave 
the  City  of  Chicago  full  power  with 
respect  to  laws  concerning  Sunday  ob- 
servance. 

Although  broader  in  scope,  this  means 
merely  the  power  to  keep  open  the  sa- 
loons of  Chicago  on  Sunday.  On  this 
question,  as  on  any  of  its  kind,  the 
state  at  large,  in  our  opinion,  should 
make  the  laws. 

It  is  natural  that  some  of  our  citizens 
should  desire  to  continue  customs  which 


were  more  or  less  in  vogue  in  their 
fatherland,  but  we  contend  that  the  laws 
under  which  these  matters  are  regulated 
and  controlled  in  foreign  countries,  are 
very  different  from  those  of  our  own. 
Moreover,  America  has  established  a 
standard  in  this  regard  that  should  not 
only  be  maintained,  but  elevated  to  still 
higher  planes. 

If  the  sole  question  at  issue  were 
merely  the  gratification  of  harmless 
tastes  and  customs  of  some  of  our  citi- 
zens, there  would  be  no  serious  objection 
to  urge ; but  it  is  - contended  that  the 
Sunday  saloon  invades  the  home,  absorbs 
the  wages,  takes  away  companionship  on 
the  only  day  in  the  week  in  which,  in 
many  cases,  the  family  can  enjoy  it,  and 
sometimes  lands  the  parent  in  the  police 
station,  disgraces  him,  interferes  with  his 
work  and  exerts  a demoralizing  in- 
fluence upon  the  family  and  neighbors. 
It  is  pointed  out  that  the  wives  and 
mothers,  'who  are  also  sufferers,  would, 
under  present  laws,  have  no  vote  on  the 
question  of  establishing  the  Sunday  sa- 
loon. It  is  claimed,  also,  that  in  the 
other  large  cities  of  the  country,  where 
Sunday  closing  has  been  established, 
there  has  been  a large  decrease  in  crime 
and  a corresponding  increase  in  the  gen- 
eral comforts  of  life;  that  as  a result, 
the  families  in  the  congested  districts, 
father  included,  are  in  the  churches, 
parks  and  picnic  grounds  and  in  the 
woods;  and  that  it  is,  therefore,  the 
actual  physical,  personal  liberty  of  the 
man  who  frequents  the  saloon  and  the 
liberty  of  his  family  to  enjoy  a proper 
life  that  are  at  stake.  Whatever  may  be 
the  proper  solution  of  the  question,  the 
State  of  Illinois  at  large  is  vitally  inter- 
ested, and  should  share  with  Chicago 
in  the  responsibility  of  dealing  with  it. 

We  submit,  in  passing,  that  whether 
or  not  you  can  constitutionally  do  so, 


February  16 


915 


1907 


it  is  highly  undesirable  to  provide  a 
means  whereby  conduct  in  one  part  of 
the  state  may  be  made  unlawful,  while 
the  same  conduct  in  another  part  of 
the"  state  is  not. 

Second.  As  to  the  proposition  that 
certain  classes  of  bona  fide  societies  and 
organizations  may  sell  intoxicating 
liquors  under  special  permits,  at  enter- 
tainments. 

What  is  really  intended,  is  that  such 
sales  shall  be  under  special  bar  permits, 
or,  in  other  words,  daily  saloon  licenses. 
The  privilege  which  has  been  asked  for 
is  not  to  serve  liquor  at  entertainments, 
nor  even  to  sell  vinous  and  malt  liquors 
only,  but  to  sell  intoxicating  liquor  of  all 
kinds  at  dances  and  other  entertainments, 
to  both  sexes,  for  profit.  It  cannot  be 
claimed  that  there  is  any  question  of  per- 
sonal liberty  involved  in  the  desire  to 
sell  intoxicating  liquor  for  the  purpose 
of  making  money.  Those  interested,  who 
have  appeared  before  the  license  com- 
mittee of  the  City  Council,  have  frankly 
admitted  that  they  do  not  care  merely 
for  the  privilege  of  liquor  drinking  at 
entertainments,  but  that  they  desire  the 
privilege  of  selling  intoxicating  liquor 
at  dances  and  other  entertainments  for 
profit,  on  the  ground  that  the  proceeds 
are  used  for  benevolent  purposes  and 
that  the  money  thus  accumulated  cannot 
be  raised  by  subscription.  Conceding,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  that  there  is  merit 
in  the  position,  over  against  it  must  be 
weighed  the  calamity  to  our  community, 
which  is  inseparably  connected  with  the 
grant  of  such  a privilege,  namely,  the 
dance-hall  evil.  There  is  no  practical  way 
of  preventing  the  serving  of  intoxicating 
liquor  at  dances  conducted  under  unde- 
sirable auspices,  if  a like  privilege  is  ex- 
tended to  bona  fide  societies  or  organiza- 
tions. 

On.  June  11,  1906,  the  City  Council 
passed  an  ordinance  providing  that  malt 
and  vinous  liquors  only,  might  be  sold 
under  special  permits  by  certain  classes 
of  bona  fide  organizations  and  societies, 


at  dances  and  other  entertainments.  Of 
the  permits  issued,  78  were  for  one  street 
number,  on  premises  owned  by  brewers 
and  on  which  a saloon  is  operated.  We 
have  caused  a number  of  these  special 
permits  to  be  investigated,  and  from  in- 
formation gathered  in  the  course  of  these 
investigations,  we  have  no  doubt  that 
saloon-keepers  promote  a large  number 
of  the  dances  at  which  liquor  is  sold  un- 
der permits,  to  the  destruction,  in  many 
cases,  of  the  modesty,  if  not  the  morals, 
of  the  participants.  The  facts  with 
respect  to  the  dance  halls  and  the  de- 
struction of  womanhood  through  their 
agency  are  most  alarming.  The  matron 
at  the  Geneva  Home  for  Wayward  Girls 
has  reported  that  over  87  per  cent  of 
the  inmates  met  their  downfall  through 
the  dance  halls. 

Moreover,  those  interested  desire  that 
the  privilege  of  selling  intoxicating 
liquor  shall  be  extended  beyond  the  hours 
for  closing  saloons:  This  gives  a pro- 

moting saloon-keeper  an  advantage  over 
his  competitors,  who,  in  turn,  are  thereby 
induced  themselves  to  become  promoters 
of  dances,  for  the  profit  to  be  gained  by 
selling  intoxicating  liquor  to  those  in 
attendance. 

One  great  problem  of  the  liquor  ques- 
tion is  to  separate  the  sale  of  intoxicat- 
ing liquor  from  vice.  When  that  is  done, 
much  of  the  evil  of  the  saloon  will  disap- 
pear. This  is  so  important  that  we  trust 
that  all  our  citizens  will  gladly  sacrifice 
their  personal  desires,  so  far  as  necessary, 
to  the  greatest  good  of  the  whole  com- 
munity. In  the  solution  of  this  question, 
also,  we  need  the  conservative  sentiment 
of  the  entire  state,  for  the  people  of  the 
whole  state  of  Illinois  are  vitally  inter- 
ested. 

In  conclusion,  we  hope  your  honorable 
body  will  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that 
in  both  of  these  questions,  the  brewery 
interests,  not  only  of  Chicago,  but  of 
other  cities  in  the  United  States,  in- 
volving English  as  well  as  American  cap- 
ital, are  vitally  concerned  from  a mere 


February  16 


916 


1907 


dollar  standpoint.  If  these  questions 
that  so  largely  affect  the  enormous  traf- 
fic in  intoxicating  liquor  should  be 
turned  over  solely  to  the  City  of  Chicago,, 
those  interests  would  become  even  more 
active  than  they  are  at  present.  Our 
public  sentiment  must  not  become  the 
fostered  and  promoted  sentiment  of  the 
brewers. 

Very  respectfully, 

CHICAGO  LAW  & ORDER  LEAGUE, 

By  Arthur  Burrage  Farwell,  President. 
Porter  B.  Fitzgerald,  secretary. 


Hon.  Milton  G.  Foreman, 

Dear  Sir: 

The  County  Civil  Service  Conference 
Committee  has  requested  me  to  ask  each 
of  the  organizations  represented  on  the 
committee  to  appoint  two  representatives 
to  serve  on  a committee  to  go  to  Spring- 
field  to  endeavor  to  secure  the  passage 
of  the  County  Civil  Service  Bill. 

Mr.  Eckhart  will  probably  mention 
this  matter  to  you,  and  if  you  will  kindly 


appoint  another  representative  to  act 
with  Mr.  Eckhart  and  notify  me,  I will 
appreciate  it,  Yours  very  truly, 
JAS.  S.  HANDY, 
Secretary  Conference  Committee. 

Feb.  16,  1907. 
To  the  Charter  Convention: 

As  your  representative  in  the  County 
Civil  Service  Conference  Committee,  I 
beg  leave  to  report,  that  after  much 
conference  the  committee  have  prepared 
for  submission  to  the  legislature,  a re- 
port on  the  subject  and  a draft  of  a 
bill  for  an  act  to  regulate  the  civil  ser- 
vice of  counties.  In  connection  there- 
with I desire  to  submit  for  your  con- 
sideration and  move  the  adoption  of  the 
following  resolution : 

Be  it  resolved  that  it  is  the  sense  of 
the  Chicago  Charter  Convention  that  the 
Legislature  of  Illinois  promptly  pass 
suitable  enactments  providing  for  the 
extension  of  an  efficient  county  civil  ser- 
vice. 

JOHN  W.  ECKHART. 


February  16 


917 


1907 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  the 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may* 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
Tv-one'-ty  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursi diction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


February  16 


918 


1907 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

MONDAY,  FEBRUARY  18,  190T 


(ftljirajjiJ  (kljartrr  (Emiuruliou 

Convened,  December  12,  1909 

H C AOQU AHTFRS 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  h.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin.  asst  Secy 


February  18 


921 


1907 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Regular  Meeting,  Monday,  February  1 8,  1907 

2:00  O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll.  The  Convention  will 
be  in  order. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brown,  Burke, 
Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T. 
J.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher, 
Gansbergen,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harri- 
son, Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop, 
Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  McKin- 
ley, Merriain,  Michaelis,  O’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Rit- 
ter, Robins,  Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shana- 
han, Shedd,  Snow,  Taylor,  Vopicka, 
White,  Young,  Zimmer. — 43. 

Absent  — Badenoch,  Baker,  Beebe, 
Brosseau,  Carey,  Clettenberg,  Crilly, 
Dever,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Erickson,  Gra- 
ham, Haas,  Hill,  Hunter,  Lundberg,  Mc- 
Cormick, Oehne,  Paullin,  Powers,  Rai- 
ney, Revell,  Rinaker,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Sunny,  Swift,  Thompson,  Walker,  Wer- 
no,  Wilkins,  Wilson — 31. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  need  one  or 

two  more  for  a quorum,  but  there  will 
be  no  reason  why  the  Convention  can- 
not take  up  for  discussion  the  matters 
where  we  left  them  the  other  afternoon. 

If  there-  are  no  corrections,  the  min- 
utes of  the  last  meeting  of  the  Conven- 
tion will  stand.  Any  corrections  to  the 
same  may  fce  handed  in  to  the  Secretary 
in  writing. 

MR.  T.  J.  DIXON:  I see  Mr.  Beil- 

fuss and  Mr.  Shanahan  have  come  in, 
and  some  one  here  did  not  respond  to 
his  name,  so  that  we  have  a quorum 
now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Very  well.  We 

will  take  up  for  discussion  the  topic  of 
‘‘The  Mayor.” 

MR,  WHITE:  What  page? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  61. 

MR,  POST:  Mr.  President,  I sug- 

gest that  instead  of  merely  calling  the 
article  by  title,  the  Secretary,  with 
proper  deliberation,  would  follow  the 
number  of  each  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  wish  the 

section  read? 

MR.  POST:  No,  no.  Call  the  num- 


February  18 


922 


1907 


bers,  so  that  we  all  know  what  progress 
we  are  making  through  an  article. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  61,  Article 
III.,  the  Mayor,  Section  1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Go  ahead. 

THE  SECRETARY : Section  2;  Sec- 

tion 3,  page  62;  Section  4;  Section  5; 
Section  6. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman: 

‘ ‘ During  the  temporary  absence  or  dis- 
ability of  the  mayor,  the  presiding  offi- 
cer of  the  council  shall  temporarily  act 
as  mayor.”  Section  6.  I don't  remem- 
ber that  we  discussed  that  section  in 
this  body  before. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

calls  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  that 
is  one  of  the  changes  that  was  sug- 
gested by  the  rules  committee,  and  the 
Secretary  will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Section  3.  Res- 

olution 3 calls  for  the  designation  of 
some  official  to  act  as  mayor  during  the 
mayor 's  absence.  In  the  draft,  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  council  is  desig- 
nated for  that  purpose. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I do  not  favor 

that.  I do  not  think  that  is  the  right 
position.  It  takes  the  responsibility  on 
some  important  measure  entirely  off  the 
shoulders  of  the  mayor,  where  it  prop- 
erly belongs. 

Now,  it  is  only  necessary  for  him  to 
go  out  of  town  and  let  the  council  take 
the  responsibility,  if  he  wants  to  get 
away  from  it.  Another  thing,  being 
the  mayor  and  being  responsible  to  the 
electors  of  this  city  for  certain  work,  he 
should  have  the  appointment  of  who- 
ever should  take  his  place  during  his 
absence. 

I would  not  object  in  the  case  of  total 
disability  or  in  case  of  death  or  some- 
thing like  that,  to  having  the  council 
appoint  the  successor  until  such  time  as 
another  mayor  should  be  elected;  but  I 
do  not  think  he  should  be  given  that 
opportunity  to  dodge  it  by  getting  out 
of  town  and  letting  the  president  of 


the  council  handle  it.  He  (the  mayor) 
should  be  held  responsible  by  the  peo- 
ple who  elected  him  and  be  permitted 
to  appoint  somebody  who  would  pro- 
tect his  views  and  represent  his  busi- 
ness while  he  was  absent. 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  President,  I think 

the  point  made  by  Mr.  Linehan  is  well 
taken,  and  I should  be  very  glad  to 
vote  for  some  such  amendment  as  that; 
if  he  or  any  other  member  of  the  Con- 
vention will  put  it  into  shape,  I should 
be  glad  to  vote  for  it.  I think  what 
Mr.  Linehan  said  will  prove  to  be  very 
true;  either  the  mayor  will  take  advan- 
tage of  that  and  escape  responsibility, 
or  in  certain  other  cases  someone  may 
occupy  his  place  who  may  not  fairly 
represent  his  views.  I think  that  ought 
to  be  amended. 

MR.  HARRISON:  I would  like  to 

make  this  suggestion  on  that  point, 
that  an  amendment  be  adopted  giving 
the  mayor  the  authority  to  name  some 
member  of  his  official  staff,  to  vest  him 
with  authority  to  preside  during  his  ab- 
sence; in  other  words,  to  preserve  the 
policy  under  which  the  mayor  is  elect- 
ed; otherwise,  the  presiding  officer  of 
the  city  council  may  occupy  the  po- 
sition of  the  mayor  during  his  absence 
and  entirely  upset  the  policy  on  which 
the  mayor  himself  has  been  elected. 
To-day,  under  our  national  form  of  gov- 
ernment, on  the  death  of  the  president 
and  vice-president,  the  succession  fol- 
lows down  in  the  regular  established 
form  through  the  various  secretaries  of 
departments.  I think  it  would  be  very 
proper  to  make  such  an  amendment,  to 
give  the  mayor  the  power  to  appoint 
either  the  commissioner  of  public  works, 
the  comptroller  or  corporation  counsel, 
or  some  member  of  his  so-called  cabinet 
as  his  representative  during  his  absence. 

I should  like  to  make  the  suggestion 
that  an  amendment  of  that  character  be 
made — that  the  bill  be  amended  along 
those  lines. 


February  18 


923 


1907 


MR.  BENNETT:  Do  I understand 

there  is  a motion  made  to  amend? 

MR.  HARRISON:  I would  like  to 

make  that  motion — yes,  that  whoever 
drafts  the  bill — the  official  draftsman — 
prepare  an  amendment  embodying  that 
idea. 

MR.  WHITE:  I understand  this  ap- 
plies to  these  two  paragraphs:  “Dur- 

ing the  temporary  absence  or  disability 
of  the  mayor,  the  presiding  officer  of  the 
council  shall  temporarily  act  as  mayor. 7 7 

‘ 1 The  presiding  officer  of  the  council 
shall  also  temporarily  act  as  mayor  in 
case  of  a vacancy  in  the  office  of  the 
mayor,  until  such  vacancy  can  be  filled 
as  heinbefore  provided. 77 

You  want  it  to  apply  to  those  two 
paragraphs? 

MR.  HARRISON:  In  the  absence, 

in  case  of  disability,  or  by  reason  of 
illness  or  mental  derangement,  or  some- 
thing of  that  sort. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  long  does 

that  have  to  continue? 

MR.  BENNETT:  This  is  a question 

which  has  been,  talked  of  many  times 
and  at  great  length  during  the  last  few 
years.  The  practice  has  been,  without 
any  authority,  under  the  statute,  for  the 
mayor  to  appoint  some  one  of  his  cab- 
inet to  act  in  his  stead  during  his  ab- 
sence. The  old  charter  provided  that 
during  the  absence  of  the  mayor  the 
council  could  appoint  an  acting  mayor. 
Inasmuch  as  the  council  is  seldom  ad- 
vised of  the  intended  absence  of  the 
mayor,  it  was  unable  to  act  under  that 
provision  of  the  charter.  Now  the  diffi- 
culty, or  the  objection,  rather,  of  per- 
mitting a member  of  the  cabinet  to 
take  his  place  is  the  fact,  in  the  first 
place,  that  he  is  not  an  elective  officer. 
The  council  being  the  governing  body, 
in  my  judgment  should  have  the  selec- 
tion of  this  person.  As  it  is  now  drawn 
it  fixes  the  presiding  officer  as  the 
mayor  temporarily,  and  I believe  it  is 
the  better  method  to  pursue,  and  better 


results  would  be  obtained.  For  the  pur- 
pose of  bringing  the  matter  squarely 
before  the  house,  I move  as  a substitute 
that  the  provision  as  amended  be 
adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  substitute  motion  of  Mr.  Bennett, 
that  the  section  as  printed  be  adopted, 
namely,  that  during  the  temporary  ab- 
sence or  disability  of  the  mayor  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  council  shall 
temporarily  act  as  mayor. 

Is  there  any  further  discussion  of 
this  matter? 

MR.  FISHER:  It  is  my  recollection 

that  the  matter  now  before  us  is  the 
result  of  the  discussion  of  the  matter 
in  the  committee,  who  thought  that  the 
old  system  was  not  very  satisfactory. 

My  recollection  is  that  that  is  Major 
Tolman7s  view  of  it  and  I think  that 
ought  to  have  as  much  weight  as  any- 
thing else  in  determining  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any 

further  discussion  upon  the  question? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I think  the  first 

motion  before  the  house  is  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Harrison.  The  matter  comes  up 
before  the  house  for  adoption  and  when 
the  amendment  is  offered,  it  will  hardly 
be  fair  to  turn  around  and  offer  the 
original  motion  as  a substitute  for  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I do  not  think 

that  it  is  out  of  order  to  move  a sub- 
stitute motion  and  the  matter  will  stand 
as  it  is. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Well,  suppose  we 

should  offer  another  substitute  to  it; 
would  that  be  in  order?  You  see  you 
have  got  to  stand  somewhere,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  can 

only  rule  on  this  particular  matter; 
that  the  motion  was  made  to  change 
and  the  substitute  motion  was  made  to 
permit  the  matter  to  remain  as  it  was; 
and  it  seems  to  me  that  that  motion 
is  perfectly  in  order. 


924 


1907 


February  18 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I beg  to  differ  with 
you  on  that.  When  the  matter  was  read 
before  the  house  it  was  before  the 
house  as  for  adoption,  without  any  nec- 
essary motion  on  the  part  of  anybody 
and  it  was  considered  adopted  unless 
objections  were  raised. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Now,  in  this  case 

objections  have  been  raised,  and  it  is 
still  before  the  house  for  adoption. 

Now,  thfi  amendment  has  been  made 
to  it  and  as  I understand  it  under  the 
rules  it  comes  first. 

MR.  GREENACRE:'  The  point  of  or- 
der is  that  the  original  motion  cannot 
be  urged  as  a substitute  after  the 
amendment  has  been  offered  to  it;  to 
the  original  motion.  That  is  on  the 
line  of  Mr.  Linehan  ’s  remarks. 

MR.  BENNETT:  There  was  no  orig- 

inal motion  to  adopt  this  section.  The 
matter  was  simply  presented  to  the 
Convention  and  the  motion  was  then 
offered  to  amend,  and  the  original  mo- 
tion was  to  substitute  the  matter  offered 
and  to  amend  this  report.  It  is  com- 
mon practice  in  the  council  to  pursue 
such  methods,  and  I think  it  is  proper 
here. 

MR.  YOUNG:  This  particular  prop- 

osition has  never  been  before  this  Con- 
vention for  action.  It  comes  in  as  an 
original  matter  for  action  under  the 
rules  of  procedure  of  this  committee  to 
whom  the  resolution  was  referred. 

It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  perfectly 
proper  that  this  substitute  should  be 
offered. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  result  is 

reached  in  either  event  and,  the  ques- 
tion practically  before  the  house  is, 
* * * Shall  the  section  as  printed 

be  adopted? 

And,  if  there  is  no  further  discus- 
sion— 

MR.  FISHER:  I would  like  to  have 

the  Secretary  state  what  is  the  motion 
to  which  this  is  a substitute. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  motion? 

MR.  FISHER:  I would  like  to  have 

the  Secretary  state  what  is  the  motion 
offered  to  which  this  is  a substitute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Harrison 

pointed  out  that  it  was  desirable  that 
the  mayor  should  have  the  right  to  ap- 
point a substitute  in  his  temporary  ab- 
sence. Alderman  Bennett  moved  to  sub- 
stitute the  measure  as  it  now  stands. 
If  that  should  carry — that  was  the  mo- 
tion was  it  not,  Mr.  Harrison? 

MR.  HARRISON:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  Mr.  Bennett's 
motion  was  carried,  there  would  be  no 
need  of  discussing  the  original  matter, 
and  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  getting  the 
thing  properly  before  the  house  that 
I would  like  to  put  the  substitute  mo- 
tion. 

MR.  HARRISON:  Possibly  the  mo- 

tion should  be  drafted  so  that  it  would 
read:  “During  the  temporary  disabil- 

ity of  the  mayor  the  presiding  officer  of 
the  council  shall  temporarily  act  as 
mayor,  and  during  the  temporary  ab- 
sence of  the  mayor  the  mayor  shall  have 
the  authority  to  appoint  a member  of 
his  cabinet,  the  corporation  counsel,  the 
city  comptroller  or  the  commissioner  of 
public  works  to  represent  him." 

MR.  FISHER:  Permit  me  to  ask  a 

question. 

MR.  HARRISON:  Yes. 

MR.  FISHER:  Should  it  not  be  made 
so  that  in  any  event  one  certain  indi- 
vidual shall  be  named? 

MR.  HARRISON:  That  is  what  I 

intended. 

MR.  FISHER:  If  the  corporation 

counsel  should  be  first,  that  it  should 
be  so  stated. 

MR.  HARRISON:  The  corporation 

counsel  may  be  busy  at  that  particular 
time.  He  may  have  a case  in  court 
which  would  prevent  him  performing 
the  arduous  duties  of  mayor.  During 
the  absence  of  the  mayor,  as  it  usually 
occurs,  the  most  arduous  duties  are  in 


February  18 


925 


1907 


reference  to  releasing  dogs  from  the 
dog  pound  and  prisoners  from  the  house 
of  correction.  Those  are  very  arduous 
duties.  Very  frequently  the  corpora- 
tion counsel  has  notified  the  mayor  that 
he  would  have  preferred  to  have  those 
duties  delegated  to  the  commissioner 
of  public  works  or  the  city  comptroller. 

MR.  FISHER:  Perhaps  that  is  the 

reason  why  Major  Tolman,  having 
served  in  that  position,  wants  to  have 
the  presiding  officer  of  the  council  take 
on  those  duties.  But  there  is  some  con- 
fusion. There  have  been  instances  in 
which  the  mayor  has  gone  away  and 
has  forgotten  or  has  neglected  or  over- 
looked the  fact  of  appointing  his  suc- 
cessor, and  that  has  created  some  diffi- 
culty. If  we  are  going  to  have  some 
sort  of  succession,  ought  the  successor 
not  be  named?  Ought  we  to  have  no 
uncertainty? 

MR.  HARRISON:  Under  the  present 
charter  the  mayor  has  no  authority  to 
name  any  officer  in  the  city  to  act  as  his 
representative;  that  is,  to  act  officially 
as  his  representative.  All  he  can  do  is 
to  notify  the  various  heads  of  depart- 
ments, in  case  of  dispute  arising,  whom 
they  shall  secure  as  arbiter.  That  is 
about  what  the  acting  mayor  is,  merely 
an  arbiter,  in  case  there  is  any  necessi- 
ty for  it,  arising  between  the  various 
departments. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I think  the  pro- 

vision in  this  draft  of  the  charter  is  a 
wise  one.  I think  there  are  quite  a 
number  of  municipalities  well  advanced 
in  municipal  government  where  the 
council  itself  selects  the  mayor  of  the 
municipality.  If  that  should  work  well, 
as  it  has  worked  well,  why,  I don’t  see 
why,  in  the  temporary  absence  of  the 
mayor,  the  presiding  officer  of  the  city 
council,  selected  as  the  representative 
of  the  people,  should  not  be  the  proper 
man  on  whom  the  responsibility  should 
fall.  You  take  it  in  selecting  a member 
of  the  mayor’s  cabinet,  as  presiding 


officer,  ought  not  this  presiding  officer 
to  act  as  mayor,  or  ought  he?  The 
people  never  know  who  is  the  mayor  of 
the  City  of  Chicago,  and  there  were 
times  during  Mayor  Harrison’s  admin- 
istration when  members  of  the  city 
council  and  the  employes  of  the  city 
government  would  not  know  who  the 
mayor  was,  in  the  absence  of  the  mayor. 

I think  this  provision  is  a very  wise 
one.  I don ’t  think  any  presiding  officer 
of  the  city  council  would  adopt  radical 
measures  during  the  absence  of  the 
mayor,  opposite  to  the  policy  of  the 
mayor,  and  thus  upset  the  policy  of  the 
mayor. 

As  the  charter  provides  here,  the  pre- 
siding officer  has  no  authority  to  sign 
ordinances  or  veto  anything  for  thirty 
days,  if  the  absence  should  last  thirty 
days.  I think  it  would  be  very  satis- 
factory to  have  one  of  the  men  who  is 
elected  by  the  people  as  the  people ’s 
representative  fill  that  position,  instead 
of  selecting  a man  that  has  been  ap- 
pointed by  the  mayor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : I understand  Mr. 
Harrison’s  motion  is  that  Section  6 
shall  be  amended  so  as  to  read,  “Dur- 
ing the  temporary  absence  of  the  mayor 
he  may  designate  the  corporation  coun- 
sel, the  comptroller  or  the  commissioner 
of  public  works  to  act  as  mayor,”  and 
Alderman  Bennett’s  motion  is  to  substi- 
tute the  motion— his  motion  is  that  the 
section  remain  as  printed. 

MR.  HARRISON:  In  addition  to 

that,  my  motion  was  that  during  the 
temporary  disability  of  the  mayor 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Instead  of  tem- 

porary absence? 

MR.  HARRISON:  Well,  it  was  two 

different  points,  absence  and  disability. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  I under- 

stand. Now,  you  want  this  to  apply  to 
the  temporary  absence  of  the  mayor 
alone? 

MR.  HARRISON:  Alone,  and  as  to 


February  18 


926 


1907 


temporary  disability  to  stand  as  it  is 
now  in  the  draft  of  the  charter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  So  that  the  pro- 

vision will  be  that  in  the  temporary  ab- 
sence of  the  mayor  he  could  designate 
his  successor,  while  in  the  event  of  his 
disability  the  presiding  officer  of  the 
city  council  shall  preside. 

MB,  HARRISON:  That  is  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  Alderman 

Bennett’s  motion  is  that  the  section  re- 
main as  printed.  The  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  What  are  we 

voting  on,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  substi- 
tute, that  the  matters  remain  as  printed 
in  the  draft  that  is  before  us. 

MR.  POST:  I rise  to  a point  of  order. 
The  committee  on  rules  has  presented 
this  draft,  and  the  draft  is  the  motion 
before  the  house;  now,  there  is  also  a 
motion  to  amend  the  draft.  My  point 
of  order  is  that  you  cannot  make  an 
amendment  to  that  amendment,  the 
original  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  brings  the 

whole  matter  before  the  house,  because 
Mr.  Harrison  has  subdivided  the  mat- 
ter. It  is  of  no  importance  to  the  chair, 
except  that  we  can  get  the  opinion  of 
the  house  very  quickly  on  one  motion, 
where  it  would  take  two  different  roll 
calls  the  other  way;  and  if  there  is  no 
further  objection,  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Bennett’s  mo- 
tion, that  the  matter  shall  remain  as 
printed  in  the  draft  before  the  conven- 
tion. The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Cole,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Merriam,  Mich- 
aelis,  O’Donnell,  Pendarvis,  Raymer, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Snow,  Tay- 
lor, Young — 23. 

Nays — Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harrison, 
Hoyne,  Linehan,  McKinley,  Owens, 


Post,  Robins,  Sethness,  Yopicka,  Wer- 
no— 12. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  yeas  are  23 

and  the  nays  12.  Alderman  Bennett’s 
motion  is  carried. 

MR.  POST:  I rise  to  make  the  point 

that  there  is  not  a quorum  present. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Zimmer  and 

Mr.  Dixon  and  one  other  member  were 
in  the  room  a moment  ago,  and  there 
was  a quorum  here. 

MR.  POST:  That  would  only  be  37. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  Chair 

is  not  responsible  if  the  quorum  doesn’t 
vote.  The  only  thing  I can  give  you 
is  to  call  the  house. 

MR.  POST:  Well,  if  the  house  re- 

veals that  there  are  only  35  members 
present,  it  seems  to  me  we  should  not 
consider  a matter  of  that  importance 
adopted.  I don’t  want  to  interfere 
with  the  progres  of  the  Convention,  but 
it  seems  to  me  that  ought  not  to  be 
recorded  as  the  final  vote  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Will  the  Secre- 

tary go  out  into  the  committee  room 
and  see  if  there  are  any  stray  sheep 
out  there? 

MR.  YOUNG:  I think  there  are  sev- 
eral gentlemen  who  did  not  vote  on  that 
roll  call  who  are  present. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No  quorum 

voted;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Cannot  we  meet 

to-morrow? 

MR.  RAYMER:  If  we  meet  to 

morrow  we  are  without  the  members  of 
the  legislature.  I think  it  is  a wise 
proposition  to  have  them  present. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  is  the  first 

meeting  at  which  the  Convention  has 
had  no  quorum. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I think  we  should 

call  the  roll  to  see  under  the  roll  if 
there  is  not  a quorum  present.  I hope 
we  will  have  a roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  won’t  show 

it  then. 


February  18 


927 


1907 


MR.  YOUNG:  I think  it  is  too  bad 

that  we  have  come  here  and  yet  cannot 
transact  any  business.  I think  we 
should  call  the  roll  and  see  if  there  is  a 
quorum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  thefe  be  a 

call  of  the  house. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann, 
Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Greenacre,  Guerin, 
Harrison,  Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
Michaelis,  O ’Donnell,  Owens,  Pendarvis, 
Post,  Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Seth- 
ness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Snow,  Taylor, 
Vopicka,  White,  Young,  Zimmer — 37. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  for  a 

point  of  information:  I passed  the  first 

section  when  it  was  referred  to  by 
number  by  the  clerk  for  the  reason  that 
I thought  that  there  was  a quorum 
present,  and  for  the  further  reason  that 
I understood  the  question  was  to  be 
taken  up  and  discussed  along  with  the 
question  of  the  term  of  office  for  aider- 
men,  and  the  question  is  a question  of 
two  or  four  years  as  the  term  for  mayor. 
I wish  to  be  understood,  and  I hope  it 
is  so  understood,  that  we  may  revert  to 
this  section  if  it  is  desired  to  do  so 
in  the  event  of  any  change  of  term  in 
the  mayor  being  made.  Some  of  us  will 
seek  eagerly  a change  in  the  term  of 
mayor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  will  be  op- 
portunity given.  The  Chair  is  compelled 
to  state  that  there  is  no  quorum.  Al- 
though the  point  of  no  quorum  has  not 
been  raised,  does  the  Convention  desire 
to  continue  consideration  of  this  mat- 
ter? 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  can 

you  do  anything  without  a quorum? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

can  talk. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I move  we  adjourn 

until  Friday  morning  at  9:30. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  37 


members  present;  that  is  one-half  of 
this  Convention.  The  Chairman  has 
been  advised  that  some  of  the  members 
are  on  their  way  over  here,  and  I would 
now  suggest  that  some  of  these  matters 
be  taken  up  for  discussion.  Because  we 
are  one  man  shy,  that  fact  ought  not 
to  require  this  Convention  to  go  back  on 
the  ordinary  work. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Is  there  a special  rule 
requiring  a certain  number  for  the 
transaction  of  business? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes;  the  ma- 

jority. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Does  it  require  a ma- 

jority? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  POST:  I thoroughly  agree  with 

the  suggestion  of  the  Chairman,  and 
while  I do  not  care  to  take  up  much 
time,  still  I can  utilize  the  fraction  of  a 
minute  by  asking  for  a correction  of 
the  minutes  on  page  882;  the  resolution 
that  I offered  on  the  question  of  suf- 
frage is  mentioned,  but  is  not  inserted. 
I think  it  ought  to  appear  in  the  pro- 
ceedings, and  I ask  that  that  correc- 
tion be  made. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be  done. 

MR.  POST:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  if  there  are  any  other 
changes  in  this  Article  III.  that  they  be 
discussed,  and  then  we  will  take  up 
the  matter  of  the  city  council. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  a reso- 

lution here  which  I passed  up  to  the 
Chair  the  last  time,  which  was  not 
acted  upon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  resolution 

will  be  read  by  the  Secretary. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Ro- 
senthal: That,  in  drafting  the  separate 

bill  with  reference  to  elections  of  judges 
for  the  municipal  court,  the  committee 
shall  so  arrange  the  time  of  election  of 
municipal  court  judges  that  the  same 
shall  not  occur  at  the  same  time  as  the 


February  18 


928 


1907 


election  of  tbe  judges  for  the  circuit 
court  of  Cook  county.  ” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

further  suggestions  to  be  discussed? 

MR.  BURKE:  I desire  to  be  recorded 
as  present. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  there 
is  a quorum  present.  I think  we  will 
now  revert  to  the  order  of  business. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Might  it  not  be 

well  to  take  up  this  resolution  that  has 
just  been  read?  I would  like  to  say 
a word  on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been  the 

habit  to  take  up  these  resolutions  at  the 
close  of  business.  Suppose  we  take  up 
the  topic  now  properly  before  the 
house. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  All  right. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  what  has  become  of  Alderman  Ben- 
nett’s  motion?  That  has  not  been  voted 
upon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  vote  dis- 

closed a lack  of  a quorum. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I move  you,  Mr, 
Chairman,  that  the  roll  be  now  called. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  the  matter 

is  now  before  the  house. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I requested  the 

roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  I note  that 
one  of  the  delegates  who  came  after  the 
convention  was  called  to  order,  and  I 
desire  to  state  that  the  matter  under 
discussion  appears  on  page  62.  Mr. 
Harrison  moved  to  amend  by  giving  the 
mayor  of  the  city  the  right  to  appoint 
some  one  to  act  as  mayor  during  his 
temporary  absence  from  the  city.  Mr. 
Bennett  moved  that  the  section  be  left 
as  printed — that  the  presiding  officer  of 
the  city  council  should  act  as  the  tem- 
porary mayor.  Now,  that  means  that 
during  the  disability  of  the  mayor  the 
presiding  officer  of  the  city  council  can 
act  as  mayor;  but  during  the  tempo- 
rary absence  of  the  mayor,  the  mayor 
would  appoint  one  of  his  cabinet,  one  of 


the  three  chief  cabinet  officers.  Mr.  Ben- 
nett then  moved  that  the  matter  remain 
as  it  was  and  a roll  call  was  had,  and 
there  was  no  quorum  present.  There 
is  now  a quorum  present,  and  unless 
there  is  some  further  discussion,  the 
Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brown,  Cole, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Merriam,  Mich- 
aelis,  O ’Donnell,  Pendarvis,  Raymer, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Snow,  Tay- 
lor, Young — 24. 

Nays — Burke,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Har- 
rison, Hoyne,  Linehan,  McGoorty,  Mc- 
Kinley, Owens,  Post,  Robins,  Sethness, 
Vopicka,  White — 14. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BROWN:  I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Senator  Brown 

votes  aye. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  is 

this  vote  on  the  report 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  printed. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  As  printed? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Then  I desire  to 

change  my  vote  from  aye  to  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McGoorty 

changes  his  vote  from  aye  to  no. 

THE  SECRETARY:  McGoorty,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  a 

quorum? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  yeas  are  24 

and  the  nays  are  14.  Alderman  Ben- 
nett ’s  motion  is  carried.  Are  there 
any  further  amendments  to  Article  III.? 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I wish  to  make 

a motion,  Mr.  Chairman,  concerning  Ar- 
ticle III. — 7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Article  III.— 7. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Believing,  as  I 

do,  that  the  mayor  has  all  his  rights 
with  the  veto,  and  as  an  executive  offi- 
cer of  the  city,  I move  you  that  all 
after  the  word  “expedient,”  in  the 
fourth  line,  be  stricken  out  on  page  62. 


February  18 


929 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  “He  may  intro- 

duce measures  subject  to  the  general 
rules  of  procedure  of  the  council,  and 
shall  have  a seat  in  the  council,  but 
no  vote.”  That  is  in  accordance  with 
the  proposition  adopted  by  the  Con- 
vention. Mr.  Kittleman  moves  to  strike 
that  out. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I move  to  substi- 

tute the  section  as  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  as  it 
stands.  Is  there  any  discussion  on  the 
matter — upon  whether  the  matter  shall 
stand  as  printed,  or  shall  be  stricken 
o.ut  as  proposed  by  Mr.  Kittleman.  If 
not,  are  you  ready  for  the  question? 
Will  you  have  a roll  call?  All  those  in 
favor  of  letting  the  section  remain  as 
it  stands  will  signify  the  same  in  the 
usual  way.  All  those  opposed  say  no. 
The  motion  to  let  stand  is  carried. 

Are  there  any  further  changes  or 
suggestions  or  amendments?  All  right. 
Next  section. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  62,  Article 
III.,  Section  8. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Section  9,  Sec- 

tion 10,  Section  11,  Section  12  and  Sec- 
tion 13.  Article  IV.  The  City  Council. 
Section  1. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

before  proceeding  to  that  section,  can  I 
have  the  resolution  that  I introduced 
read? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  the  resolution 

here? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  has  nothing 
to  do  with  this  section;  that  relates  to 
holding  the  election  for  municipal 
judges. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I understand 

that  that  committee  is  going  to  proceed 
to  draft  that,  and  I would  rather  have 
that  resolution  before  them  before  that 
work  is  entered  upon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be  dis- 

posed of  to-day.  Article  IV. 


THE  SECRETARY:  Article  IV.,  the 

City  Council,  Section  1. 

MR,  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  offer  this  amendment,  and 
move  its  adoption. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  O’Don- 
nell; Amend  by  striking  out  the  word 
“four”  in  the  last  line  of  Section  4 — 1, 
and  substitute  in  lieu  thereof  the  word 
“two.” 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman 

and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  This  is  merely 

to  change  the  term  of  offiee  of  aldermen 
to  two  years,  as  it  is  now.  That  is  on 
the  terms  of  the  old  charter.  This  is 
a question  that  has  been  debated  here 
in  this  state  for  many  years.  It  was 
considered  very  seriously  when  the  pres- 
ent city  charter  was  adopted.  It  was 
considered  and  debated  when  our  pres- 
ent constitution  was  adopted  with  ref- 
erence to  members  of  the  legislature. 
It  has  been  determined  by  the  wisdom 
of  many  years  that  it  is  well  for  every 
representative  body  to  be  compelled  to 
go  back  to  the  people  for  an  endorse- 
ment of  their  stewardship  frequently, 
so  that  the  people  may  reinstruct  them, 
and  may  tell  them  more  about  the  busi- 
ness that  they  desire  transacted;  and  so 
that  they  can  be  rewarded  for  faithful 
service.  It  would  be  a great  mistake 
at  this  time  for  us  to  make  the  term  of 
office  of  alderman  four  years. 

I think  it  would  be  a direct  blow 
to  the  successful  passing  of  this  pro- 
posed charter.  The  people  of  Chicago 
are  in  no  temper  now  for  to  lengthen 
the  term  of  office  of  the  aldermen. 

We  have  at  present  a very  good  coun- 
cil as  a whole.  I believe  there  are 
men  in  the  council  that  are  faithful  and 
honest  and  upright  public  officers;  but 
we  do  not  know  how  long  this  situation 
of  affairs  will  continue;  we  do  not 
know  what  the  next  election  will  bring 
about,  and  it  is  well  to  guard  at  this 


February  18 


930 


1907 


time  against  the  possibility  of  allowing 
the  important  duties  of  the  city  coun- 
cil to  fall  into  bad  hands. 

As  I have  said  before  in  this  conven- 
tion, we  have  had  a great  deal  of 
trouble  in  Chicago  with  our  aldermen, 
and  I think  that  the  custom,  the  sys- 
tem under  which  the  council  has  been 
elected,  has  been  the  wisest  one.  I 
think  if  this  amendment  is  not  adopted 
it  will  be  a great  mistake,  it  will  be  a 
step  backward,  and  it  will  react  against 
the  city  in  its  welfare  from  tme  to  time. 
I have  no  particular  interest  in  this  mo- 
tion, any  more  than  as  a plain  citizen 
of  Chicago.  I have  lived  here  a great 
many  years,  and  from  my  observations 
I would  say  that  it  would  be  better  for 
the  aldermen  to  have  a short  term  of 
office  than  a long  one.  The  argument 
may  be  advanced  that  it  is  a great  hard- 
ship for  the  fee  that  is  paid  to  make  it 
necessary  for  such  public  servant  to  go 
back  to  the  people  every  two  years,  and 
I wish  to  say  in  answer  to  that  that  the 
salaries  of  the  aldermen  have  been 
raised.  Members  of  congress  have  to 
account  for  their  stewardship  to  their 
constitutents  every  two  years,  and  so 
have  the  members  of  the  legislature, 
and,  in  my  judgment,  from  my  experi- 
ence here  in  Chicago,  the  alderman  who 
has  proved  himself  faithful  and  efficient 
in  the  city  council  has  had  very  little 
trouble  in  being  returned.  The  people, 
as  a general  thing,  are  not  ungrateful 
here  in  Chicago,  and  they  have  from 
time  to  time  rewarded  faithful  public 
service.  Asa  proof  of  that,  I see  that 
now  four  aldermen  of  this  present  coun- 
cil, who  are  thinking  about  laying  down 
their  work — I see  that  both  their  con- 
stituents and  the  press  of  this  city  are 
clamoring  for  them  to  accept  renomi- 
nation, showing  that  the  people  and  the 
press  appreciate  faithful  service  at  the 
hands  of  their  aldermen. 

This  is  a very  serious  question,  and 
I take  it  that  a propounder  of  a propo- 


sition, or  the  maker  of  a motion,  has  the 
right  to  open  and  close  the  debate,  and 
I would  like  to  have  this  question  dis- 
cussed freely  by  this  Convention,  and, 
after  the  discussion  is  all  over,  I would 
like  the  indulgence  of  the  Convention  to 
say  a few  more  words  in  addition  to 
what  I have  already  said.  I have  made 
my  words  few,  and  have  tried  to  be 
brief,  because  I*  know  the  time  of  the 
convention  is  precious. 

M.  JONES:  I would  like  to  ask  the 

gentleman  a question.  If  it  is  decided 
to  make  the  term  of  aldermen  two  years, 
what  would  be  your  view  about  the 
term  of  mayor? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I think  those 

offices  are  not  at  all  alike — they  are  not 
offices  in  common.  We  have  a council 
ruled  city,  and  there  is  always  a great 
proportion  of  the  aldermen  who  have 
served  the  previous  term  who  are  re- 
turned to  their  places,  while  with  the 
mayor  probably  we  may  have  a new 
and  an  untried  man  here  elected,  and 
for  that  reason  his  term  of  office  would 
be  longer  than  two  years. 

I think  that  the  same  principle  that 
applies  to  the- president  of  the  United 
States  and  to  the  governor  of  this 
state  should  apply  here.  The  mayor 
is  the  executive  officer  of  the  city,  and 
if  he  does  not  prove  a good  mayor  the 
first  two  years  of  his  administration,  he 
may,  through  his  experience,  be  a good 
mayor  during  the  last  two  years  of  his 
administration.  I think  it  does  not 
make  any  difference  about  that.  The 
mayor  could  very  properly  hold  for  four 
years  and  the  aldermen  for  two. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is 

perhaps  a little  late  to  undertake  to 
discuss  this  question  on  principle.  It  was 
discussed  very  fully  in  passing  on  the 
questions  that  were  discussed  at  the 
original  meetings  of  the  Convention; 
and  it  involves  the  two  propositions: 
the  aldermen  and  the  mayor. 

I take  it  that  there  ought  to  be  lit- 


February  18 


931 


1907 


tie  or  no  difference  of  opinion  in  re- 
gard to  the  fact  that,  if  we  are  going 
to  have  a council,  that  it  will  be  a body 
both  intelligent  and  independent,  and 
occupy  a proper  position  in  our  frame  of 
government;  such  a position  as  we 
would  want  it  to  occupy;  that  this  coun- 
cil should  not  be  subordinated  to  the 
mayor.  That  the  relative  importance 
and  the  dignity  of  both  offices  should 
be  kept  as  nearly  on  a parity  as  pos- 
sible. 

Now,  the  entire  argument  on  the  four- 
year  term  of  the  aldermen  is  based  on 
two  things:  First,  that  it  will  give 

the  aldermen  greater  dignity;  and,  sec- 
ond, that  it  will  put  the  aldermen  on 
a parity  with  the  mayor.  So  that,  if 
we  elect  a four-year  mayor,  and  only 
a two-year  arderman,  the  mayor  hav- 
ing the  appointing  power  and  the  legal 
power,  I believe  you  will,  if  you  do 
that,  entirely  overweight  your  govern- 
ment. 

In  the  national  government,  to  which 
reference  has  been  made  repeatedly,  the 
whole  check  on  the  executive,  as  to  ap- 
pointments and  many  other  things,  is 
vested  in  the  senate  of  the  national 
government,  who  have  even  a longer 
term  than  the  president  has,  and  is  a 
continuing  body.  Mr.  O’Donnell  says 
this  matter  was  discussed  at  the  state 
convention.  So  it  was;  but  it  only 
applied  to  the  popular  branch  of  the 
government,  and  it  was  the  two-cham- 
bered legislature,  and  the  senate  has 
the  longer  term;  so  that  you  have  not 
got  a parallel  when  you  come  to  apply 
this  proposition  to  the  city  government. 
Now,  it  seems  to  me  clear  that  if  the 
mayor  should  have  a four-year  term, 
the  aldermen  should  also  have  a four- 
year  term.  There  are  certain  articles 
in  this  section  in  regard  to  the  mayor 
and  the  city  council  which,  I think, 
ought  to  be  changed.  I was  not  pres- 
ent during  the  discussion  of  the  city 
council,  but  T was  present  when  the 


discussion  of  the  mayor  was  gone  into 
at  great  length,  and,  as  I recall  that 
proposition,  there  was  practically  great 
unanimity  of  opinion  on  the  general 
proposition  I have  stated,  that  we 
should  not  do  anything  which  would 
overweight  our  system  of  government, 
so  that  the  mayor  should  absolutely 
predominate.  Now,  since  that  time, 
since  the  adoption  of  the  article  on  the 
city  council,  and  the  proposal  in  behalf 
of  the  seventy  wards,  there  has  been 
in  the  city,  in  the  papers  and  else- 
where, a great  deal  of  discussion  of 
that  particular  feature,  and  a consid- 
erable difference  of  opinion.  As  far  as 
my  observation  has  gone,  there  is  a 
great  deal  of  feeling  as  to  the  number 
of  wards  proposed  to  be  created — that 
we  had  gone  too  far  in  making  it  sev- 
enty wards.  I think  that  if  the  num- 
ber of  wards  should  be  reduced  to 
fifty,  and  if  we  should  have  one  aider- 
man  to  a ward,  then  we  would  come 
much  nearer  meeting  the  suggestion; 
that  would  amount  to  an  increase  in 
the  number  of  wards  of  approximately 
59  per  cent,  and  would  allow  a division 
of  the  existing  wards  which  would 
bring  the  more  congested  districts  and 
the  larger  body  of  both  the  territory 
and  population  in  more  wards,  so  that 
they  would  be  reduced,  and  be  reduced 
practically  50  per  cent.;  so  that  in 
that  way  we  would  meet  the  desire  of 
a great  many  people  to  have  a smaller 
contingency  for  the  aldermen,  if  there 
is  to  be  but  one  to  the  ward. 

Now,  I think  we  could  accomplish, 
that  with  the  proposition  to  elect  aider- 
men  for  a four-year  term,  so  that  the 
election  for  all  would  come  the  second 
year  after  the  election  of  mayor,  so 
that  you  would  have,  say,  an  election 
for  mayor  and  two  years  from  now  your 
election  for  aldermen,  and  two  years 
from  that  your  election  for  mayor;  so 
that  every  two  years  there  would  be  an 
election  in  municipal  affairs,  so  that 


February  18 


932 


1907 


either  if  there  was  a sentiment  or  a de- 
sire, it  could  be  more  generally  ex- 
pressed. 

And  in  that  way  you  would  meet  the 
points  that  Mr.  O’Donnell  has  sug- 
gested, and  reach  a solution  upon  this 
question  upon  which  we  could  all  final- 
ly unite.  It  was  my  proposition  to  offer 
a resolution  to  that  effect.  I have  such 
a resolution,  and  I do  not  know  whether 
it  would  be  germane  to  this  motion  at 
this  time,  inasmuch  as  it  covers  not 
only  the  term  of  the  office  of  the  aider- 
men,  but  the  number  of  aldermen,  and 
the  time  of  their  tenure.  But,  if  the 
Chair  would  entertain  it  as  a substitute, 
I would  be  very  glad  indeed  to  offer 
this  resolution. 

The  question  of  the  possibility  of  in- 
crease- of  wards  would  be  taken  up,  so 
that  it  would  cover  the  question  of 
membership;  that  could  be  decided  as 
the  convention  wishes.  But  that  reso- 
lution embodies  my  own  personal  views 
on  this  question,  and  I believe  it  is  the 
proper  way  of  meeting  the  conditions  as 
they  now  exist.  ‘I  will  offer  that  reso- 
lution. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  .Secretary 

will  read  the  resolution. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Fisher: 

Be  it  resolved,  that  the  committee  on 
rules  and  procedure  and  general  plan 
be  instructed  to  redraft  the  provisions 
with  regard  to  the  number  of  wards  and 
aldermen,  and  the  election  of  aider- 
men,  so  that  the  total  number  of  wards 
and  aldermen  be  fifty  instead  of  seven- 
ty, and  that  the  aldermen  be  elected  for 
a four-year  term;  the  aldermanic  elec- 
tion to  be  held  in  the  second  year  after 
the  year  provided  for  the  election  of  the 
mayor. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I would  like  to 

speak  to  Mr.  O ’Donnell ’s  motion.  May 
I do  so  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  whole 

matter  come  before  the  house. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I would  like  to 


support  Mr.  O’Donnell’s  motion — that 
is,  that  the  term  of  aldermen  be  two 
years  instead  of  four.  Now,  I cannot 
agree  with  Mr.  Fisher  that  the  mayor 
would  have  greater  power  over  the  city 
council  simply  because  he  would  hold 
four  years  and  the  aldermen  two,  than 
he  would  if  we  should  elect  the  board 
of  aldermen  for  four  years,  and  the 
mayor  should  happen  to  control  a ma- 
jority of  the  aldermen.  I think  this 
matter  would  endanger  his  power,  and 
I don’t  apprehend  that  especially,  but 
if  it  is  such  a matter,  I think  he  would 
have  more  power  to  do  harm.  That 
a body  that  has  control  for  four  years, 
when  he  gets  control  of  it,  he  would 
do  more  harm  than  if  he  held  it  for 
four  years — or  if  he  held  it  for  only 
two  and  the  council  held  it  for  four 
years.  Then,  I wish  to  call  attention 
to  this  fact.  We  can  afford  to  profit 
by  the  experience  of  other  cities.  You 
pick  out  eleven  of  the  largest  cities  in 
this  country  and  there  is  just  one  that 
has  a term  of  office  for  aldermen  for 
a longer  period  than  two  years  and  that 
city  is  New  Orleans.  Now,  I thor- 
oughly believe  that  it  would  be  out 
of  harmony  with  the  spirit  of  our  gov- 
ernment to  have  a legislative  body  hold 
a term  of  office  for  a period  of  four 
years.  I think  that  the  City  Council 
ought  to  be  called  on  to  account  as 
often  at  least  as  once  in  every  two 
years,  Now,  we  have  doubled  his  sal- 
ary, and  have  doubled  his  time,  and 
I think,  as  Mr.  O’Donnell  has  already 
said,  you  will  have  great  difficulty  in 
getting  the  people  to  agree  to  double 
the  salary  and  double  the  term  of 
office,  'and  putting  in  a body  that  will 
hold  for  four  years.  The  other  point 
has  already  been  well  met.  If  you 
do  have  a good  man  in  the  City  Coun- 
cil and  he  wants  to  be  re-elected  and 
has  a good  record,  there  is  no  trouble 
to  re-elect  him  and  he  does  not  have 
to  go  to  any  great  expense  over  it. 


February  18 


933 


1907 


Now,  there  is  a point  in  Mr.  Fisher’s 
resolution  that  I might  believe  in,  but 
I certainly  am  opposed  to  the-  aider- 
men  being  elected  for  a four-years’ 
term,  and  shall  vote  against  it  here, 
and  try  to  persuade  everybody  else 
I can  to  vote  against  it. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I wish  to  state  that 

my  first  impression  was  when  this  mat- 
ter came  up  originally  that  I was  for  a 
four-year  term  for  the  aldermen.  Dur- 
ing the  discussion  I have  had  my  mind 
changed  upon  that  point,  and  in  the 
argument  two  points  changed  my  mind, 
which  points  were  as  follows: 

First,  that  it  would  be  imposing  a 
great  hardship  upon  the  aldermen. 
Second,  that  it  would  give  the  Mayor 
an  opportunity  in  the  mid  term  to  ex- 
ercise a certain  influence  upon  the  elec- 
tion of  aldermen. 

I might  say  as  far  as  the  first  point 
is  concerned,  that  it  has  been  eliminated 
by  the  fact  of  the  increase  in  salary 
that  has  been  agreed  upon  or  is  to  be 
paid;  the  further  fact  that  the  ter- 
ritory to  which  he  must  go  to  seek 
his  re-election  has  been  lessened;  there- 
fore I think  it  is  not  undue  hardship 
for  the  aldermen  to  go  back  each  two 
years  for  his  election.  As  to  the  other 
point,  I do  not  think  upon  subsequent 
consideration  that  it  amounts  to  a great 
deal,  and  not  enough  in  any  event  to 
over-balance  the  things  in  favor  of  the 
plan  of  electing  every  two  years. 

It  would  not  be  unusual  at  all  if  the 
Mayor  was  elected  for  a four-year  term 
upon  questions  of  public  policy  or  mu- 
nicipal policy — there  might  arise  mat- 
ters in  the  meantime  that  might  make 
it  desirable  to  have  an  election  to  test 
the  sentiment  of  the  people,  and  that 
might  be  had  in  an  aldermanic  election 
every  two  years,  and  although  I voted 
for  a four-year  term  before,  I am  pre- 
pared to  change  my  vote  and  vote  in 
favor  of  a two-year  term,  and  I hope 


to  influence  others  in  voting  the  same 
way. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  seems  to  me 

that  unless  we  adopt  Mr.  Fisher’s  sub- 
stitute, or  something  substantially  sim- 
ilar to  that,  and  if  we  accept  and  sup- 
port Mr.  O’Donnell’s  motion  that  we 
are  taking  a long  step  backward.  We 
ought  to  go  back  to  the  original  prin- 
ciples in  this  matter;  we  ought  to  de- 
cide in  the  first  place  whether  we  want 
the  City  of  Chicago  to  continue,  as 
heretofore,  a council  governed  city  or 
a mayor  governed  city.  We  have 
agreed  here  in  our  discussions  hereto- 
fore that  we  wanted  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago to  remain  as  it  has  been  in*  the 
past,  and  as  it  has  so  well  disported 
itself  during  the  last  few  years, — a 
council  governed  and  not  a mayor  gov- 
erned city. 

I might  say  in  this  connection  that 
there  is  no  city  in  the  country  of  any 
size  that  has  a city  council  that  can 
compare  to  the  City  Council  of  Chicago 
today.  And  what  is  the  reason  of  it? 
The  reason  of  it  is,  in  the  first  place, 
that  the  voters  of  Chicago  are  re- 
sponsible for  the  men  whom  they  elect 
to  the  Council;  and  in  the  second  place 
that  the  Council  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
is  a legislative  body  of  large  powers. 

Now,  what  have  we  done  here,  or 
what  are  we  contemplating  doing  by 
our  charter?  We  have  already  adopted 
a measure  by  which  the  term  of  the 
Mayor  of  the  City  of  Chicago  is  to  be 
increased  to  four  years;  when  we  in- 
crease the  term  of  Mayor  to  four  years 
and  make  the  term  of  the  aldermen 
two  years,  we  necessarily  exaggerate 
the  importance  of  the  Mayor’s  office, 
the  importance  of  the  mayor  in  rela- 
tion to  the  government  of  the  City  of 
Chicago.  It  seems  to  me  that  in  doing 
that  we  are  making  a great  mistake. 
All  of  us  know  the  influence  that  the 
mayor  has  from  time  to  time  exercised, 
and  not  always  in  the  best  sort  of  a 


February  18 


934 


1907 


way,  in  the  election  of  aldermen.  We 
ought  not  to  have  a spectacle  of  that 
sort.  We  ought  to  have  the  office  of 
alderman  as  honorable  an  office  as  can 
be  found  in  the  City  of  Chicago.  We 
are  giving  the  City  Council  of  Chi- 
cago larger  powers  than  it  ever  had 
before;  we  are  emphasizing  home  rule 
in  the  City  of  Chicago.  If  we  want  to 
elect  to  the  City  Council  of  Chicago 
the  best  men  in  the  City  of  Chicago, 
then  we  should  make  it  an  office  of 
some  prominence;  but  do  not  compel 
the  men  almost  the  moment  a man  is 
elected  do  not  compel  him  to  have  to 
lay  his  wires  for  re-election.  We  have 
had  the  experience  of  men  here  in  the 
City  Council,  men  who  have  stepped 
out  of  the  City  Council  of  the  City  of 
^Chicago,  and  one  of  the  reasons  that 
some  of  the  very  best  men  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  have  refused  to  again  enter 
the  Council  is  that  these  very  same 
men — they  have  told  me  of  it,  that 
they  have  hardly  gotten  their  seats 
in  the  City  Council  when  they  have 
had  to  prepare  for  re-election.  It  seems 
to  me  that  is  a great  mistake.  Of 
course  the  number  of  wards  as  we  have 
them  at  the  present  time — that  is,  un- 
der the  present  draft  of  the  charter  — 
the  number  of  wards,  seventy,  is  al- 
together too  large;  but  having  fifty 
wards  and  fifty  men  to  look  after,  and 
having  those  men  elected  then  for  a 
term  of  four  years,  will  give  us  more 
stability  in  the  City  Council.  It  seems 
to  me  it  is  wrong  to  say  if  we  elect 
a man  for  a period  of  four  years  and 
that  man  turns  out  to  be  the  wrong 
man  there  is  no  way  of  getting  him 
out  of  the  City  Council — the  point  is, 
that  in  our  system  of  government,  we 
have  to  look  out  for  it  and  elect  the 
right  man  at  the  time  he  enters  the 
Council,  and  we  cannot  succeed  in  any 
form  of  municipal  government,  or  in 
any  form  of  republican  government 
unless  we  are  watchful  of  our  elec- 


tions; and  if  we  are  Tiot  afraid  of  our- 
selves— and  we  should  not  be  afraid 
of  ourselyes — we  should  have  this  term 
of  office  four  years,  with  fifty  wards. 

ME.  LINEHAN : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

do  not  think  we  should  lose  sight  of 
the  important  fact  connected  with  the 
desire  that  we  wish  to  have  a council- 
governed  city;  that  is  to  keep  the 
Council  as  close  as  possible  to  the  peo- 
ple. Now,  I have  nothing  but  respect 
for  a man,  be  he  alderman  or  any- 
body else,  and  whether  he  has  agreed 
with  me  or  not,  who,  is  honest  in  his 
conviction  and  consistent.  But  we  have 
seen  the  spectacle  of  an  alderman  be- 
ing elected  in  this  city  who  made  a 
campaign  on  a certain  issue,  and  after 
getting  elected,  have  repudiated  the 
issue  and  voted  directly  opposite  to  the 
way  that  he  was  elected  for.  Now, 
what  protection  has  the  voter?  What 
protection  have  the  electors  in  the 
wards  against  that  style  of  an  aldeT- 
man?  I want  you  to  understand  that 
the  man  who  gets  in  for  four  years, 
such  a man,  would  never  want  to  go 
back  again,  and  he  might  get  to  the 
penitentiary.  Now,  there  are  men  in 
this  Council  that  I know  of,  who  have 
voted  consistently  on,  for  instance,  the 
traction  question.  They  never  made 
any  bones  about  it;  about  their  being 
on  the  side  of  the  traction.  They  have 
got  elected  by  the  people  in  their  ward 
who  knew  what  side  of  the  question 
they  were  on,  and  I have  nothing  but 
respect  for  such  a man,  who,  when  he 
gets  to  the  Council,  votes  accordingly. 
But  for  a man  who  is  elected  on  one 
principle,  on  one  side  of  the  ques- 
tion, and  goes  to  the  Council  and  votes 
on  the  other — for  such  a man,  I have 
nothing  but  contempt,  and  I want  to 
have  an  election,  on  account  of  Buch 
a man,  not  only  every  two  years  but 
every  month,  if  I can  get  it.  That  is 
what  we  are  against  when  it  comes 
to  the  four-years’  term.  Outside  of 


February  18 


935 


1907 


that  there  is  nothing  in  my  mind 
against  it.  Brother  Fisher  said  a few 
minutes  ago  that  we  might  have  four- 
year  terms  with  a mayor  election  in 
between.  What  guarantee  have  you 
that  that  will  do  it?  The  only  pro- 
tection is  that  they  will  go  back  to 
the  people.  I think  they  should,  every 
two  years.  I don’t  think  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Mayor  being  elected  for 
four  years  interfers  with  the  question 
of  the  aldermen.  I do  not  know  any- 
thing that  is  so  close  to  the  people  as 
this  matter.  T think  that  should  be 
made  possible  every  two  years.  We 
have  had  mayors  who  have  stood  all 
alone  against  the  aldermanic  body  to 
compel  them  to  live  up  to  what  they 
were  elected  for  by  the  people.  I tell 
you  the  experience  of  this  city  has 
been  that  there  have  been  few  excep- 
tions to  the  fact  that  the  experience 
of  this  city  has  been  so  far  the  Mayor 
has  protected  the  people  of  this  city 
from  the  aldermen. 

Now,  you  will  never  get  it  through 
this  city — through  this  charter — that 
the  aldermen  should  have  a four-year 
term  of  office.  You  might  have  done 
so  a few  years  ago  before  the  people 
woke  up,  but  they  are  alive  and  awake 
today,  and  they  will  not  stand  for  it 
now.  In  order  to  have  this  charter 
recommend  itself  to  the  epole,  you  must 
not  have  such  a provision  there,  or  it 
will  not  secure  their  approval.  It  may 
go  up  to  Springfield,  but  I doubt  if  you 
will  get  that  measure  through  Spring- 
field  under  such  terms. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  say  a few  words:  When  this 

question  was  before  the  committee  the 
committee  inquired  among  the  present 
aldermen  and  those  who  had  served  the 
Vitv  in  that  capacity  for  a number  of 
years,  as  to  their  views  in  regard  to 
the  number  of  aldermen  and  the  num- 
ber of  wards.  The  consensus  of  opinion 
was — the  opinion  was  largely  in  the 


majority  in  favor  of  the  larger  num- 
ber of  wards.  As  to  the  question  of 
term,  that  was  not  so  decisive.  I might 
say  that  the  vote  on  that  was  about 
even.  Now,  in  the  fixing  of  seventy 
wards,  this  is  about  the  only  point  that 
governed  the  committee:  and  that  was, 
keeping  the  representation  to  what  it 
is  at  the  present  time.  The  basis  of 
representation  today  calls  for  seventy 
aldermen.  If  you  reduce  the  number 
of  aldermen,  you  increase  the  number 
of  people  that  are  going  to  be  rep- 
resented by  a smaller  number  of  men. 
There  is  no  hard  and  fixed  policy  as  far 
as  the  committee  was  concerned  as  to 
the  number  of  aldermen  or  the  length 
of  the  term.  The  committee,  I believe, 
in  a majority,  favored  the  two-years’ 
term,  but  they  did  not  think  it  would 
be  wise  to  cut  down  the  present  basis 
of  representation.  However,  personally, 
I feel  that  is  a matter  that  we  could 
very  easily  arrange.  I think  that  the 
point  that  disturbs  this  Convention 
mostly  is  the  question  of  term.  I am 
not  sure,  however,  but  what  fifty  or 
sixty  men  would  be  equally  as  good 
as  seventy.  I believe,  however,  that 
if  you  are  going  to  do  anything,  that 
you  should  keep  the  basis  of  representa- 
tion as  near  to  what  it  is  at  the  pres- 
ent time  as  you  can,  and  restrict  the 
number  of  aldermen  to  one  to  each 
ward.  As  to  the  four  or  two-years’ 
term,  I am  perfectly  indifferent  as  to 
that.  Personally,  I shall  vote  for'  the 
two-years’  term. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman, — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Yopicka  has 
the  floor. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

hope  the  resolution  by  Mr.  Fisher  will 
not  prevail.  The  number  of  wards, 
seventy,  is  about  right,  seeing  that  the 
City  of  Chicago  is  growing  all  the  time. 
It  is  better  to  have  the  larger  number 
than  the  smaller,  because  the  people 
could  see  their  representatives  oftener 


February  18 


936 


1907 


and  get  closer  to  them,  and  further- 
more, the  two-years  ’ term  is  all  right. 

I say,  we  should  not  extend  the  term 
of  aldermen  to  four  years,  and  I shall 
vote  accordingly. 

MR.  JONES:  I should  like  to  ask 

that  Mr.  Fisher’s  substitute  be  divided. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I was  going  to 

„ suggest  that  we  first  vote  on  the  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  the  term  should 
be  two  or  four  years. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

like  to  speak  to  that.  That  will  be: 
whether  we  shall  have  aldermen  elected 
for  two  years,  or  whether  they  shall  be 
elected  for  four  years;  on  the  alter- 
native periods;  that  is,  two  years  for 
the  mayor’s  election.  Now,  I voted  for 
the  four-years ’term  for  aldermen  when 
this  matter  was  up  before,  and  I must 
confess  that  I have  been  less  satisfied 
with  that  vote  than  in  respect  to  any 
other  vote  that  I have  made  in  this 
Convention.  I was  particularly  pre- 
vailed upon  to  vote  that  way  because 
I felt  that  it  was  a disappointment — 
because  I felt  it  desirable  that  the 
aldermen  should  hold  the  same  term  as 
the  mayor. 

I hope  we  will  reconsider  the  matter. 
If  we  are  to  have  a two-years  term  for 
the  mayor,  we  should  reconsider  the 
matter  and  have  a two-years’  term 
for  the  aldermen.  But  it  seems  we 
must  decide  whether  to  have  a two- 
years’  term  or  four-years’  term. 

Upon  further  consideration  I feel 
convinced  that  it  would  be  a very 
serious  mistake  for  us  to  give  the  aider- 
men  a term  of  four  years,  and  I am 
willing  to  vote  them  a two-years’  term, 
even  though  the  mayor  shall  be — the 
mayorality  shall  remain  at  the  four- 
years  ’ tern.  For  this  reason,  I believe, 
in  the  first  place,  that  we  are  making 
a mistake  in  putting  the  salary  of  the 
councilmen  at  $3,500.  But  that  is  an 
act  of  this  Convention  and  must  be 
taken  under  consideration.  That  means 


that  you  have  a four-years’  term,  and 
you  have  a small  fortune  of  $14,000 
of  a salary  to  fight  over. 

It  is  a position  a man  can  hold  with- 
out necessarily  sacrificing  his  personal 
business,  because  he  needs  attend  the 
council  meetings  only  in  the  evening 
or  at  certain  times  in  the  week  which 
he  can  readily  control.  I believe,  there- 
fore, this  small  fortune  will  control  this 
position,  and  attract  to  this  position 
nuen  we  do  not  wish  in  the  City  Coun- 
cil. So  that  for  that  reason,  I think  it 
unwise  to  vote  for  a four-years’  term. 

Now,  the  argument  has  been  made 
here  again  and  again  that  we  wish  to 
have  a council-governed  city,  and  that 
in  some  mysterious  way,  if  the  mayor 
holds  for  four  years,  and  the  council  for 
two  years,  that  we  shall  have — or  we 
will  fail  to  have,  a council-governed 
city.  Now,  outside  of  that  bare  state- 
ment, I have  not  heard  any  persuasive 
arguments  as  to  the  reason  why  the 
City  Council  will  lose  its  prestige  in 
case  they  should  decide  that  the  aider- 
men  shall  have  two  years  of  office  and 
the  mayor  four. 

If  there  are  any  gentlemen  on  the 
other  side  of  the  question  that  have  any 
concise  statements  or  arguments  on  that 
point,  I would  like  to  hear  from  them, 
because  I feel  convinced,  after  listen- 
ing to  these  arguments,  that  we  are 
taking  a backward  step  if  we  throw 
open  the  council  to  the  class  of  men 
who  would  be  tempted  by  the  four- 
years  ’ term  and  the  large  aggregate 
salary  that  will  go  with  that  term. 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

just  want  to  confine  myself  to  a few 
words  to  refute  some  of  the  ideas  of 
the  previous  speaker,  when  he  touches 
the  salary  question.  There  seems  to 
me  to  be  a mistaken  idea  that  all  an 
alderman  has  to  do  is  to  attend  the 
council  and  the  committee  meetings.  I 
want  to  tell  you  gentlemen  that  you 
are  making  a great  big  mistake.  There 


February  18 


9 37 


1907 


is  no  position,  I venture  to  say,  in  this 
city,  that  imposes  more  duties  on  the 
occupant  than  the  aldermanic  position. 

You  are  paying  your  County  Com- 
misioners,  if  you  please,  $3,000  or  $3,- 
600  a year,  and  I never  heard  a word 
said  against  that^that  it  was  too  much. 
You  will  certainly  make  a mistake  if 
you  put  back  the  salary  to  what  it  is 
at  the  present  timeJ  There  is  no  poorer 
ricFofficer  in  the  City  of  Chicago  than 
the  aldermen,  and  there  is  not  another 
one  to  whom  the  people  are  closer, 
and  to  whom  they  come  with  all  kindsi 
of  requests  than  they  do  to  the  alder*' 
men.  In  other  words,  an  aldermen  has 
to  have  a big  pocketbook,  more  than 
any  other  officer  in  the  city. 

With  reference  to  the  term  I believe 
that  two  years  is  long  enough.  I think, 
under  the  present  conditions  that  we 
labor  under,  it  will  not  be  a wise  step 
to  make  it  four  years,  but  I certainly 
will  want  to  see  the  salary  kept  up, 
because  I do  not  think  an  alderman  is 
over-paid  at  $3,500  a year. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any 

further  discussion? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  There  is  just 

one  thing  that  I wish  to  call  attention 
to:  If  there  is  any  force  in  the  argu- 

ment that  the  mayor  will  control  the 
aldermen  in  case  of  the  two-years’  term 
that  is  proposed  to  be  given  to  the 
aldermen,  then  the  same  objection  can 
be  urged  to  the  Fisher  resolution,  which 
provides  that  the  aldermen  should  be 
elected  midway  of  the  mayoralty  term. 
He  can  then  exercise  as  much  influence 
in  electing  the  aldermen  at  that  time 
as  he  could  if  their  term  were  only  two 
years. 

Now,  I think  this  is  a question  which 
is  probably  closer  to  the  people  than 
any  other  thing  we  have  before  us. 
While  I appreciate  the  reasons  that  ex- 
ist for  a four-years’  term,  I do  not 
think  those  reasons  are  sufficient  to 
overcome  the  objections,  and  T am 


heartily  in  favor  of  the  two-years’ 
term.  I would  rather  see  the  mayor- 
alty remain  at  that  rather  than  it 
should  be  put  at  four  years. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  as 

far  as  I am  concerned,  I do  not  see  that 
it  matters  very  much  whether  you  have 
a two-years’  term  for  the  aldermen  or 
a four-years’  term.  That  is  not,  as  1 
look  at  it,  a very  vital  matter.  But, 
whether  or  not  the  term  of  the  mayor 
shall  be  of  the  same  length  as  the 
term  of  the  aldermen,  I should  re- 
gard as  perhaps  the  most  vital  prob- 
lem in  the  whole  field  of  city  govern- 
ment. I say,  there  is  nothing  more 
vital  to  the  development  of  the  city 
government  of  Chicago,  as  it  has  been 
for  the  last  ten  years,  than  to  give  the 
mayor  of  this  city  an  extended  tenure 
of  office  of  four  years,  and  requiring 
the  aldermen  who  sit  under  him  to  go 
back  to  their  constituents  at  the  end 
of  two  years,  midway  in  his  term. 
Senator  Jones  has  asked  the  reasons  for 
this,  and  I presume  no  reason  has  been 
given  from  the  floor  because  that  is 
regarded,  perhaps,  as  an  elementary  and 
a fundamental  principle.  I confess  I 
never  heard  of  a system  in  which  the 
executive  power  should  be  given  a 
longer  tenure  of  office  than  the  legis- 
lative power,  where  it  was  intended 
to  have  anything  like  balance  of  au- 
thority as  between  the  executive  and 
legislative  power.  Now,  if  there  is 
anything  the  city  of  Chicago  has  ac- 
complished in  this  last  decade,  it  is  the 
demonstration  of  the  fact  that  in  a 
large  city  it  has  been  able  to  secure 
a good  and  efficient  council.  We  have 
a demonstration  here  in  regard  to  that, 
as  there  is  nowhere  else  in  this  coun- 
try, that  we  can  obtain  a council  of 
such  a kind  for  the  government  of  this 
great  City  of  Chicago. 

Now,  why,  at  the  very  time  we  have 
made  this  most  conclusive  demonstra- 
tion in  this  way,  and  at  this  time, 


February  18 


938 


1337 


should  we  go  back  and  proceed  to  kick 
the  council  down  the  back  stairs,  I fail 
to  see.  I know  of  no  large  city  in  this 
country,  or  anywhere  else,  in  which 
the  executive  power  is  given  a longer 
term  of  office  than  the  legislative.  The 
common  practice  certainly  is  to  give 
the  tenure  of  office  equality  in  length. 
That  certainly  is  the  practice  in  Bos- 
ton, New  York,  St.  Louis  and  in  Balti- 
more, and  in  fact,  in  every  large  city 
of  which  I can  at  this  moment  think. 
It  is  certain,  either  as  a matter  of  po- 
litical theory,  or  as  a matter  of  prac- 
tical politics,  that  to  endow  the  aider- 
man  for  a four-year  term  of  office, 
should  proceed  on  the  theory  that  the 
mayor  has  an  equal  term.  There  is 
plenty  of  experience  in  the  past  that 
the  executive  has  had  to  do  with  the 
nomination  of  aldermen. 

It  seems  to  me  to  be  a false  theory 
to  intensify  this  mayoralty  interfer- 
ence with  the  aldermen,  to  give  him 
a club  two  or  even  four  times  as  thick 
and  as  strong  as  the  one  he  now  has. 

Personally,  I regard  this  as  the  most 
important  problem  that  has  yet  come 
before  this  Charter  Convention.  I can- 
not ipiagine  any  situation  which  could  do 
greater  damage  to  our  city  govern- 
ment as  it  now  stands,  than  the  adop- 
tion of  Mr.  O’Donnell’s  motion. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I would 

like  to  refer  for  a moment  to  one  of  the 
arguments  made  at  the  time  of  the 
adoption  of  this  report,  namely,  that 
this  should  be  a council-governed  city. 
Now,  if  a council-governed  city  means 
a people-governed  city,  then  that  is  the 
kind  of  city  we  want.  But  in  order 
to  have  a council-governed  city  of  that 
character,  we  must  have  councilmen 
coming  frequently  from  the  people,  and 
not  have  councilmen  in  for  long  terms. 

When  this  matter  was  under  discus- 
sion before,  the  real  purpose  of  this 
four-year  term  was  suggested  by  our 
friend  Mr.  Rosenthal,  who  said  that  the 


purpose  for  which  we  elected  the  coun- 
cil is  not  to  serve  the  people,  or  be 
the  servants  of  the  people,  but  to  gov- 
ern the  people;  and  he  suggested  clearly 
that  they  should  be  put,  to  a consider- 
able extent,  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
votes  of  the  people.  At  the  time  that 
we  had  it  under  consideration,  we  also 
had  undetermined  before  us,  the  ques- 
tion of  the  initiative  and  the  referen- 
dum. Mr.  Fisher,  in  his  speech  at  that 
time,  spoke  of  that,  in  advocacy  of  the 
four-years  ’ term.  Since  then  we  have 
had  the  initiative  struck  out  and  the 
referendum  struck  out,  as  a general 
measure,  and  we  have  put  it  in  such 
shape  that  it  cannot  be  used  for  the 
purpose  for  which  it  was  written.  Now, 
it  proceeded  on  the  theory  that  we 
should  have  these  governors  of  the  peo- 
ple retained  in  four  years  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  people.  In  that  discus- 
sion, I said,  and  I repeat  it  in  substance 
now,  if  we  were  to  have  a recall  in  con- 
nection with  the  election  of  the  coun- 
cil within  the  four-years’  term,  or  the 
five-years’  term,  it  might  not  be  ob- 
jectionable. If  it  were  possible  that 
an  alderman  should  be  called  from  the 
office  when  he  betrayed  the  people,  then 
we  might  have  a four-years’  term,  and 
the  mayor  and  the  aldermen  would  still 
serve  the  people  well.  But  as  circum- 
stances stand  now,  in  the  present  shape 
of  the  charter,  retaining  the  four-years’ 
term,  it  is  simply  creating  a governing 
body  over  the  people  which  is  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  people  for  four  years, 
and  that  the  power  could  be  established 
which  would  be  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
people  for  eight  years. 

MR.  EIDMANN ; I move  the  previous 
question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  previous 

question  has  no  place  here.  Any  further 
discussion  upon  the  question? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I want  to  say 

just  this,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  in  the  city 
of  Baltimore  they  elect  a mayor  for  four 


February  18 


939 


1907 


years  ancl  the  councilmen  for  two  years; 
also  in  Philadelphia  they  elect  the  mayor 
for  four  years  and  the  aldermen  for  two 
years;  also  in  Denver  they  elect  the 
mayor  for  four  years  and  the  council- 
men  for  two  years,  so  that  there  are  three 
instances  here  wherein  this  situation  we 
propose  to  bring  about  here  prevails  in 
the  United  States. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  O’Donnell’s 
motion  to  substitute  the  two-year  term 
for  the  four-year  term. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  Mr.  Fisher’s 

substitute,  that  is. 

MB.  FISHEE : I rise  to  a question 

of  information : There  is  yet  another  al- 

ternative that  has  not  been  put  before 
the  house,  but  which  represents  the  views 
of  certain  members  of  this  body,  and  it 
perhaps  ought  to  be  considered,  or  at 
least  suggested,  and  I ask  at  this  point 
1 w'ould  like  to  know  whether  w’e  would 
be  foreclosed  on  that,  namely,  the  ques- 
tion of  term.  There  is  another  sugges- 
tion that  we  have  not  taken  up  yet,  the 
question  of  the  number  of  wTards,  and 
that  is  of  some  importance.  There  is  a 
great  deal  of  opposition  to  the  seventy 
wards,  and  considerable  feeling  in  the 
matter  as  to  whether  we  should  retain 
thirty-five  wards  or  wrhether  we  should 
not  retain  thirty-five  wards,  and  the 
mayor’s  term  be  retained  for  four  years; 
and  there  might  be  certain  advantages 
to  this  proposition,  it  would  still  leave 
the  mayor  and  the  council  with  the  power 
and  authority  suggested  to  have  the  al- 
dermen elected  twro  from  each  ward  and 
two  elected  each  two  years,  and  the 
mayor  retained  the  four-year  term.  It 
seems  to  me  that  while  this  has  not  yet 
been  discussed,  that  it  would  be  proper 
to  get  it  before  the  house  in  some  form 
before  this  motion  is  passed  upon,  or 
afterwards,  I don’t  care  which. 

MB.  O’DONNELL:  Can  we  not  sim- 

plify this  matter  by  having  a vote  upon 
the  question  of  the  four-year  term  or  the 
tw’o-year  term? 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  was 

about  to  put  the  motion. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  I have  seen  a 

copy  of  the  amendment  that  Mr.  Fisher 
has  just  spoken  of,  which  I would  like 
to  substitute  for  Mr.  O ’Donnell ’s  motion, 
because  my  motion  answers  the  conten- 
tion that  is  made  here  that  the  council, 
that  at  least  half  of  the  council  shall  be 
elected  every  two  years.  I would  like  to 
have  the  motion  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Will  the  Secre- 
tary read  Mr.  Eosenthal’s  substitute. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Eosen- 

thal:  Be  it  resolved,  that  the  committee 

on  rules,  procedure  and  general  plan  be 
instructed  to  re-draft  the  provisions  with 
regard  to  the  number  of  wards  and  al- 
dermen and  the  election  of  aldermen  so 
that  the  total  number  of  wards  be  thirty- 
five  as  at  present,  the  number  of  aider- 
men  seventy,  two  aldermen  to  be  elected 
from  each  ward,  the  term  of  office  of 
the  aldermen  to  be  four  years,  and  one 
half  of  the  aldermen  to  be  elected  w7hen 
the  mayor  is  elected  and  one-half  the 
second  year  thereafter. 

ME.  JONES:  I move  as  a substitute 

for  all  the  motions  that  we  nowr  vote  upon 
Mr.  O ’Donnell ’s  motion. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  The  Chair  does 

not  like  this  pyramiding  of  substitutes. 

MB.  YOUNG:  It  seems  to  me  that 

substitute  involves  questions  not  germane 
to  the  ones  we  are  trying  to  vote  upon. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  It  covers  two 

sections. 

MB.  YOUNG:  That  is  the  length  of 

term. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  The  substitute 

of  Mr.  O’Donnell  covers  two  different 
sections;  it  covers  sections  one  and  three. 
The  Chair  suggests  that  the  Convention 
having  heard  Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  substitute, 
now  take  a vote  upon  Mr.  O’Donnell’s 
motion,  and  then  if  that  is  voted  down, 
you  can  take  up  the  other,  or  such  other 
proceedings  as  may  be  adopted  later. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I just  rise  to  a point  of  information. 


February  18 


940 


1907 


I have  not  any  objection  to  the  method 
of  procedure.  The  only  thing  that  I 
wanted  is  to  bring  before  this  Conven- 
tion, and  have  a vote  on  this  proposi- 
tion, because  some  of  the  propositions  in 
it  are  interdependent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 

suggest  that  this  substitute  motion  to 
Mr.  O ’Connell ’s  motion  be  voted  on  first. 

ME.  MacMILLAN:  Was  not  Mr.  Fish- 
er’s proposition  a substitute? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Fisher’s 

proposition  is  not  now  before  the  house. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : I understood  that 
it  was. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Did  you  intro- 

duce it  as  a substitute? 

ME.  FISHER:  I did,  but  I stated 

when  I did  that  I thought  it  was  sub- 
ject to  objection  on  the  ground  suggest- 
ed; that  it  did  cover  two  sections. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes. 

ME.  FISHEE:  but  that  I offered 

it  unless  that  objection  were  made.  I 
think  we  will  get  at  this  thing  more 
quickly  if  we  tackle  the  question  as  to 
whether  we  are  to  have  one  alderman  to 
a ward  and  as  to  how  many  wards  we 
are  to  have.  The  question  of  term  de- 
pends very  largely  on  that. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : I am  raising  the 

question  as  to  how  many  substitutes  are 
before  the  body? 

THE  CHAIEMAN : The  Chair  is  try- 

ing to  discover. 

MB,  MacMILLAN:  So  am  I. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  This  is  the  orig- 
inal : Mr.  O ’Donnell  moved  to  strike 

out  the  four-year  term  and  insert  the 
two-year  term.  Mr.  Fisher  then  offered 
a substitute.  Mr.  Eosenthal  has  just 
presented  another  substitute. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : At  the  suggestion 
of  Senator  Jones,  Mr.  Fisher’s  substi- 
tute was  divided  and  the  Chair  so  stated. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  That,  when  it 

came  to  vote  Mr.  Fisher’s  substitute 
would  be  divided  into  two  propositions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Precisely. 


MR.  MacMILLAN : Now,  I am  asking 

the  question  on  a point  of  order,  as  to 
how  many  substitutes  are  we  going  to 
have  before  we  vote? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

rule  that  there  are  two  substitutes  be- 
fore the  house  now;  and  that  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal ’s  substitute  is  temporarily  out  of 
order. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : That  is  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  That  will  bring 
Mr.  Fisher’s  substitute  before  the  house, 
and  as  I understand  it,  the  house  desires 
that  it  be  divided.  The  first  question 
now  before-  the  house  is  as  to  the  total 
number  of  wards  and  the  aldermen  to  be 
fixed  at  fifty. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I rise  to  a point 

of  order.  That  is  not  germane  to  my 
motion  at  all.  I merely  fixed  the  term; 
I did  not  fix  the  number  of  wards.  It 
is  not  in  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  second  part 

of  Mr.  Fisher ’s  substitute  is  that  the 
aldermen  be  elected  for  a four-year  term. 

ME.  JONES:  I move  you,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  we  first  vote  on  the  length  of 
the  term  and  then  the  number  of  aider- 
men.  I made  that  motion  and  that  mo- 
tion was  accepted. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  that  we 

first  vote  on  the  number  of  aldermen 
that  we  should  have  to  a ward,  whether 
it  is  one  or  two;  that  is  the  question  we 
have  been  discussing  and  it  will  come 
first. 

MR.  JONES:  I rise  to  a point  of 

order;  that  motion  of  mine  is  not  before 
the  house  for  debate  or  for  vote;  the 
Chairman  stated  that  if  there  was  no  ob- 
jection the  motion  would  be  divided  and 
there  was  unanimous  consent  and  the 
motion  was  divided. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  That  is  the  only 

thing  that  would  make  it  germane  to  my 
motion. 

MR.  EIDMANN : I rise,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, to  a question  of  personal  privilege. 
I made  a motion,  on  the  previous  ques- 
tion here,  which  the  Chairman  did  not 


February  18 


941 


1907 


put.  I want  to  say  that  I made  that 
motion  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  the 
Chairman  from  being  tangled  up.  Now, 
then,  if  we  permit  this  discussion  to  go 
on,  we  won ’t  be  able  to  start  in  and  do 
anything  at  all.  I think  we  should  first 
vote  on  these  amendments;  first  to  vote 
on  the  amendment  of  Mr.  O’Donnell  and 
then  to  vote  on  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Fisher  and  then  to  vote  on  the  amend- 
ment of  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been  the 

attitude  of  the  Chair  at  all  times  that  all 
these  matters  should  be  brought  out  in 
their  proper  order,  and  that  all  these  mat- 
ters should  be  threshed  out,  and  he  has 
been  attended  with  some  considerable 
success  in  applying  that  rule.  The  ques- 
tions are  as  to  the  number  of  aldermen, 
as  to  the  number  of  wards  and  the  length 
cf  the  term.  Now,  the  Chair  sees  no 
reason  why  there  should  be  any  disagree- 
ment as  to  what  should  be  voted  on  first. 
The  Chair  will  first  put  the  motion  pre- 
sented by  Mr.  O’Donnell,  that  the  term 
of  office  should  be  two  years  instead  of 
four,  and  the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas  — Beilfuss,  Burke,  Church,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann, 
Greenacre,  Guerin,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Linehan,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  O’Don- 
nell, Pendarvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Ritter, 
Yopicka,  White,  Young — 21. 

Nays — Bennett,  Brown,  Cole,  Dixon, 
T.  J.,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Harrison, 
Hoyne,  Lathrop,  MacMillan,  Merriam, 
Michaelis,  Owens,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Snow,  Tay- 
lor, Zimmer — 21. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  seems  to  me  the 

main  point  in  this  matter  has  been  over- 
looked. We  have  fixed  the  term  of  office 
of  the  mayor  at  four  years  for  the  reason 
that  we  believe  a four-year  term  would 
give  greater  efficiency;  on  that  question 
there  can  be  no  two  views;  now,  if  the 
four-year  term  is  giving  better  results  in 
the  office  of  mayor,  it  will  certainly  do 
the  same  thing  in  the  office  of  aider- 


man.  No  matter  how  well  equipped  a 
business  man  may  be,  when  he  comes  into 
this  council  he  has  to  undergo  an  educa- 
tion— an  education  in  municipal  affairs 
which  is  complicated  and  leads  into  the 
very  subjects  upon  which  the  average 
man — no  matter  how  well  qualified  he 
may  be — is  not  fitted  to  take  up  the  work 
from  the  outside. 

Now,  I recognize  that  there  is  some 
fcree  in  what  Mr.  O’Donnell  has  said  in 
reference  to  going  back  to  the  constitu- 
ency in  every  two  years.  I believe  it  is  a 
good  thing  to  do  that — or  to  go  back 
oftener;  but,  when  we  compare  that  one 
proposition  and  the  experiences  of  the 
past,  and  the  fact  that  aldermen  are  re- 
turned frequently,  I think  the  other  ques- 
tion, that  of  putting  a man  in  this  of- 
fice where  he  will  equip  himself  so  that  he 
may  render  efficient  service  to  the  city, 
outweighs  the  other.  And  so  long  as  the 
mayor  is  to  have  a four-year  term,  I shall 
vote  that  the  aldermen  have  a term  of 
like  duration.  I therefore  vote  no. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I want  to  ex- 

plain my  vote,  for  the  reason  that  I op- 
pose Mr.  Bennett’s  reasoning;  the  very 
reason  why  the  mayor  should  have  a four- 
year  term  is  the  very  reason  why  the  al- 
dermen should  not.  The  distinction  is 
this : The  incumbents  of  the  executive 

and  official  departments  necessarily  re- 
quire more  experience  and  ought  to  have 
longer  terms.  The  only  excuse  an  aider- 
man  has  for  existing  at  all  is  because  the 
people  are  too  numerous  to  meet;  there- 
fore, it  is  his  business  to  reflect  the  opin- 
ion, the  desire  and  the  demand  of  his 
constituents,  even  when  that  is  contrary 
to  his  own  judgment.  Now,  then,  it  does 
not  require  a vast  experience  for  those 
citizens  to  vote,  and  if  it  were  practical, 
by  numbers,  that  they  could  meet  and 
vote,  we  would  not  say  it  required  very 
much  experience  for  them  to  say  what 
was  right  or  what  was  wrong,  on  a ques- 
tion of  principle.  Neither  do  I think  the 
alderman  requires  very  much  more  train- 
ing than  he  gets  in  the  business  world  to 


February  18 


942 


1907 


know  what  is  right  or  wrong;  and  it  is 
his  business  to  vote  as  the  people  desire 
it. 

Now,  I do  not  think  it  is  a benefit  for 
the  people  or  for  the  city  for  the  aider- 
men  to  be  instructed  at  election  on  local 
questions  which  will  be  disposed  of  at  the 
first  year  or  at  the  furthest  during  the 
second  year,  and  then  that  alderman 
should  remain  uninstructed  by  the  people 
for  the  remaining  two  years  and  be  at 
liberty  to  act  as  he  sees  fit,  in  view  of  the 
experience  that  he  gets  during  the  first 
two  years.* 

I do  not  think  the  experience  is  en- 
tirely beneficial  to  a man  whose  only  ex- 
cuse for  the  existence  of  his  office  is  be- 
cause it  is  impractical  for  the  number 
of  people  to  get  together.  He  is  simply 
the  vehicle  by  which  their  opinion  is  ex- 
pressed; that  is  the  vast  difference  be- 
tween executive  and  legislative  offices, 
and  we  recognize  it  everywhere  through- 
out the  country.  The  judiciary  have  the 
longest  term  and  require  the  greatest  ex- 
perience, and  then  the  executive  officers 
come  next  and  require  the  next  greatest 
experience,  while  the  aldermen  must  come 
third  and  be  the  closest  to  the  people. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  How  about  the 

senators? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  They  represent 

the  partnership  that  exists  in  this  gov- 
ernment. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  How  about  the 

senators  in  Illinois? 

MR:  GREENACRE : Well— possibly 

we  could  get  along  without  them  better. 
I vote  yea  on  Senator  O ’Donnell  ’s  mo- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I am  not  impressed 

by  the  argument  we  have  just  heard  of 
this  matter,  because  I think  we  are  deal- 
ing with  a practical  situation  and  not 
with  a theoretical  one.  I yield  to  the 
theoretical  argument,  but  I shall  vote 
on  account  of  the  practical  situation. 

One  of  the  gentlemen  of  the  Conven- 


tion said  that  if  the  objection  to  the 
mayor  being  elected  for  four  and  the  al- 
dermen being  elected  for  two  years,  ex- 
isted, that  it  existed  just  as  much  against 
the  four-year  term  of  the  aldermen  if 
elected  in  June.  That  does  not  seem  to 
me  true  for  this  reason:  The  important 

influence  of  the  mayor  over  the  aldermen 
lies  in  the  renomination  of  that  aider- 
man  ; and,  if  aldermen  Were  elected  for 
four  years,  and  the  mayor  was  elected 
for  four  years,  and  the  aldermen  came  in 
in  the  middle  of  the  mayor ’s  term,  I 
do  not  think  the  mayor  would  dictate  very 
effectively  to  that  alderman  because  that 
alderman  would  know  that  he  had  two 
years  beyond  that  mayor’s  election.  If 
the  mayor  was  subsequently  elected  there 
might  be  some  influence,  but  it  would 
only  be  for  the  two  years.  Now,  Mr. 
Chairman,  it  also  seems  to  me  that  I can 
afford  to  take  with  good  faith  the  sug- 
gestion of  a referendum.  I am  not  pre- 
pared at  this  time  to  abandon  the  belief 
that  this  Convention  is  going  to  stand 
against  a real  referendum.  If  I were  fo 
abandon  that  expectation,  I should  be 
in  favor  of  two  years,  or  for  one  year. 
It  seems  to  me  that  we  have  had  some 
little  experience  in  dealing  with  the  al- 
dermanic  situation  in  Chicago  and  are 
familiar  with  men  complaining  that  they 
cannot  afford  to  remain  in  the  city  coun- 
cil, men  who  have  been  members  of  the 
city  council,  cannot  afford  to  remain  in 
the  city  council  with  the  election  coming 
every  two  years,  which  makes  it  uncer- 
tain, makes  the  position  so  uncertain,  and 
the  cost  of  remaining  in  the  position  so 
great  that  they  cannot  afford  to  re- 
main as  aldermen. 

Further  than  that,  the  amount  of  ex- 
perience that  the  alderman  requires  is 
jvery  considerable;  it  seems  to  me  that 
they  have  to  pass  on  more  questions,  lo- 
cally and  generally,  than  any  other  offi- 
cers of  the  city  government.  I agree  ab- 
(Solutely  with  one  of  the  delegates  who 
jhas  just  spoken,  who  is  an  alderman  of 
the  city  council,  that  the  alderman  is  the 


1907 


most  worked  and  least  paid  official  in  the 
cit^jccruncil,  that  he  has  the  largest  re- 
onsibilities,  that  he  has  to  answer  more 
general  questions  than  any  other,  if  he 
is  going  to  be  an  effective  alderman,  and 
must  have  more  general  knowledge  thap/ 
any  other  officer  of  the  city  governnfent. 
For  that  reason  I vote  np- 

THE_CHAIBMAjSt:  Gentlemen,  upon 

"Mrl  O’Donnell’s  motion  to  change  the 
term  from  four  years  to  two  years,  the 
yeas  are  21  and  the  nays  are  21,  and  the 
motion  is  lost. 

MR.  FISHER:  I move  you  the  adop- 

tion of  the  portion  of  my  resolution  that 
refers  to  the  election  of  aldermen,  that 
the  aldermen  shall  be  elected  in  alternate 
years,  the  second  year  after  the  election 
of  the  mayor. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr.  Fisher, 
that  the  aldermen  be  elected  in  the  al- 
ternate year  after  the  election  of  the 
mayor.  Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 
As  many  as  favor  that  will  signify  by 
saying  yea;  those  opposed  no.  It  is  car- 
ried. The  next  order  of  business  is 
what? 

MR.  FISHER  : I now  move  you  that 

the  number  of  wards  be  fixed  at  fifty, 
one  alderman  to  each  ward. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher  moves 
that  the  number  of  wards  be  fixed  at 
fifty,  one  alderman  to  be  elected  from 
each  ward,  and  Alderman  Snow  has  the 
floor. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

members  of  the  city  council  are  elected 
as  a legislative  body,  as  representatives 
of  a large  number  of  constituents.  It  is 
true  that  a more  efficient  quality — that 
more  efficient  work,  administrative  or 
executive  in  character — can  be  secured 
and  will  be  secured  from  a small  number 
of  men  than  from  a large  number.  The 
duties,  how'ever,  of  the  aldermen  are  leg- 
islative in  character,  and  they  should  rep- 
resent as  nearly  as  it  may  be  practicable 
the  varying  shades  of  sentiment  which 
always  exists  in  a great  cosmopolitan 


town  such  as  is  Chicago.  In  our  experi- 
ence in  the  city  council  as  at  present 
constituted,  with  a membership  of  seven- 
ty, we  have  never  found  that  the  body 
/was  unwdeldy  in  character  or  that  its 
membership  was  large  enough  to  prevent 
a proper  transaction  of  business,  and  a 
due  deliberation  upon  the  questions  of 
policy  and  of  legislation. 

An  alderman  as  elected  now,  with  a 
membership  of  seventy — if  that  body 
should  be  reduced  to  fifty,  will  represent 
50  per  cent  more  of  population  than 
they  do  at  the  present  time,  so  that  it 
may  very  easily  become  possible  that  ele- 
ments of  our  population  who  are  entitled 
to  representation  in  a body  which  fixes 
the  law  for  the  population,  may  not  be 
able  to  send  their  representatives  to  this 
body. 

It  certainly  appeals  to  me  that  with  a 
population  of  two  million  souls,  as  we 
have  in  Chicago  today,  that  a representa- 
tive body  of  seventy  is  not  a large  body, 
is  not  too  large  a body;  and  I want  to 
call  attention  to  the  fact  that  this  char- 
ter, when  it  shall  be  adopted,  will  un- 
doubtedly be  the  organic  act  under  which 
the  city  government  will  be  carried  on 
for  the  next  generation,  and  in  that  time 
we  may  very  reasonably  believe  that  the 
City  of  Chicago  will  have  a population  of 
four  million  people,  possibly  more  than 
that,  and  certainly  a representation  of 
seventy  to  four  million  or  three  million 
is  not  unreasonable  nor  an  unwieldy  rep- 
resentation. For  that  reason,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, I believe  that  the  representation 
should  be  left  as  it  is  now,  at  seventy 
members  to  constitute  the  city  council. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I favor  the  amend- 

ment of  Mr.  Fisher,  perhaps  for  a differ- 
ent reason,  and  also  concur  in  the  argu- 
ment urged  by  Mr.  Snow,  that  the  size 
of  the  council  should  not  be  reduced  ma\ 
terially.  But  I favor  Mr.  Fisher’s 
amendment  for  the  reason  I think  it 
would  be  a wise  change  in  this  proposed 
charter  if  we  provided  for  a certain  num- 
ber of  aldermen  to  be  elected  at  large. 


February  18 


944 


1907 


I think  if  we  had  fifteen  aldermen  who 
were  to  be  elected  at  large  and  be  elected 
when  the  mayor  of  this  city  is  elected, 
we  would  have  a number  of  men  coming 
into  this  council  who  would  directly  rep- 
resent the  interests,  and  perhaps  more  di- 
rectly represent  the  sentiment  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  entire  city.  Fifteen  men  com- 
ing in  here  who  are  not  chosen  for  local 
considerations,  but  who  are  recognized  by 
their  party  or  by  the  organization  that 
places  them  before  the  people  for  their 
personal  fitness,  by  reason  of  their  train-  j 
ing,  by  reason  of  their  standing  in  the 
community,  and  the  interest  they  have 
taken  in  public  questions;  therefore,  for 
that  reason,  Mr.  Chairman,  I favor  the 
amendment  of  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I thought  the  Con- 

vention had  practically  settled  this  ques- 
tion, and  I thought  it  had  settled  it  right- 
ly; but  if  we  are  going  to  go  into  these 
matters  again,  I should  like  to  sa^  a few 
words  on  the  subject. 

I don’t  believe  that  it  would  be  good 
policy  to  reduce  the  number  of  aldermen. 
The  reason  I favored  it,  the  one  to  a 
ward  proposition,  was  that  the  responsi- 
bility could  be  placed  directly  on  the  al- 
derman rather  than  have  it  divided  be- 
tween two  men  in  one  ward.  But  I did 
not  expect  by  dividing  the  wards  and 
placing  the  responsibility  on  each  al- 
derman that  added  duties  and  added 
population  would  be  the  result.  I think 
we  would  get  less  representation  and 
poorer  service  by  having  only  fifty  aider- 
men.  I think  by  leaving  it  as  it  is,  sev- 
enty aldermen  with  one  alderman  to  a 
ward,  the  responsibility  directly  on  that 
one  man,  that  the  people  of  the  respective 
wards  will  get  better  service.  Conse- 
quently I am  in  favor  of  leaving  it  as 
it  now  is,  seventy  aldermen,  one  to  a 
ward. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your 

pleasure,  gentlemen?  The  question  is 
upon  Mr.  Fisher’s  motion,  that  the  num-  i 
ber  of  wards  be  fixed  at  fifty  and  the 
number  of  aldermen  one  to  a ward.  Will  I 


you  have  a roll  call  on  that?  Will  the 
Secretary  please  call  the  roll? 

Yeas — Fisher,  McGoorty,  McKinley, 
Merriam,  Shedd,  Taylor — 6. 

Nays  — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon, 
T.  J.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Gansber- 
gen,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harrison,  Hoyne, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Mac- 
Millan, Michaelis,  O ’Donnell,  Owens, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Ritter,  Robins, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Snow,  Vopicka, 
White,  Young,  Zimmer — 35. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  GREENACRE : Is  it  seventy  and 
one  to  a ward  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

I MR.  GREENACRE:  Our  present 

draft,  is  that  seventy,  with  one  to  a 
ward  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes,  seventy  and 

one  to  a ward. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Then  I vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Fish- 

er’s motion,  the  yeas  are  6 and  the  nays 
35,  and  the  motion  is  lost.  What  is  the 
next,  Mr.  Secretary? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  a mo- 

tion to  offer. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  please  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal : That  the  number  of  wards  be 

thirty-five,  as  at  present,  two  aldermen 
to  a ward,  one  elected  every  two  years. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : A point  of  order, 

Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  point 
of  order? 

MR.  SHANAHAN : We  have  just 
voted  on  that  proposition,  and  I don ’t  be- 
lieve it  is  of  any  use  to  take  up  the 
time  of  this  Convention  with  the  same 
motion  presented  in  another  form. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Oh,  no,  Mr. 
Shanahan,  it  is  not  the  same. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  only  differ- 

ence in  this  motion  and  the  motion  al- 
ready voted  upon  is  this,  divides  the  time 
of  election  of  aldermen  every  two  years; 


February  18 


945 


1907 


but  that  was  already  specifically  passed 
upon,  I believe,  in  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Fisher ’s  that  was  adopted,  that  they 
should  be  elected  on  alternate  years;  isn’t 
that  so? 

ME.  FISHEE:  No,  sir;  if  the  Chair- 

man please,  the  last  resolution — I thought 
some  one  was  going  to  ask  a division  of 
the  question,  but  it  was  not  asked — the 
last  resolution  voted  upon  was  that  there 
should  be  fifty  wards. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : The  resolution 

before  that,  that  was  adopted. 

ME.  FISHEE:  No,  the  motion  be- 

fore was  that  the  aldermen  should  be 
elected  the  second  year  after  the  mayor, 
and  all  at  one  time ; this  resolution  pro- 
vides for  a different  method;  provides 
that  the  aldermen  should  be — that  half 
of  the  aldermen  should  be  elected  every 
two  years.  Now,  this  is  a fair  proposi- 
tion. I don’t  care  what  view  the  Con- 
vention takes  of  it,  but  this  is  a fair 
proposition.  I believe  that  if  you  have 
seventy  wards,  and  you  want  to  elect 
some  members  of  the  council  at  the  al- 
dermanic  election  every  two  years,  even 
if  you  retain  the  four-year  term,  that 
that  would  be  the  proper  thing  to  do;  so, 
if  we  adopt  the  suggestion  of  electing 
aldermen  from  a number  of  wards  every 
two  years,  while  some  may  raise  the  ques- 
tion that  there  would  be  colonization  and 
that  they  would  be  brought  back  and 
forth,  yet  I know  there  are  men  in  this 
Convention  who  are  perfectly  willing  to 
have  the  aldermen  elected  half  of  them 
every  two  years  and  leave  it  a four-year 
term,  in  order  to  have  the  aldermanic 
election  every  two  years.  The  only  way 
to  do  to  meet  this  objection  of  coloniza- 
tion is  to  have  thirty-five  wards  and 
choose  two  aldermen  to  a ward ; then  you 
can  have  your  aldermen  elected  every  two 
years  without  any  objection.  I think 
that  is  a fair  proposition  to  get  before 
the  house. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  My  point  of  or- 

der is  that  this  Convention  has  passed  on 
the  question  of  having  seventy  wards 


with  one  alderman  to  a ward ; and  now  we 
have  this  proposition  of  having  thirty-five 
wards  and  two  aldermen  to  a ward  before 
us  again.  How  is  the  Convention  going 
to  act  upon  this,  when  it  has  already  been 
acted  upon? 

ME.  FISHEE:  Mr.  Shanahan  has 

overlooked  one  thing;  we  have  had  a 
vote  upon  the  resolution  that  the  number 
of  wards  should  be  fifty,  but  this  is  an- 
other motion. 

MB.  LINEHAN:  I move  that  as  a 

substitute  the  whole  matter  as  printed 
here  be  substituted  for  that  motion,  that 
the  term  be  four  years  and  seventy 
wards. 

ME.  FISHEE:  You  don’t  pretend  to 

reopen  the  question  of  the  election  every 
second  year  wfith  the  mayor? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  As  an  amend- 

ment to  Mr.  Eosenthal ’s  resolution  Mr. 
Linehan  moves  as  a substitute  that  the 
matter  be  adopted  as  printed,  subject 
to  the  amendment,  if  already  adopted,  by 
Mr.  Fisher. 

MB.  EOSENTHAL:  I just  wish  to 

say  a wrord  on  the  question,  a word  in 
favor  of  my  motion,  which  I recognize 
is  possibly  not  before  the  lyDuse  because 
the  substitute  is  now  before  the  house. 
But  it  seems  to  me,  if  we  are  going  to 
have  seventy  aldermen,  we  ought  to  leave 
the  arrangement  just  as  it  is  at  the  pres- 
ent time,  and  have  a larger  territory  to 
select  from  in  the  thirty-five  wards,  that 
will  give  us  a larger  field  from  which 
to  elect  and  select  the  representative  men, 
and  then  we  can  elect  half  of  the  council 
every  twro  years. 

The  argument  made  here  by  some  of 
the  members  that  these  people  should  fre- 
quently go  back  to  the  people,  that  ob- 
jection will  be  taken  care  of,  because 
half  of  the  council  would  have  to  be 
elected  every  two  years,  and  the  whole 
city  itself  interested  each  time,  not  only 
in  the  election  of  the  aldermen  from  a 
particular  ward,  but  he  is  interested  in 
the  election  of  all  the  aldermen  in  the 


February  18 


946 


1907 


city,  and  they  would  then  have  an  easier 
time  of  it. 

And  I want  to  say  this,  that  it  is  a 
very  difficult  matter  for  the  citizens  of 
Chicago  who  are  vitally  interested  in  the 
matter  of  the  election,  to  look  after  the 
election  of  seventy  aldermen  at  one  time, 
whereas,  by  -the  other  way,  they  would 
only  have  to  look  after  the  election  of 
thirty-five  aldermen. 

I take  issue  with  the  gentlemen  who 
have  said  that  the  alderman  represents 
simply  a particular  ward.  He  may  be 
selected  from  the  particular  locality,  but, 
as  a matter  of  fact,  he  represents  the 
City  of  Chicago,  in  general,  and  the  City 
of  Chicago  in  general  is  interested  in  his 
election,  so  that  it  appears  to  me  that  the 
very  best  scheme  we  can  adopt,  if  we  are 
to  have  seventy  aldermen,  is  to  have  the 
city  divided  into  thirty-five  wards,  and 
have  one  alderman  elected  every  two 
years. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I just  want  to  an- 

swer Mr.  Rosenthal  in  one  or  two  points. 
He  says  in  selecting  candidates  for  al- 
dermen it  is  difficult  now  to  get  repre- 
sentative people,  but  the  opportunity  to 
pick  from  a larger  territory  would  aid  in 
securing  better  men.  In  answer  to  that, 
it  seems  to  be  quite  possible  to  find  one 
man  out  of  thirty  thousand  that  would 
be  satisfactory  to  represent  that  number 
of  people;  and  if  you  have  seventy  aider- 
men,  you  will  have  exactly  30,000  people  / 
represented  by  one  alderman,  according 
to  the  present  population. 

Then  the  great  feature  that  we  are] 
seeking  to  accomplish  by  dividing  the  city  j 
into  seventy  wards,  would  be  absoutely] 
eliminated  or  done  away  with,  if  his  reso^ 
lution  was  adopted.  We  are  trying, 
this  charter,  to  place  the  responsibilit 
as  far  as  the  representation  of  the  peoplle 
is  concerned.  If  you  retain  the  present 
number  of  wards,  and  have  two  aldermc 
to  every  ward,  you  are  keeping  up 
present  condition,  which  to  every  mai 
wrho  has  been  a member  of  the  council, 
and  to  a great  many  who  have  not  been 


in  the  council,  which  they  know,  is  a mis- 
take. Dividing  the  responsibility  is  the 
greatest  error  that  we  could  commit  here, 
and  we  must  not,  in  my  opinion,  in  fixing 
the  number  of  wards  and  number  of 
aldermen,  permit  a condition  that  is 
today  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  Chi- 
cago, to  continue  any  longer. 

Dividing  the  city  into  seventy  wards, 
one  4lderman  to  a ward,  would  maintain 
the  present  representation  and  fix  the  re- 
sponsibility just  where  it  belongs,  and  I 
am  of  the  opinion  that  in  establishing  the 
present  proposed  plan  of  seventy  aider- 
men,  and  one  alderman  from  a ward,  the 
City  of  Chicago  will  get  the  biggest  bene- 
sfit  and  the  greatest  amount  of  good  from 
thb^aldermen  that  they  have  ever  obtained 
in  the  history  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Linehan’s  mo^ 
tion  that  the  matter  remain  as  printed.  / u 

Yeas  — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eck- 
hart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Gansbergen,  Green- 
acre,  Guerin,  Harrison,  Hoyne,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan. 
McGoorty,  McKinley,  Michaelis,  Owens, 
Pendarvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Ritter,  Robins, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shedd,  Snow, 
Yopicka,  White,  Young,  Zimmer — 36. 

Nays — Fisher,  Merriam,  Rosenthal, 
Tayior^A. 

MR.  FISHER : I would  like~simply  fo 

say  this  in  explanation  of  my  vote.  I 
think  the  trouble  with  the  members  of 
this  convention  on  this  question,  and 
especially  with  the  aldermanic  members 
of  the  convention,  seems  to  be  that  they 
insist  upon  looking  at  the  thing  as  though 
it  was  going  to  continue  forever,  as  it  is 
today  and  has  been  in  the  past,  that  the 
aldermen  have  got  to  loook  out  for  a 
whole  lot  of  things  that  do  not  properly 
belong  to  the  aldermanic  office,  in  the 
wray  of  local  matters.  This  thing  of  look- 
ing after  territorial  matter  is  funda- 
mentally wrong.  The  aldermanic  office 
should  not  look  after  a whole  lot  of  those 
things,  and  many  of  those  duties  should 


not  fall  upon  the  alderman  if  the  execu- 
tive officers  of  the  city  are  properly  re- 
sponsible. If,  instead  of  starting  to  look 
after  those  things,  looking  after  the  street 
cleaning,  for  instance,  and  a lot  of  things 
of  that  sort,  they  see  to  it  that  the  head 
of  the  street  cleaning  department  and 
other  city  officials,  do  what  they  are  re- 
quired to  do,  so  that  the  aldermen  don’t 
have  to  do  it,  don’t  have  to  look  after 
those  matters,  but  simply  have  to  insist 
upon  absolute  efficiency  in  those  offices. 
Suppose  they  should  do  that  with  the  ad- 
ministrative and  executive  side,  nine- 
tenths  of  this  trouble  would  be  done 
away  with.  But  so  long  as  you  continue 
ihe  theory  of  electing  aldermen  who  must 
cover  a certain  area,  who  feel  it  is  their 
duty  to  act  as  scavengers  and  policemen 
and  all  that,  you  will  continue  to  have 
improper  and  inefficient  administration  in 
the  aldermanic  office. 

I believe  in  the  other  proposition  of 
having  a larger  number  of  wards  from 
which  to  chose  in  electing  your  aider- 
men,  and  to  elect  them  for  a four-year 
term  everyL^two^years.  - Therefore, vote 
no. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I would  like  to  vote 

aye  on  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  motion;  the  only 
way  to  do  that  appears  to  me  to  be  to 
vote  no  on  this  . Therefore,  I vote  no. 

MR.  POST : I would  like  to  explain 

that  none  of  these  propositions  exactly 
accord  to  my  views,  which  is  not  remark- 
able, perhaps;  but  it  seems  to  me  that 
Mr.  Rosenthal ’s  statement  is  a sound  one, 
that  a board  of  aldermen  should  primar- 
ily and  practically  altogether  represent 
the  people  of  the  whole  city,  that  they 
should  not  be  representatives  of  local 
ward  interests,  most  of  them  local  real 
estate  interests,  but  that  they  should  be 
representatives  of  the  diversified  interests 
of  the  whole  city,  and  that  they  should 
be  elected  at  large  upon  some  proper 
system  of  proportional  representation.  [ 
don’t  think  that  meanwhile — of  course 
there  is  no  use  of  proposing  it  to  this 
convention — I don’t  think  that  meanwhile 


fifty  members  is  a sufficiently  large  body; 
for  that  reason,  I oppose  Mr.  Fisher’s 
motion,  and  I think  that  one  representa- 
tive from  each  ward  is  more  likely  to  lay 
the  basis  for  a reform  in  the  direction  of 
elections  at  large  by  proportional  repre- 
sentation, than  any  other.  For  that  rea- 
son I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  years  are 
36,  the  nays,  4,  and  Mr.  Linehan’s  motion 
is  carried. 

MR.  RAYMER : I would  like  to  offer 

an  amendment  to  section  7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  have  not 
reached  that  yet. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  there  is 

a slight  verbal  mistake  in  section  1 ; I 
think  this  amendment  will  cover  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  “ Strike  out  the 

words  1 until  the  spring  election  of  1911,  ’ 
and  substitute  1 until  the  first  Tuesday  in 
April,  in  1911,  until  their  successors  are 
elected  and  have  qualified.’  ” Is  there 
any  objection  to  that?  If  not,  the  cor- 
rection will  be  made.  The  secretary  will 
read  the  next  number. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I have  an  amend- 

ment to  this  article,  this  present  para- 
graph, with  regard  to  electing  aldermen 
at  large. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretar 

will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Me 

Goorty:  Amend  article  4,  by  adding  to 

paragraph  4-2  the  following:  ‘And 

fifteen  aldermen  shall  be  elected  a1 
large.’  ” 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion,  are  you  ready  for 
the  question?  Mr.  Me  Goorty  moves  that 
fifteen  aldermen  be  elected  at  large;  as 
many  as  favor  that  matter,  will  signify 
by  saying  aye ; those  opposed,  no.  It 
seems  to  be  lost — it  is  lost. 

MR.  FISHER:  In  the  drafting  of 

this  matter,  the  number  1931  will  have 
to  he  in  accordance  with  the  motion  al- 
ready adopted,  changed  to  1909;  1911 
will  be  the  mayoralty  election. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  The  chair  as- 


February  18 


948 


1907 


sumes  that  the  drafting  committee  will 
make  the  changes  necessary  to  make  it 
conform  to  the  action  of  this  convention. 

MR.  FISHER  : Very  well. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I would  like  to 

ask  a few  questions  with  reference  to  this 
paragraph.  The  provision  for  the  ex- 
piration of  the  term  of  office  and  for  the 
election  of  the  first  aldermen  under  this 
charter  falls  on  the  same  day,  the  first 
Tuesday  in  April,  next  following.  That 
is,  it  provides  specifically  that  their  terms 
shall  expire  on  that  day,  and  that  their 
successors  shall  be  elected  on  that  day. 
The  question  is — also  the  specific  provi- 
sion that  they  will  hold  over  until  their 
successors  are  qualified.  There  might  be 
an  interim  of  some  few  days  there  that 
might  be  of  some  consequence. 

There  is  another  matter,  and  that  is  the 
article  that  the  convention  act  on  this 
proposition  before  any  re-districting  of 
the  city,  not  only  of  population  but  ter- 
ritory, ought  to  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  have  not 
reached  that ; when  that  was  reached,  the 
chair  would  have  directed  the  secretary 
to  read  the  additional  changes  made  by 
the  drafting  committee ; we  have  not 
had  that  read  yet.  Will  the  secretary 
read  the  next  paragraph? 

THE  SECRETARY : Page  64,  article 

IV,  section  2, — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  has  been 
passed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “Article  IV, 

v Section  3.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  is  a 

change  in  that. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “Article  IV, 

section  3.  ” Article  IV  provides  for  re- 
districting the  city,  for  equitable  distri- 
bution of  area  and  population;  the  draft 
provides  for  equitable  distribution  of 
population  only. 

MR.  FISHER:  As  long  as  Mr.  Pen- 

darvis  has  raised  the  question — is  there 
any  question  before  the  house? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  he  asked 


whether  this  was  additional  matter  for 
the  drafting  committee. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  that  same 

section,  the  last  section  is,  “Not  until 
such  ordinance  shall  have  been  approved 
by  the  voters  of  the  city  upon  such  sub- 
mission”; that  should  read,  “By  a ma- 
jority of  the  voters  voting  upon  that 
proposition. 1 ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  correct; 

if  there  is  no  objection,  the  change  may 
be  made  by  the  drafting  committee. 

MR.  SNOW : Just  for  a point  of  in- 

formation, I would  like  to  say,  that  who- 
ever represents  the  drafting  committee 
on  the  floor  might  explain  the  reason  that 
the  requirement  of  areas  as  well  as  popu- 
lation, or  equitable  distribution  of  area, 
as  well  as  population,  is  left  out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Perhaps  some  of 

the  members  of  the  drafting  committee 
present  will  answer  that. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  situation  is  this — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  4-3,  you 

refer  to? 

MR.  FISHER  : 4-3,  yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  read 

it?  That  seems  to  apply  to  both. 

MR.  FISHER : The  resolution,  as 

adopted  by  the  convention,  was  suscepti- 
tible  to  the  construction  that  the  stand- 
ard by  which  you  were  to  measure  that 
re-districting,  should  be  by  both  the  ter- 
ritory and  population,  and  it  has  been 
found  by  Mr.  Wilson  that  when  that  is 
in  the  statute,  you  raise  certain  legal 
questions  in  regard  to  the  matter  that 
become  very  embarrassing,  if  there  is 
more  than  one  test  of  redistricting  be- 
cause it  is  very  clear  that  you  cannot 
make  two  things  the  test,  population,  and 
territory  the  test,  because,  when  you  take 
territory  that  is  sparsely  settled,  it  can- 
not be  decided  en  the  same  proportion 
as  another  territory  that  is  very  densely 
populated,  and  the  result  is  you  will  have 
one  ward  in  the  central  part  of  the  city 
which  may  be  only  one-half,  or  one-quar- 
ter as  large  as  another  ward;  when  you 
have  a mandatory  provision  in  the  statute 


February  18 


949 


1907 


which  requires  you  to  take  territory  into 
account,  you  get  into  legal  difficulties. 
The  proposition  that  territory  should  be 
taken  into  account  is  a wise  one,  as  a 
matter  of  policy,  but  it  seems  to  me  to 
be  clear  that  it  should  not  be  a matter 
of  statutory  enactment;  it  is  a question 
of  policy  to  be  discussed  when  we  get  to 
redistricting  the  city. 

MR.  PEND AR VIS;  May  I ask  you 
a question,  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER:  Certainly. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Would  it  not  be 

practical,  Mr.  Fisher,  to  have  an  area 
fixed,  a minimum  of  population,  and  a 
maximum,  in  redistricting,  and  take  into 
account  the  territory  to  be  redistricted? 

MR.  FISHER : I think  it  may  be 
safely  said,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  dif- 
ficulties and  troubles  that  have  arisen 
through  redistricting,  have  nearly  always 
arisen  in  the  cases  where  the  statute  pro- 
vided for  more  than  one  test.  If  the 
statute  is  to  be  construed  as  having  any 
mandatory  course  at  all,  you  have  to 
apply  the  two  tests,  and  you  cannot  do  it 
successfully.  If  you  attempt  to  do  that, 
you  have  to  apply  it  throughout  the  en- 
tire area  of  the  city.  That  is  an  impos- 
sible thing  to  do  with  any  success  at  all. 
It  is  a matter  of  policy,  and  not  a matter 
of  statutory  enactment. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I desire  to  call 

the  attention  of  the  convention  to  the 
latter  part  of  4-3,  altering  the  number  of 
wards,  and  so  forth.  I believe  that  the 
intention  was  that  we  should  only  do  it 
after  the  first  redistricting;  but  it  is  a 
question  now  under  the  wording  if  it 
might  not  apply  to  the  first  redistricting. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : I think  it  should 

have  the  words,  “No  ordinance’ ’ after 
the  words  ‘ * redistricting  of  the  city  into 
wards,  ’ ’ altering  the  number  of  wards. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shanahan 

raises  the  point  that  that  paragraph 
should  apply  only  after  the  first  redis- 
tricting under  the  new  charter. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I think  that  was 

the  intention  of  the  drafting  committee. 


MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  that 

amendment,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  it  will  be  amended  in  that  par- 
ticular. 

MR.  FISHER;  Is  the  proposition  to 
strike  it  out  of  section  3? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  it  is  to 

amend  the  second  paragraph  of  No.  3. 

MR.  FISHER : Then  it  should  not 

apply  to  the  first  redistricting? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Apply  after  the 

first  redistricting,  under  this  charter. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  would  not  be  sub- 

ject to  referendum  vote,  then? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Not  the  first  one. 

MR.  CHURCH:  I would  like  to  ask 

a question,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  it  is  the 
understanding  that  this  paragraph  pro- 
vides for  a referendum  with  every  redis- 
tricting ordinance  that  is  passed  by  the 
council  after  the  first  one?  I do  not  un- 
derstand it  so  at  all;  I take  it  that  it 
means  that  if  the  number  of  wards  be 
changed  or  reduced,  or  the  terms  of  the 
aldermen  be  changed,  possibly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : This  charter  fixes 

the  term  and  the  number  of  wards,  and 
this  is  granting  power  to  our  City  Coun- 
cil to  change  those,  if  occasion  should 
arise,  by  an  election  held  upon  a petition 
of  15  per  cent,  of  the  voters. 

MR.  CHURCH : It  does  not  mean  that 

the  redistricting  ordinance  is  passed — it 
would  take  a referendum  vote? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  it  means  if 

there  is  a change  in  the  number  of 
wards,  or  the  term  of  the  aldermen. 

MR.  FISHER;  It  has  nothing  to  do 
with  the  redistricting  at  all? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Unless  the  num- 

ber of  wards  is  changed. 

MR,  FISHER  : I suggest,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  the  proper  motion  should  be  to 
make  that  a separate  section,  it  really 
should  not  be  a part  of  this  section  3,  be- 
cause it  only  applies  to  redistricting  in 
the  year  1921,  and  thereafter. 

MR.  SNOW:  No,  section  3,  Mr. 

Chairman,  applies  to  more  than  redis- 


February  18 


950 


1907 


tricting  in  1921 ; it  provides  that  the  City 
Council  may  thereafter  change  the  num- 
ber of  aldermen  or  change  the  number  of 
wards,  and  this  second  paragraph  is  a 
limitation  upon  the  power  of  the  City 
Council. 

THE  CHAIKMAN:  Correct;  pro- 

ceed. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Section  7.  1 would 

like  to  suggest  an  amendment.  Section  7 
provides  that  1 1 No  member  of  the  City 
Council  shall  at  the  same  time  hold  any 
other  civil  office  under  the  federal,  state 
or  city  government,  except  in  the  national 
guard,  or  as  master  in  chancery  or  notary 
public.  ’ ’ I would  move  to  put  in  the 
word  1 1 county.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  there  is  no  ob- 

jection, the  word  “county”  will  be  in- 
serted. 

MR.  FISHER:  There  is  a very  im- 

portant change  in  that  section.  It  was 
elaborately  discussed  in  the  committee, 
and  after  an  extended  debate,  the  words, 
“master  in  chancery”  were  stricken  out, 
but  they  do  not  appear  to  be  stricken 
out.  The  committee  doesn’t  understand 
why  a master  in  chancery  should  be  al- 
lowed to  be  an  alderman  and  other  people 
who  are  holding  less  lucrative  positions 
should  be  excluded. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I understand  the 

City  Council  has  no  master  in  chancery. 
‘ 1 Master  in  chancery  ’ ’ will  be  stricken 
out  and  1 ‘ county  ’ ’ inserted. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Section  8,  9,  10, 

ir,  12  and  13. 

MR.  McGOORTY;  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
desire  to  offer  an  amendment  to  that. 

Amend  article  4 by  striking  out  para- 
graph 4-13  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the 
following : ‘ 1 The  mayor  shall  preside 

over  the  Council.  ’ ’ 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman, 

what  impressed  me  more  than  anything 
else,  although  I originally  favored  the 
proposition,  is  the  expressed  experience 
of  two  former  mayors  of  this  city  who 
are  members  of  this  convention  that  it  is 
a distinct  advantage  to  the  mayor,  and  a 


great  aid,  to  preside  over  the  City  Coun- 
cil. We  want  a cause  for  the  mayor  to 
be  present  at  the  meetings  of  the  City 
Council;  it  makes  it  much  less  difficult 
for  him  to  keep  up  with  its  work  to  fa- 
miliarize himself  with  its  proceedings. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  1 

don’t  know  where  we  are  in  this  matter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  chair  will 

do  its  best  to  keep  you  straight. 

MR.  FISHER:  I know  very  well 

where  we  are  parliamentary,  but  I do  not 
understand  where  we  are  in  regard  to  this 
matter.  It  is  a fact  that  we  are  taking 
up  and  rediscussing  questions  which  the 
convention  devoted  a large  part  of  its 
time  to  consider,  and  reconsidering  them 
one  after  the  other.  I think,  if  there  is 
any  one  question  we  threshed  out  to  a 
finish,  it  is  the  question  of  whether  the 
mayor  shall  preside  over  the  City  Council. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  of  Mr.  McGoorty’s  resolution,  will 
signify  the  same  by  saying  aye;  those 
opposed,  no.  The  resolution  is  lost. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  sec- 

tion 15.  After  the  word  “a”  I would 
like  to  amend  by  inserting  “written  or 
printed.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  those— what 

is  that  amendment,  Mr.  Bennett? 

MR.  BENNETT;  After  the  word 
“a,”  insert  “written  or  printed.”  The 
purpose  of  that  is  to  make  our  journal 
more  complete  than  it  is  today.  As  it  is 
today,  it  is  an  abbreviated  journal.  It  is 
not  a record.  This  will  contemplate  a 
complete  printed  record  of  the  council 
proceedings,  as  its  journal.  There  is 
some  question  about  it  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any 

objections  to  the  amendment?  If  not, 
all  in  favor  will  signify  by  saying  aye; 
contrary  no.  The  motion  is  carried  and 
it  is  so  ordered. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  section  13,  I 

think  we  should  add  the  words  “but  in 


February  18 


951 


1907 


no  ease  extended  beyond  his  term  of  of- 
fice”— or  some  similar  words. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that 

again,  please? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : “But  in  no  case 

to  extend  beyond  his  term  of  office.” 

MR.  POST : With  respect  to  the  same 

section.  My  recollection  is  that  when  it 
was  voted  on  at  the  previous  meetings  of 
the  council,  and  decided  that  the  mayor 
should  cease  to  preside,  that  it  was  also 
voted  that  he  should  have,  a right  to  the 
floor. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  in  another 
section. 

MR.  POST:  Is  that  in  another  sec- 

tion? 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  in  another 
section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  correct, 

sir. 

MR.  POST;  All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY : “By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: ‘Add  to  section  13:  But  in  no 

case  to  extend  beyond  his  term  of  office.  ’ ’ 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  has  been 

offered. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Isn’t  that  surplus- 

age? The  idea  of  this  charter  is  that  a 
man  may  be  elected  from  one  of  its  mem- 
bers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  a provi- 

sion in  the  charter,  also,  that  an  aider- 
man  shall  hold  only  until  the  expiration 
of  his  term ; that  will  be  found  on 
page  72. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  This  presents  a 

maater  of  difficulty,  because  it  is  not 
stated  whether  a man  may  be  a presiding 
officer  of  a body  and  yet  not  be  a mem- 
ber. I think  we  ought  to  have  an  ex- 
press vote  on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  Those  in  favor  will  signify 
by  saying  aye;  contrary  no.  The  mo- 
tion is  lost,  and  it  is  so  ordered.  Pro- 
ceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Section  16. 

MR.  POST:  I move  to  amend  the  last 


line  but  one  by  inserting  after  the  word 
‘ 1 sell,  ’ ’ and  before  the  word  ‘ ‘ any,  ’ ’ the 
- words,  ‘ 1 Or  lease  exceeding  five  years — 
exceeding  a five  years’  term”;  so  that 
it  will  read,  ‘ ‘ That  it  shall  require  two- 
thirds  of  all  the  aldermen  elect  to  sell  or 
lease  exceeding  a five  years’  term,  any 
city  or  school  property.  ’ ’ The  object  of 
my  motion  relates  to  the  school  property 
especially. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  All  in  favor  of  its  adoption 
with  signify  by  saying  aye,  contrary  no. 
The  motion  is  carried,  and  it  is  so  or- 
dered. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Section  17,  18, 

20,  21,  22,  23,  24;  page  68,  section  25,. 
26,  27,  28;  page  69,  section  29.  30,  31,  32. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  convention 

will  now  stand  adjourned  until  Friday 
morning  at  ten  o ’clock. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  You  said  you 

would  call  up  that  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Oh,  yes:  Mr. 

Rosenthal’s  resolution.  I beg  your  par- 
don. Just  wait  a minute. 

Mr.  Rosenthal’s  resolution  will  be  re- 
ferred to  the  committee  and  be  printed. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Rosenthal  if  he  intends  by  that  that 
there  should  be  two  elections  in  the  month 
of  June? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Not  at  all. 

MR.  RAYMER;  Different  years? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Different  years, 

yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Under  the  rules, 

this  matter  will  be  printed,  and  if  any 
member  desires  to  discuss  the  matter,  he 
is  considered  at  liberty  to  call  it  up  at  the 
meeting  of  the  convention. 

And  the  convention  stood  adjourned  to 
meet  Friday,  February  22,  1907,  at  the 
hour  of  10  o’clock,  A.  M. 


February  18 


952 


1907 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Pfint  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicle. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  LATHROP: 

Amend  Section  1,  of  XVI,  by  adding 
the  following  words: 

Provided,  However,  that  the  city 
shall  not  have  power  to  operate  such 
public  utility  works  by  virtue  of  any- 
thing in  this  section  contained. 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


February  18 


953 


1907 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 
paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  -as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
Iollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  PENDARVIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 


district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  II,  on  page  593,  pro- 
viding that  “members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation7 ’ was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 
laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART: 

^Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  the  present  pension  law 
providing  for  a pension  system  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Chicago  Public  Library  be 
included  in  the  proposed  charter  for  the 
City  of  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  McCORMICK: 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually,  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
city,  and  the  report  thereof,  together 
with  any  recommendation  of  such  ac- 
countants, as  to  change  in  the  business 
methods  of  the  city,  or  of  any  of  its  de- 
partments, officers,  or  employes,  shall 
be  made  to  the  mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, and  be  spread  upon  the  records  of 
the  latter.  The  expenses  of  such  audit 
shall  be  paid  by  the  city. 


February  18 


954 


1907 


Report  of  the  COMMITTEE  on  MU- 
NICIPAL ELECTIONS,  APPOINT- 
MENTS and  TENURE  of  OFFICE: 

Lessing  Rosenthal,  Chairman  Chicago 

Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen — Your  Committee  on  Mu- 
nicipal Elections,  Appointments  and 
Tenure  of  Office,  to  which  was  referred 
the  subject  of  Civil  Service,  begs  leave 
to  report: 

That  the  provisions  of  the  present 
Civil  Service  Act  shall  be  incorporated 
in  the  charter  with  the  following 
■changes  or  additions: 

(1.)  That  the  term  of  office  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commissioners  shall  be 
six  (6)  years,  one  to  be  appointed 
•every  two  (2)  years. 

(2.)  Section  — . — REMOVALS,  RE- 
DUCTIONS AND  SUSPENSIONS.  No 
person  shall  be  removed  from  the  classi- 
fied civil  service  nor  reduced  in  grade 
or  compensation,  except  as  hereinafter 
provided. 

Removals  from  the  classified  civil  ser- 
vice or  reduction  in  grade  or  compensa- 
tion, or  both,  may  be  made  in  any  de- 
partment of  such  service  by  the  appoint- 
ing power,  to  promote  the  efficiency  of 
the  service,  or  for  other  proper  cause,  in 
the  manner  following:  The  person 

sought  to  be  removed  shall  be  served 
with  a copy  of  the  order  of  removal  and 
notice  of  suspension  from  such  service 
and  also  written  specifications;  and 
such  person  shall  have  not  less  than 
three,  nor  more  than  seven  days,  to  an- 
swer the  same  in  writing.  A copy  of  the 
order,  specifications  and  answer,  if  any, 
shall  be  filed  with  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission, which  shall  approve  or  disap- 
prove of  such  order.  Said  commission 
may,  and  upon  the  written  request  of 
the  person  sought  to  be  removed,  shall 
investigate  any  removal  or  reduction,  or 
proposed  removal  or  reduction,  either  by 
or  before  itself,  or  by  or  before  some 
officer  or  board  appointed  by  said  com- 
mission, to  conduct  such  investigation. 


Such  suspension  shall  be  without  pay, 
provided,  however,  that  said  commission 
in  case  of  a disapproval  may  direct  that 
pay  shall  be  restored.  All  findings  and 
decisions  by  said  commission,  or  of  the 
investigating  officer,  or  board,  when  ap- 
proved by  said  commission,  shall  be 
final,  and  shall  be  certified  to  the  ap- 
pointing officer  and  shall  be  forthwith 
enforced  by  such  officer. 

Reductions  in  grade  or  compensation, 
or  both,  shall  be  made  in  the  like  man- 
ner, as  near  as  may  be,  but  without  sus- 
pension, pending  such  approval  or  dis- 
approval. A copy  of  said  papers  in  each 
case  shall  be  made  a part  of  the  record 
of  the  division  of  the  service  in  which 
the  removal  or  reduction  is  made. 
Nothing  in  this  act  shall  limit  the  pow- 
er of  any  officer  to  suspend  a subordi- 
nate without  pay  for  cause  assigned  in 
writing,  a copy  of  which  shall  be  de- 
livered to  such  subordinate.  Such  sus- 
pension shall  be  for  a reasonable  period 
not  exceeding  thirty  days,  and  any  sus- 
pension may  be  investigated  by  said 
Civil  Service  Commission.  In  the 
course  of  any  investigation  provided  for 
in  this  section,  each  member  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commission,  or  of  any 
board  so  appointed  by  it,  and  any  inves- 
tigating officer  so  appointed,  shall  have 
the  power  to  administer  oaths,  and  said 
commission  shall  have  the  power  to  se- 
cure by  its  subpoena  both  the  attend- 
ance and  testimony  of  witnesses,  and 
the  production  of  books  and  papers  rele- 
vent  to  such  investigation. 

Nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  con- 
strued to  require  charges  or  investiga- 
tions in  the  case  of  laborers. 

(3.)  Section— .—PROMOTIONS.  The 
commission  shall,  by  its  rules,  provide 
for  promotions  in  such  classified  service, 
and  shall  provide  that  vacancies  shall 
be  filled  by  promotion,  in  all  cases 
where,  in  the  judgment  of  the  commis- 
sion, it  shall  be  for  the  best  interests  of 
the  service  so  to  fill  such  vacancy.  If, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  commission,  it 


Telruary  18 


955 


1907 


is  not  for  the  best  interests  of  the  ser-  I 
vice  to  fill  such  vacancy  by  promotion,  j 
then  such  vacancy  shall  be  filled  by  an 
original  entrance  examination;  provi- 
ded, however,  that  the  commission  shall 
in  its  rules  fix  upon  a credit  based  upon 
seniority  and  ascertained  merit  in  ser- 
vice to  be  given  to  all  employes  in  the 
classified  service  in  line  of  promotion 
who  submit  themselves  to  such  original 
examination.  All  promotional  examina-  j 
tions  shall  be  limited  to  such  members  | 
of  the  next  lower  rank  or  grade  as  de- 
sire to  submit  themselves  to  such  exami- 
nation. The  method  of  examination 
and  the  rules  governing  the  same  and 
the  method  of  certifying  in  promotion 
shall  be  the  same  as  provided  for  appli- 
cants for  original  appointment. 

Section  — . — No  applicant  for  exami- 
nation for  any  office  or  place  of  employ- 
ment in  said  classified  service  shall  wil- 
fully or  corruptly,  by  himself  or  in  co- 
operation with  one  or  more  other  per- 
sons deceive  the  said  commission  with 
reference  to  his  identity,  or  wilfully  or 
corruptly  make  false  representations  in 
his  application  for  such  examination,  or 
commit  any  fraud  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
proving his  prospects  or  chances  in  such 
examination. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
LESSING  ROSENTHAL, 
Chairman. 


The  following  have  been  referred  to 
the  Law  Committee: 

XII.  REVENUE. 

BY  MR.  SHEPARD: 

12-1.  The  City  Council  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  shall  annually  in  the  first  quar- 
ter of  its  fiscal  year  by  ordinance  levy 
a general  tax  on  all  real  and  personal 
property  not  exempt  from  taxation  for 
all  corporate  purposes,  including  gen- 
eral city,  school,  park  and  library  pur- 
poses, not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate, 
exclusive  of  the  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  five  per 


centum  of  the  assessed  value  of  the  tax- 
able property  of  said  city  as  assessed 
and  equalized  according  to  law  for  cor- 
porate purposes.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  said  annual  levy  shall  specify  the 
respective  amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 
amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  educational  pur- 
poses, the  amount  levied  for  school 
building  purposes,  the  amount  levied  for 
park  purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for 
library  purposes.  A certified  copy  of 
such  ordinance  shall  be  filed  in  the 
county  clerk’s  office.  The  county  clerk 
shall  extend  upon  the  collector ’s  war- 
rant all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the 
limitation  herein  contained,  in  a single 
column  as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall 
exceed  five  per  centum  of  such  assessed 
value,  such  excess  shall  be  disregarded, 
and  the  residue  only  treated  as  certified 
for  extension.  In  such  cases  all  items 
in  such  tax  levy,  except  those  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be 
reduced  pro  rata.  The  tax  so  extended, 
shall  be  collected  and  enforced  in  the 
same  manner  and  by  the  same  officers 
as  state  and  county  taxes,  and  shall  be 
paid  over  by  the  officers  collecting  the 
same  to  the  city  treasurer.  The  city 
treasurer  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall 
keep  separate  funds  in  conformity  to 
said  tax  levy,  which  funds  shall  be  paid 
out  by  him  upon  order  of  the  proper  au- 
thority for  the  purposes  only  for  which 
the  same  were  levied. 

12-2.  The  Board  of  Education,  the 
Board  of  Park  Commissions  and  the 
Board  of  Library  Directors,  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  respectively,  shall  each, 
yearly,  upon  the  request  of  the  City 
Council,  prepare  and  transmit  to  it  a 
statement  of  its  receipts  and  expenditures 


February  18 


956 


1907 


for  the  current  or  preceding  fiscal  year 
(as  the  case  may  be),  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expenditures. 
It  shall  also,  upon  such  request,  prepare 
and  transmit  to  the  City  Council  an  esti- 
mate of  its  expenditures  for  the  ensuing 
fiscal  year,  stating  therein  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  such  expendi- 
tures. 


BY  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Whereas,  the  charter  for  the  city  con- 
tains provisions  for  the  levy  and  exten- 
sion of  city,  school,  park  and  library 
taxes,  and  the  provisions  contained  in 
section  two  of  an  act  entitled  “An  act 
for  the  levy  and  extension  of  taxes,”  in 
force  July  1,  1905,  are  no  longer  neces- 
sary and  are  in  conflict  with  the  purposes 
of  the  charter  provisions  aforesaid, 
Therefore  be  it  Resolved  that  this  Con- 
vention recommend  to  the  General  As- 
sembly the  enactment  of  the  following 
bill  into  law: 

A BILL. 

For  an  act  to  repeal  Section  two,  an 
act  entitled,  ‘ 1 An  act  concerning  the  levy 
and  extension  of  taxes,  ’ 1 approved  May 
9,  1901,  in  force  July  1,  1901,  as  amend- 


ed by  an  act  approved  March  29,  1905, 
in  force  July  1,  1905. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the 
People  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  repre- 
sented in  the  General  Assembly,  that  Sec- 
tion two  of  an  act  entitled,  “An  act  con- 
cerning the  levy  and  extension  of  taxes,  ’ * 
approved  May  9,  1901,  in  force  July  1, 
1901,  as  amended  by  an  act  approved 
March  29,  1905,  in  force  July  1,  1905, 
be  and  the  same  hereby  is  repealed. 


BY  MR.  GREENACRE: 

Amend  Section  1 of  Article  12  (page 
104)  by  inserting  therein  immediately 
after  the  wrords  “levied  for  library  pur- 
poses” and  before  the  words  “certified 
copy  of  such  ordinance,”  the  following 
sentence: 

Said  City  Council  shall  have  power  to 
set  aside  from  any  such  specified  amount 
levied  for  any  of  said  purposes,  parts 
thereof,  together  not  exceeding  one  per 
cent  thereof,  and  contribute  the  same  to 
pension  funds  for  disabled,  retired  or 
superannuated  public  servants  of  any  de- 
partment toward  the  maintenance  of 
which  such  specified  amount  levied  ap- 
plies. 


February  18 


957 


1907 


Communications  addressed 

To  the  Honorable  the  Members  of  the 
New  Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen : 

The  undersigned,  the  Chicago  Law  and 
Order  League,  a delegate  body  composed 
of  representatives  from  law  enforcement 
and  kindred  organizations  and  minister- 
ial bodies,  and  in  this  behalf  representing 
the  following  organizations : 

Anti-Cigarette  League, 

Catholic  Total  Abstinence  Union  of  Il- 
linois, 

Chicago  Baptist  Ministers’  Conference, 
Citizens’  League  of  Chicago, 
Congregational  Ministers’  Union  of  Chi- 
cago and  Vicinity, 

Disciples  of  Christ, 

Englewood  Law  & Order  League, 

Garfield  Park  Protective  Ass’n, 

Hyde  Park  Protective  Ass’n, 

Law  Enforcement  League  of  the  North- 
west Side, 

Methodist  Preachers’  Meeting, 

North  Protective  Ass’n, 

North  Side  Law  & Order  League, 
Presbytery  of  Chicago, 

Thirty-third  Ward  Protective  Ass’n, 

West  Pullman  Protective  Ass’n, 

West  Side  Civic  League, 
respectfully  presents  to  your  honorable 
body  some  considerations  regarding  the 
provisions  of  the  proposed  charter  which 
relate  to  Sunday  laws  and  special  bar 
permits. 

First.  As  to  the  proposition  to  leave 
the  City  of  Chicago  full  power  with 
respect  to  laws  concerning  Sunday  ob- 
servance. 

Although  broader  in  scope,  this  means 
merely  the  power  to  keep  open  the  sa- 
loons of  Chicago  on  Sunday.  On  this 
question,  as  on  any  of  its  kind,  the 
state  at  large,  in  our  opinion,  should 
make  the  laws. 

It  is  natural  that  some  of  our  citizens 
should  desire  to  continue  customs  which 


to  the  Charter  Convention. 

were  more  or  less  in  vogue  in  their 
fatherland,  but  we  contend  that  the  laws 
under  which  these  matters  are  regulated 
and  controlled  in  foreign  countries,  are 
very  different  from  those  of  our  own. 
Moreover,  America  has  established  a 
standard  in  this  regard  that  should  not 
only  be  maintained,  but  elevated  to  still 
higher  planes. 

If  the  sole  question  at  issue  were 
merely  the  gratification  of  harmless 
tastes  and  customs  of  some  of  our  citi- 
zens, there  would  be  no  serious  objection 
to  urge ; but  it  is  contended  that  the 
Sunday  saloon  invades  the  home,  absorbs 
the  wages,  takes  away  companionship  on 
the  only  day  in  the  week  in  which,  in 
many  cases,  the  family  can  enjoy  it,  and 
sometimes  lands  the  parent  in  the  police 
station,  disgraces  him,  interferes  with  his 
work  and  exerts  a demoralizing  in- 
fluence upon  the  family  and  neighbors. 
It  is  pointed  out  that  the  wives  and 
mothers,  who  are  also  sufferers,  would, 
under  present  laws,  have  no  vote  on  the 
question  of  establishing  the  Sunday  sa- 
loon. It  is  claimed,  also,  that  in  the 
other  large  cities  of  the  country,  where 
Sunday  closing  has  been  established, 
there  has  been  a large  decrease  in  crime 
and  a corresponding  increase  in  the  gen- 
eral comforts  of  life;  that  as  a result, 
the  families  in  the  congested  districts, 
father  included,  are  in  the  churches, 
parks  and  picnic  grounds  and  in  the 
woods;  and  that  it  is,  therefore,  the 
actual  physical,  personal  liberty  of  the 
man  who  frequents  the  saloon  and  the 
liberty  of  his  family  to  enjoy  a proper 
life  that  are  at  stake.  Whatever  may  be 
the  proper  solution  of  the  question,  the 
State  of  Illinois  at  large  is  vitally  inter- 
ested, and  should  share  with  Chicago 
in  the  responsibility  of  dealing  with  it. 

We  submit,  in  passing,  that  whether 
or  not  you  can  constitutionally  do  so, 


February  18 


958 


1907 


it  is  highly  undesirable  to  provide  a 
means  whereby  conduct  in  one  part  of 
the  state  may  be  made  unlawful,  while 
the  same  conduct  in  another  part  of 
the  state  is  not. 

Second.  As  to  the  proposition  that 
certain  classes  of  bona  fide  societies  and 
organizations  may  sell  intoxicating 
liquors  under  special  permits,  at  enter- 
tainments. 

What  is  reaily  intended,  is  that  such 
sales  shall  be  under  special  bar  permits, 
or,  in  other  words,  daily  saloon  licenses. 
The  privilege  which  has  been  asked  for 
is  not  to  serve  liquor  at  .entertainments, 
nor  even  to  sell  vinous  and  malt  liquors 
only,  but  to  sell  intoxicating  liquor  of  all 
kinds  at  dances  and  other  entertainments, 
to  both  sexes,  for  profit.  It  cannot  be 
■claimed  that  there  is  any  question  of  per- 
sonal liberty  involved  in  the  desire  to 
sell  intoxicating  liquor  for  the  purpose 
of  making  money.  Those  interested,  who 
have  appeared  before  the  license  com- 
mittee of  the  City  Council,  have  frankly 
admitted  that  they  do  not  care  merely 
for  the  privilege  of  liquor  drinking  at 
entertainments,  but  that  they  desire  the 
privilege  of  selling  intoxicating  liquor 
at  dances  and  other  entertainments  for 
profit,  on  the  ground  that  the  proceeds 
are  used  for  benevolent  purposes  and 
that  the  money  thus  accumulated  cannot 
be  raised  by  subscription.  Conceding,  for 
the  sake  of  argument,  that  there  is  merit 
in  the  position,  over  against  it  must  be 
weighed  the  calamity  to  our  community, 
which  is  inseparably  connected  with  the 
grant  of  such  a privilege,  namely,  the 
dance-hall  evil.  There  is  no  practical  way 
of  preventing  the  serving  of  intoxicating 
liquor  at  dances  conducted  under  unde- 
sirable auspices,  if  a like  privilege  is  ex- 
tended to  bona  fide  societies  or  organiza- 
tions. 

On  June  11,  1906,  the  City  Council 
passed  an  ordinance  providing  that  malt 
and  vinous  liquors  only,  might  be  sold 
under  special  permits  by  certain  classes 
of  bona  fide  organizations  and  societies, 


at  dances  and  other  entertainments.  Of 
the  permits  issued,  78  were  for  one  street 
number,  on  premises  owned  by  brewers 
and  on  which  a saloon  is  operated.  We 
have  caused  a number  of  these  special 
permits  to  be  investigated,  and  from  in- 
formation gathered  in  the  course  of  these 
investigations,  we  have  no  doub’t  that 
saloon-keepers  promote  a large  number 
of  the  dances  at  which  liquor  is  sold  un- 
der permits,  to  the  destruction,  in  many 
cases,  of  the  modesty,  if  not  the  morals, 
of  the  participants.  The  facts  with 
respect  to  the  dance  halls  and  the  de- 
struction of  womanhood  through  their 
agency  are  most  alarming.  The  matron 
at  the  Geneva  Home  for  Wayward  Girls 
has  reported  that  over  87  per  cent  of 
the  inmates  met  their  downfall  through 
the  dance  halls. 

Moreover,  those  interested  desire  that 
the  privilege  of  selling  intoxicating 
liquor  shall  be  extended  beyond  the  hours 
for  closing  saloons:  This  gives  a pro- 

moting saloon-keeper  an  advantage  over 
his  competitors,  who,  in  turn,  are  thereby 
induced  themselves  to  become  promoters 
of  dances,  for  the  profit  to  be  gained  by 
selling  intoxicating  liquor  to  those  in 
attendance. 

One  great  problem  of  the  liquor  ques- 
tion is  to  separate  the  sale  of  intoxicat- 
ing liquor  from  vice.  When  that  is  done, 
much  of  the  evil  of  the  saloon  will  disap- 
pear. This  is  so  important  that  we  trust 
that  all  our  citizens  will  gladly  sacrifice 
their  personal  desires,  so  far  as  necessary, 
to  the  greatest  good  of  the  whole  com- 
munity. In  the  solution  of  this  question, 
also,  we  need  the  conservative  sentiment 
of  the  entire  state,  for  the  people  of  the 
whole  state  of  Illinois  are  vitally  inter- 
ested. 

In  conclusion,  we  hope  your  honorable 
body  will  not  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that 
in  both  of  these  questions,  the  brewery 
interests,  not  only  of  Chicago,  but  of 
other  cities  in  the  United  States,  in- 
volving English  as  well  as  American  cap- 
ital, are  vitally  concerned  from  a mere 


February  18 


959 


1907 


dollar  standpoint.  If  these  questions 
that  so  largely  affect  the  enormous  traf- 
fic in  intoxicating  liquor  should  be 
turned  over  solely  to  the  City  of  Chicago, 
those  interests  would  become  even  ’ more 
active  than  they  are  at  present.  Our 
public  sentiment  must  not  become  the 
fostered  and  promoted  sentiment  of  the 
brewers. 

Very  respectfully, 

CHICAGO  LAW  & ORDER  LEAGUE, 
By  Arthur  Burrage  Farwell,  President. 
Porter  B.  Fitzgerald,  secretary. 


Hon.  Milton  G.  Foreman, 

Dear  Sir: 

The  County  Civil  Service  Conference 
Committee  has  requested  me  to  ask  each 
of  the  organizations  represented  on  the 
committee  to  appoint  two  representatives 
to  serve  on  a committee  to  go  to  Spring- 
field  to  endeavor  to  secure  the  passage 
of  the  County  Civil  Service  Bill. 

Mr.  Eckhart  will  probably  mention 
this  matter  to  you,  and  if  you  will  kindly 


appoint  another  representative  to  act 
with  Mr.  Eckhart  and  notify  me,  I will 
appreciate  it,  Yours  very  truly, 
JAS.  S.  HANDY 
Secretary  Conference  Committee. 


Feb.  16,  1907. 
To  the  Charter  Convention: 

As  your  representative  in  the  County 
Civil  Service  Conference  Committee,  I 
beg  leave  to  report,  that  after  much 
conference  the  committee  have  prepared 
for  submission  to  the  legislature,  a re- 
port on  the  subject  and  a draft  of  a 
bill  for  an  act  to  regulate  the  civil  ser- 
vice of  counties.  In  connection  there- 
with I desire  to  submit  for  your  con- 
sideration and  move  the  adoption  of  the 
following  resolution : 

Be  it  resolved  that  it  is  the  sense  of 
the  Chicago  Charter  Convention  that  the 
Legislature  of  Illinois  promptly  pass 
suitable  enactments  providing  for  the 
extension  of  an  efficient  county  civil  ser- 
vice. 

JOHN  W.  ECKHART. 


CORRECTIONS. 


In  the  tenth  paragraph,  the  addi- 
tional section  introduced  by  Mr.  Post 
was  omitted.  The  section  follows: 

2-1-9. — Every  person  having  resided 
in  this  state  one  year,  in  the  county  90 
days,  and  in  the  election  district  30 
days  next  preceding  any  municipal  elec- 
tion therein,  who  shall  be  a citizen  of 


the  United  States,  above  the  age  of  21 
years,  shall  be  entitled  to  vote  at  such 
municipal  election. 

PAGE  890 

In  the  vote  on  Mr.  Post’s  motion  (as 
amended  by  Mr.  Taylor),  Foreman, 
Chairman,  is  shown  as  voting  “Nay. >f 
This  is  an  error. 


February  18 


960 


1907 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  the 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  mayf 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special);  and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


February  18 


961 


1907 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system?  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any.  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

FRIDAY,  FEBRUARY  22,  190T 


GJfyirago  (Eljartrr  (Emturntimt 

Convened,  December  12,  1900 

H EADQUARTCRB 
1 T 1 WASHINGTON  STREET 
TCIEPHON  E MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell.  , . Vice-Chairman 

M.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin.  asbt.  Sec’y 


February  22 


965 


1907 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 

Regular  Meeting,  Friday,  February  22,  1907 

10  O’clock  A.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order  and  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Greenacre, 
Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoor- 
ty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  Michaelis, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Post,  Raymer,  Rin- 
aker,  Ritter,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Seth- 
ness,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Taylor, 
Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Young,  Zim- 
mer— 45. 

Absent  — Baker,  Beilfuss,  Brown, 
Carey,  Church,  Clettenberg,  Crilly, 
Dever,  Erickson,  Graham,  Haas,  Harri- 
son, Lundberg,  MacMillan,  McCormick, 
Oehne,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Powers, 
Rainey,  Revell,  Shedd,  Smulski,  Sunny, 


Swift,  Thompson,  Walker,  Wilkins,  Wil- 
son— 29. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A quorum  pres- 

ent. With  such  corrections  and  amend- 
ments as  shall  be  handed  to  the  Secre- 
tary, if  there  is  no  objection,  the  min- 
utes of  the  last  meeting  will  stand  ap- 
proved as  the  record  of  the  Convention. 

The  Secretary  will  read  Article  V, 
page  70.  Such  of  the  members  as  have 
left  their  copies  of  the  draft  at  home 
can  get  additional  copies  from  the 
Secretary. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  70,  Ar- 

ticle V.  Powers  of  the  Council.  1,  2, 
3,  4.  Chapter  6.  Officers.  Page  71, 
1,  2,  3,  4,  5,  6. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

will  it  be  possible  to  go  back  to  Ar- 
ticle V? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Do  you 

desire  to  go  back  to  that  article? 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I should  like 

to  have  somebody  in  this  Convention 
who  thoroughly  understands  that  ar- 
ticle to  explain  it;  not  for  the  purpose 
of  finding  fault  with  it,  but  for  the 


February  22 


966 


1907 


purpose  of  really  understanding  what 
it  means.  Now,  I will  say  this  to  the 
Convention:  It  is  my  honest  judgment 

that  the  one  chapter  in  this  whole 
charter  that  the  down-state  legislator 
is  looking  at  is  Chapter  5,  and  I would 
like  to  be  able  to  have  a clear  under- 
standing of  what  it  means,  so  that  we 
may  disabuse  the  mind  of  anyone  that 
we  do  not  intend  to  take  all  the  power 
there  is  and  not  leave  any  for  the 
state.  I say  this  in  the  interests  of  the 
charter.  We  want  to  pass  a charter,  if 
we  can  get  it  down  there,  that  we 
want  to  be  able  to  understand  clearly 
and  fully  what  we  mean  in  this  section. 
Now,  if  the  committee  which  has  had 
it  in  charge  can  explain  it,  it  will  be 
for  the  good  of  the  Convention  that 
that  should  be  done. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  what  section 

do  you  refer — what  paragraph? 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  I am  referring 

to  5 — 2,  and  especially  5 — 2 and  5 — 4. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  Prof.  Mer- 

riam,  who  is  one  of  the  drafting  com- 
mittee, undertake  to  explain  the  mean- 
ing of  paragraphs  2 and  4 of  Section  o? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Article  V,  para- 

graph 2,  is  merely  a formal  drafting  in 
legal  shape  of  that  which  we  very 
thoroughly  discussed  in  the  Convention 
on  one  or  two  days  of  the  previous  ses- 
sion. Article  Y,  paragraph  2,  provides 
that  the  legislative  power  of  the  city 
shall  extend  to  all  matters  of  local 
legislation,  and  so  on,  which  can  be 
constitutionally  delegated  to  it  by  the 
legislature,  subject  to  the  provisions 
of  this  charter;  that  is  to  say, 
subject  to  the  limitations,  prohi- 
bitions and  restrictions  upon  the 
action  of  the  city  that  are  expressly 
mentioned  in  this  document  itself;  and 
that  subject,  in  the  second  place,  as  to 
the  general  laws  of  the  state,  such  as 
are  not  modified  or  preceded  by  this 
charter;  in  other  words,  you  leave  the 
city  a grant  of  power  with  regard  to 
matters  which  are  purely  local  in  their 


character,  but  subject  them  to  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  power  of  the  legislature, 
in  all  matters  that  are  of  general  or 
state  importance — in  regard  to  all  mat- 
ters that  are  not  particularly  and  pe- 
culiarly local  in  their  nature. 

I do  not  know  fhat  it  is  necessary  to 
elaborate  this  at  any  great  length, 
in  view  of  the  fact  that  this  matter 
was  quite  fully  and  thoroughly  dis- 
cussed and  was  approved  by  practically 
a unanimous  vote  of  the  Convention. 

The  second  part  of  that,  “It  being 
the  intent  hereof  that  the  specifications 
of  particular  powers  by  any  other  pro- 
vision of  this  charter  shall  never  be 
construed  as  impairing  the  effect  of  the 
general  grant  of  powers  of  local  govern- 
ment hereby  bestowed,”  is  merely  a 
declaration  of  intention  intended  for 
the  benefit  of  the  courts  in  construing 
the  act.  The  ordinary  practice  laid 
down  by  our  judiciary  is  contrary  to 
this,  namely,  that  the  specifications  of 
particular  powers  will  be  construed  as 
excluding  powers  that  were  not  specified 
and  enumerated.  Now, 'by  making  this 
expression  of  intention,  it  may  be  pos- 
sible to  influence  in  some  way  the  in- 
terpretation of  this  act  by  the  courts, 
in  such  cases  as  may  come  before  them 
from  time  to  time.  We  have  added  an- 
other in  the  last  line  of  5 — 2,  an  ad- 
ditional limitation  and  restriction  up- 
on the  power  of  the  city  to  the  effect 
that  no  taxes  shall  be  imposed  or  levied 
except  as  hereinafter  authorized.  Some 
thought  that  as  the  article  stood  it 
might  perhaps  give  too  much  leeway 
in  regard  to  taxes,  that  the  city  might 
unearth  and  develop  various  kinds  of 
taxes  which  were  not  on  the  whole  de- 
sirable from  the  point  of  view  of  the 
state  at  large.  Therefore,  this  partic- 
ular requirement  was  inserted  in  the 
way  of  a limitation,  especially  stating 
that  no  tax  should  be  imposed  or  levied 
except  as  hereinafter  authorized  and 
the  authorization  is  contained  in  the 
article  on  Revenue. 


February  22 


967 


1907 


So  far  as  5 — 4 is  concerned,  that  con- 
tains absolutely  nothing  more  than  the 
Convention  agreed  upon,  and  is  simply 
the  legal  phrasing  of  what  the  Conven- 
tion instructed  the  committee  on  rules, 
procedure  and  general  plan  to  work 
out. 

Is  there  anything  further,  is  there 
any  further  question  in  regard  to  that, 
Mr.  Kittleman? 

ME.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

supposing  they  ask  you  (addressing 
Mr.  Merriam)  this  question  down  there 
— some  member  of  the  general  assembly 
asks  you  the  question  whether  under  the 
constitutional  amendment  power  was 
given  to  the  charter — given  here  the 
power  to  make  this  charter,  or  is  the 
power  in  the  legislature  to  make  it? 
How  will  you  answer?  We  say  here 
that  we  can  modify  or  supersede  any 
general  state  law.  If  we  are 

MR.  MERRIAM:  No,  we  cannot; 

that  is  a misunderstanding,  Mr.  Kit- 
tleman. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  What  is  the  lan- 
guage? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  The  legislature  it- 

self can  permit  the  city  to  modify  or 
supersede 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  gentle- 

man speak  up?  It  is  impossible  for  the 
reporter  to  get  the  record. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

there  is  not  anybody  here  more  anxious 
to  have  the  charter  passed  than  I am, 
as  you  must  know,  but  this  language 
is  held  down  there  to  mean,  by  a great  j 
many  members,  by  a great  many  of  the 
country  members  of  that  body,  that 
Chicago  is  asking  for  all  the  powers 
that  the  state  has.  Now,  we  want  to 
answer  that.  That’s  all.  That’s  the 
reason  I am  bringing  it  up  now. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  This  means  that 

the  city  is  not  by  any  means  asking 
for  all  the  power  that  the  state  has, 
because  that  would  be  absurd  and  pre- 
posterous on  our  part.  We  are  not 
even  asking  for  all  the  power  that  the 


state  could  give  the  city  in  regard  to 
local  affairs.  We  are  asking  for  merely 
so  much  power  as  may  be  necessary  to 
conduct  ourselves,  in  our  local  affairs, 
subject  to  such  specific  limitations  in 
regard  to  local  affairs,  and  so  forth, 
as  the  state  may  seem  fit  to  impose; 
and  subject  at  all  times  to  all  the  laws 
of  the  state  that  have  general  applica- 
tion. We  are  asking  for  nothing  more 
than  a grant  of  power  in  regard  to 
such  matters  as  the  court  would  de- 
clare to  be  merely  local  matters;  and 
even  in  regard  to  those  local  matters — 
even  in  regard  to  those  we  have  laid 
down  here  in  this  charter — a great 
many  definite  and  specific  limitations, 
so  that  even  in  regard  to  local  power 
we  are  not  asking  for  absolutely  all 
power.  But  if  anyone  assumes  this  in- 
volves a grant  of  all  the  powers  the 
state  legislature  has,  I fail  to  see  how 
you  can  adduce  that  from  the  reading 
of  this  clause.  This  merely  gives 
power  over  matters  of  local  legislation 
and  municipal  government  subject  to 
the  provisions  of  the  charter  and  of  the 
general  laws  of  this  state  which  are 
not  modified  by  the  legislature  itself. 
This  act  is  an  act  of  the  legislature. 
If  the  legislature  passes  any  other  act 
superseding  this  act,  and  superseding 
the  general  laws  of  the  state,  it  will  not 
be  the  act  of  this  convention  or  of  this 
charter,  but  a general  act  of  the  legis- 
lature itself. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Will  you  let  me 
I ask  one  more  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  What  effect 

would  it  have  if  in  the  second  line  of 
5 — 2 you  strike  out  the  word  “can” 
and  put  in  the  word  “may”?  Would 
you  make  the  charter 

MR.  MERRIAM:  If  you  strike  out 

“can”  and  insert  “may,”  that  would 
make  an  entirely  different  thing;  that 
would  make  it  “such  powers  as  might 
from  time  to  time  be  delegated;”  that 
would  mean  that  the  legislative  power 


February  22 


968 


1907 


of  the  city  should  be  extended  to  all 
matters  of  local  legislation  and  to  mu- 
nicipal government  to  which  it  does 
extend. 

There  is  a fundamental  difference  in 
the  use  of  the  word  “can”  and  the  use 
of  the  word  “may.”  If  you  use  the 
word  “may,”  that  means  just  such  as 
may  be  from  time  to  time  granted; 
that  of  course  means  then  that  power 
may  be  granted;  but  if  you  say  “can” 
be  granted,  then  that,  of  course,  makes 
it  far  different. 

ME.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  Prof.  Merriam  a question.  Sup- 
posing the  legislature  inserted  this  para- 
graph No.  2 in  the  charter  and  it  was 
submitted  to  the  people  and  debated 
and  a general  law  of  the  state  was 
passed  at  some  other  legislature.  How 
would  that  apply  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago? 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  All  general  laws 

hereafter  passed  by  the  state  legislature 
would  be  applicable  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago just  the  same  as  they  are  now. 

ME.  KITTLEMAN:  Without  any 

referendum? 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  Without  any  ref- 

erendum, certainly,  if  they  are  general 
laws.  If  they  pass  a special  and  local 
law  dealing  with  the  City  of  Chicago 
alone  and  exclusively,  then,  of  course, 
that  could  be  done  only  by  the  means 
of  a referendum  for  all  of  the  laws,  all 
of  the  general  laws  of  the  state  ap- 
plying uniformly  to  the  commonwealth 
of  the  State  of  Illinois  would  be  just 
as  binding  on  us  as  on  anybody  else. 

ME.  KITTLEMAN:  If  they  passed 

a general  law  applicable  to  the  cities 
of  the  state? 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  If  they  passed  a 

general  law  applicable  to  the  cities  of 
the  state  without  mentioning  the  City 
of  Chicago,  that  would  not  apply;  but 
if  they  passed  a general  law  applicable 
to  the  cities  of  the  state  and  mention- 
ing the  City  of  Chicago,  then  that 
would  apply. 


ME.  KITTLEMAN:  Without  any 

referendum? 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  Without  any  ref- 

erendum. That  would  not  be  a local 
or  special  matter,  or  applying  to  the 
city. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Is  there  any  fur- 
ther discussion  on  this  question?  If 
not,  the  Secretary  will  proceed  with 
the  reading  of  Article  YI. 

ME.  WHITE:  I should  like  to  ask 

Prof.  Merriam  a question  in  regard  to 
Section  5 — 4,  by  which  it  appears,  un- 
less I read  this  wrongly,  that  if  the 
city  council  at  any  time  desires  to  su- 
persede some  provision  of  this  charter 
by  an  ordinance  of  its  own,  it  can  do 
so.  I wonder  if  I misunderstand  it? 
Now,  if  the  voters  of  the  city  shall 
vote  in  favor  of  such  substitution,  the 
provision  of  the  charter  shall  hence- 
forth be  inoperative  to  the  city  and  the 
ordinance  so  adopted  shall  be  in  effect. 
Now,  to  what  extent  does  this  ordinance 
permit  the  city  council  to  differ  from 
the  provisions  of  this  charter  itself? 
For  instance,  you  provide  that  the  mat- 
ter of  taxation  shall  not  be  considered 
a local  matter.  Now,  supposing  the 
council  did  pass  an  ordinance  abolish- 
ing that  particular  article;  what  would 
be  the  particular  effect  of  that? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Doesn’t  the  last 

paragraph  clear  all  of  that  up? 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  Not  quite.  That 

would  be  practically  impossible,  because 
it  says  that  this  article  shall  not  apply 
to  the  article  on  taxation;  therefore, 
if  the  city  council  should  substitute 
some  ordinances  for  the  section  of  the 
charter  covering  taxation,  it  would  be 
barely  possible  that  would  bear  on 
that  paragraph  itself. 

ME.  WHITE:  Do  you  know  of  any* 

other  provision  of  the  charter  where 
it  is  not  provided  like  taxation?  Has 
the  city  council  the  right  to  supersede 
such  provision  of  this  charter  and  sub- 
stitute ordinances  of  their  own? 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  I believe  they 


February  22 


969 


1907 


have  a section  in  there  providing  that 
they  cannot  make  any  substitution  for 
the  article  on  taxation,  or  the  article 
of  public  utility,  nor  can  they,  by  their 
own  act,  destroy  any  provision  of  this 
charter  expressly  prohibiting  or  re- 
straining the  action  of  the  officers  of 
this  city  or  any  of  the  officers  or  de- 
partments thereof. 

That  is,  anything  that  is  in  this 
charter  which  is  prohibited  or  required, 
that  the  council  could  not  destroy  or 
substitute  anything  in  place  of  it. 

MR.  WHITE:  What  does  this  sec- 

tion intend  to  cover  then?  In  Section 
o — 4 here,  4 or  5 — what  situation  was 
that  intended  to  cover? 

MR.  ^ERRIAM:  Well,  suppose  it 

was  desired  to  change  the  number  of 
aldermen  and  they  might  have  one  al- 
derman to  a ward,  or  they  might  change 
it  and  have  two  aldermen  to  a ward, 
or  they  might  have  sixty  wards;  and 
they  could  not  do  that  under  the  pres- 
ent arrangement  without  a special  act 
of  the  legislature.  It  might  not  be  de- 
sirable to  do  that,  and  they  might 
never  want  to  do  that,  but  if  they  did, 
they  could  do  it,  provided  as  stipu- 
lated in  the  article  on  the  Council; 
they  could  not  create  more  than  sev- 
enty wards  nor  make  the  term  of  the 
aldermen  longer  than  four  years. 

Or  again,  if  you  want  to  change  the 
term  of  any  particular  officer,  want  to 
change  the  term  of  the  civil  engineer 
from  six  to  seven  years,  or  back  to 
four  years  or  three  years,  or  if  you 
want  to  change  the  term  of  the  park 
commissioner,  make  it  longer  or 
shorter  than  it  is  now,  or  in  any  way 
make  any  of  these  changes  in  regard 
to  the  minor  points  in  the  city  govern- 
ment, that  could  be  done  without  re- 
course to  the  state  legislature,  and 
without  the  difficulty  of  getting  each 
time  a special  act. 

MR.  SNOW:  I would  like  to  ask 

Prof.  Merriam  a question,  whether  or 
not,  under  this  section,  as  drawn,  4, 


which  gives  the  council  apparently  the 
power  after  referendum  vote  to  change 
the  charter,  with  the  exception  of  those 
provisions  relating  to  revenue  and  pub- 
lic utilities,  whether  under  that  power 
it  would  be  possible  to  change  the  pro- 
visions of  the  charter  relative  to  the 
public  indebtedness? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Isn’t  that  con- 

stitutional? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Article  XIII  on 

Indebtedness,  merely  writes  out  the 
provisions  for  changing  it  practically 
— it  is  contained  in  the  constitution  it- 
self, and  the  amendment.  I don’t  see 
any  objection  to  putting  that  in  in 
regard  to  the  indebtedness  there. 

MR.  SNOW:  It  seems  to  me  it 

should  be  inserted  in  there,  Mr.  Chair- 
man. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I don’t  see  any 

possible  objection  to  putting  it  in. 

MR.  WHITE:  I would  like  to  ask 

one  more  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  moment.  Is 
Mr.  Snow  through  with  the  floor? 

MR.  SNOW:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Dr.  White. 

MR.  WHITE:  What  is  the  peculiar 

situation  in  regard  to  the  matter  of 
taxation?  What  peculiar  sanctity  in- 
heres in  the  property  of  Chicago  that 
it,  of  every  other  great  interest  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  must  be  reserved  from 
the  action  of  home  rule?  I have  been 
wondering  about  that  ever  since  I saw 
this  clause.  All  matters  of  morals, 
education,  Sabbath  keeping  and  every- 
thing of  that  sort  the  people  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  seem  wise  enough  to 
manage  under  this  charter,  but  this 
sacred  thing  we  call  property,  that, 
somehow  or  other,  must  be  labeled 
‘ 1 Hands  off.” 

I really  ask  this  question  seriously, 
as  I had  intended  to  from  the  beginning 
of  the  Convention.  I would  like  to  have 
that  explained  to  us,  what  there  is  in 
the  situation  in  regard  to  taxation  that 
requires  that  it  should  be  a matter  that 


February  22 


970 


1907 


must  go  to  the  state  legislature,  and 
that  the  people  of  Chicago  cannot 
legislate  on  that  as  successfully  and 
intelligently  as  any  other  matter  con- 
nected with  their  interest.  I hope  that 
will  be  explained. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  the  con- 

vention, in  its  informal  action,  decided 
there  should  be  a tax  limitation,  the 
charter  should  contain  a tax  limitation, 
and,  acting  upon  that  theory,  the  draft- 
ing committee  drew  the  chapter  there 
on  this  article.  Why  the  Convention 
decided  upon  a tax  limitation  I am  not 
able  to  answer. 

Is  there  any  further  discussion  so 
far  as  this  matter  is  concerned?  If 
not,  the  Secretary  will  continue  reading 
Article  YI. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  72,  6,  7; 

page  74,  8,  9,  10,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  just 
a minute,  while  I find  the  place. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  76. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Does  the  gentle- 

man want  the  floor? 

MR,  BENNETT:  No.  It  is  further 

on,  the  point  I want  to  raise. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Go  ahead. 

THE  SECRETARY:  16,  17  and  18. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  18 

has  reference  to  the  municipal  courts, 
as  I understand  it,  that  was  to  be, 
and  all  those  matters  were  to  be  sub- 
ject or  were  to  be  left  to  a committee 
to  be  put  in  a separate  bill.  I move  that 
take  the  same  course.  I do  not  think 
that  it  is  the  time  or  place  for  that 
matter. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I second  the  mo- 

tion, Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  the  adoption 

-of  this  it  is  moved  that  paragraph  18, 
which  refers  to  the  bailiff  of  the  mu- 
nicipal court,  his  removal,  shall  be 
placed  in  a separate  bill,  with  the  bal- 
ance of  the  amendments  to  the  munic- 
ipal court  acts.  All  those  in  favor  sig- 
nify the  same  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no. 


All  those  in  favor  signify  the  same 
by  saying  aye,  opposed,  no. 

The  motion  is  carried. 

Now  Article  VII. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  77,  Ar- 

ticle VII. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  the  changes  in  those  clauses 
which  were  made  by  the  drafting  com- 
mittee. The  report  of  the  committee 
on  civil  service,  was  never  considered 
by  the  Convention,  therefore  the  draft- 
ing committee  took  those  sections  which 
were  necessary,  in  their  judgment,  for 
the  completion  of  the  act  and  went 
over  them.  The  chairman  advises  that 
they  conform  to  the  present  civil  serv- 
ice act. 

THE  SECRETARY:  They  will  be 

found  in  the  Proceedings,  page  874. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  We  haven ’t  got 

that. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Yes,  we  have. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  a type- 
written sheet. 

THE  SECRETARY:  I have  it  in 

the  Proceedings;  I haven’t  the  type- 
written sheet. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Page  874,  in 

the  Proceedings  of  Saturday,  Febru- 
ary 16. 

THE  SECRETARY:  The  lower 

right-hand  column,  under  Civil  Service. 
The  draft  embodies  the  recommenda- 
tions of  the  committee  of  the  Conven- 
tion regarding  removals  and  promo- 
tions which  have  not  yet  been  acted 
upon  by  the  Convention.  See  7 — 8 and 
7 — 12.  The  draft  provides  for  a grad- 
ual displacement  of  the  present  civil 
service  commissioners  and  makes  them 
removed  only  in  the  same  way  as  other 
city  officials. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Wait  a minute. 

THE  SECRETARY:  That’s  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  from  the  bill  itself,  calling 
paragraph  by  paragraph. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Civil  Service; 

page  77;  1,  2,  3,  4,  5. 


February  22 


971 


1907 


MR.  SHEPARD:  Let  me  ask  you 

bow  the  civil  service  commissioners  are 
to  be  appointed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What's  that? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  How  are  the  civil 

service  commissioners  to  be  appointed? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  By  the  mayor. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Where  is  that  to 

be  found. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  there  is 

a section  there  somewhere.  That  can 
be  looked  up. 

THE  SECRETARY:  6,  7,  8. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
suggest  that  the  Secretary  read  7 — 8 
and  7 — 12,  where  those  changes  are 
made. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  7 — 8 and  7 — 12. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  79,  7—8. 

(The  Secretary  read  Section  8 as 
printed  in  the  proposed  bill.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  will 

the  gentlemen  come  to  order?  The  Sec- 
retary is  reading  from  the  civil  service 
act  the  changes  that  were  made  by  the 
drafting  committee.  The  Secretary  will 
proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  7—8,  at  page 

79. 

THE  SECRETARY:  That  is  all  of 

Sections,  8,  9,  10,  11,  and  the  change 
comes  in  12. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Is  there  any 

change  in  that  section? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  12  has  the  im- 

portant change. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  In  8;  I didn't  no- 
tice any  change  in  the  reading  of  8. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  not. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I understood  you, 

Mr.  Chairman,  to  say  that  there  was  a 
change  in  7 — 8. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will' read  12. 

THE  SECRETARY:  12,  page  81. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

change  that  is  made  in  this  section 
seems  to  me  to  have  gone  too  far.  To 


those  persons  in  Chicago  who  have  con- 
sidered civil  service  administration  in 
the  city,  the  fact  that  the  heads  of  de- 
partments or  the  appointive  officer  has 
not  had  sufficient  power  is  acknowl- 
edged on  all  hands.  At  the  same  time 
there  are  some  of  us  who  are  not  at  all 
willing  that  an  officer  who  has  been 
in  the  service  for  some  years,  or  even 
if  he  has  been  in  it  for  only  a year, 
should  be  subject  to  suspension  or  re- 
moval by  a written  statement  and  an- 
swer, if  made  within  seven  days,  at 
the  pleasure  of  the  commission,  whether 
to  inquire  or  not  into  the  merits  of  the 
case. 

We  believe  that  every  employe  of 
the  city  should  be  assured  the  right  of 
trial.  We  believe  that  the  mistake  in 
the  past  has  been  that  the  appointive 
officer  had  to  affirmatively  show  his 
reasons  for  dismissing  the  employe. 
We  believe  that  the  employe  should  be 
required  affirmtively  to  show  that  he 
has  not  been  discharged  properly,  and 
that  it  should  not  be  in  the  power  of 
the  commission  to  refuse  a trial. 

Some  of  us  think  that  in  the  public 
service  in  the  past,  where  the  appoint- 
ive officer  would  have  made  a state- 
ment, dismissing  an  official,  and  the 
official  might  have  made  a very  good 
statement  apparently,  but  the  weight 
of  the  statement  made  by  the  appoint- 
ing official  would  clearly,  on  the  face  of 
it,  pass  in  his  favor.  The  man  had 
been  dismissed,  and  that  was  the  end 
of  it. 

Upon  trial  it  has  been  scliown  that 
the  statements  made  by  the  appoint- 
ing officer  have  been  shown  to  be  un- 
true and  the  official  has  been  retained 
in  the  public  service. 

Now,  the  thing  that  we  are  after, 
or  at  least  what  we  arc  supposed  to  be 
after,  is  efficiency  in  the  public  serv- 
ice and  to  enable  the  appointive  offi- 
cers to  secure  that  efficiency  in  his 
office. 

The  change  as  proposed  here  is  a 


February  22 


972 


1907 


change  that  will  permit,  Mr.  Chairman, 
any  appointive  officer  with  a friendly 
administration  and  a friendly  civil 
service  board  to  discharge;  any  or 
all  of  the  employes  of  that  office  if  he 
chooses  to  do  so,  without  the  right  of 
the  trial  reserved. 

For  any  single  person  who  is  in  the 
department  that  has  so  discharged  him, 
the  commission  can  consider  the  state- 
ment of  the  appointive  officer  and  the 
denial,  if  you  please,  of  the  employe, 
and  then  refuse  him  a trial.  We  be- 
lieve that  that  is  a bad  amendment. 
We  believe  that  has  gone  too  far  in 
the  other  direction,  and  X wish  to 
move,  Mr.  Chairman,  that: 

The  drafting  committee  be  in- 
structed to  redraft  this  Section  12 
of  Article  VII,  providing  that  the 
appointive  officer  may  remove  any 
employe  or  suspend  him,  upon  mak- 
ing a written  statement  to  the  em- 
ployer and  filing  with  the  commission 
a written  statement  stating  the  rea- 
sons; and  that  any  employe,  within 
ten  ' days  thereafter,  may  file  his 
statement  and  demand  trial,  it  being 
required  that  he  affirmatively  show 
that  he  has  been  dismissed  for  other 
than  proper  and  appropriate  causes. 
THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

Mr.  Robins  ’ motion,  that  the  drafting 
committee  be  instructed  to  amend  that 
section  of  the  civil  service  act  just 
read,  so  as  to  give  the  right  to  em- 
ployes under  certain  conditions. 

On  that  motion,  Mr.  Rosenthal  has 
the  floor. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  is  evident  to 

me  that  Mr.  Robins  has  not  read  the 
section  of  the  law  to  which  he  has  ad- 
dressed himself,  and  I think  possibly 
he  may  have  had  before  him  the  sec- 
tion of  the  new  proposed  county  law 
which  says:  ‘‘Such  commission  may, 

in  its  discretion,  investigate  any  re- 
moval, and  shall  investigate  in  such 
case  where  it  reasonably  believes  the 
removal  has  not  been  made  for  the 


purpose  of  and  the  manner  herein  pro- 
vided. ’ ’ But  the  draft  of  the  law  we 
have  in  our  charter  is  quite  different. 
That  says:  “Said  commission  may, 

upon  written  request  of  the  person 
sought  to  be  removed’ ’ — must  investi- 
gate— so  that  every  person  sought  to  be 
removed  can  demand  a trial;  and  there 
is  that  very  marked  difference  between 
the  proposed  city  law  and  the  proposed 
county  law.  In  other  words,  the  trial 
provision  of  the  city  law  as  it  exists 
at  the  present  time  is  retained  in  this 
act,  with  some  modifications  easing  up 
the  present  manner  of  obtaining  trial, 
because  the  present  manner  of  trial 
has  led  to  the  very  gravest  abuses,  as 
all  of  us  know,  and  has  at  times  made 
the  trial  feature  of  the  law  seems  ridic- 
ulous. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Will  the  gentleman 

permit  a question?  It  will  probably 
save  further  discussion:  Does  “inves- 

tigation” mean  “trial”  in  this  clause, 
Mr.  Rosenthal? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  the  way 
the  city  law  reads  at  the  present  time; 
“investigation”  means  “trial,”  that 
is  all  it  means.  No  other  word  was 
ever  used.  The  trouble  has  been  that 
they  have  made  it  the  sort  of  trial 
which  occurs  in  court.  If  the  gentle- 
man will  permit  me,  I will  turn  to  that 
section  of  the  present  law. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  first  draft 
in  the  law  of  the  first  proposition  that 
was  offered  by  our  committee  was  a 
proposition  doing  away  entirely  with 
this  trial  feature,  excepting  at  the  in- 
stance of  the  commission  itself.  The 
present  draft  of  the  law,  however,  re- 
tains this  trial  feature,  and  makes  it 
mandatory  upon  the  commission  to 
make  the  investigation,  provided  it  is 
requested  in  writing  by  the  member. 
Now,  that  is  as  far  as  we  ought  to  go, 
and  that  preserves  every  employes’ 
right.  In  fact,  it  is  very  questionable 
whether  it  does  not  go  much  further 
than  we  ought  to  go,  and  in  the  course 


1907 


973 


February  22 

of  time  you.  will  find  that  we  have 
gone. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Under  the  laws 

of  this  state  the  meanest  criminal  is 
presumed  to  be  innocent  until  he  is 
proven  guilty,  and  that  beyond  a rea- 
sonable doubt.  This  question  strikes 
at  the  very  foundation  and  essence  of 
the  civil  service  law.  It  is  the  right 
you  are  seeking  to  condemn  a city  em- 
ploye without  being  heard.  I say,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  that  is  not  fair;  it  is 
not  just.  You  provide  for  the  examina- 
tion, a critical  examination,  of  an  em- 
ploye for  a given  position.  He  quali- 
fies, and  he  is  certified  as  being  quali- 
fied for  that  position.  He  enters  upon 
the  duties  of  his  position  and  works 
along  there.  The  first  thing  he  knows 
he  is  suspended;  he  is  discharged  from 
his  position  upon  the  say-so  of  the  head* 
of  the  department.  What  more  power 
had  they  under  the  old  regime?  When 
the  Democrats  were  elected  they  would 
depopulate  the  Republicans,  and  the 
Republicans  placed  Republicans  in  when 
they  won.  There  is  no  difference  at 
all.  The  original  civil  sevrice  law  that 
we  all  stood  up  for  and  fought  for — I, 
with  others  in  this  city,  fought  for  it, 
thinking  it  would  raise  the  city  em- 
ployes’ standard  to  that  of  a free  man 
and  take  him  from  under  the  heel  of  the 
ward  boss  and  the  vile,  low  politicians 
that  were  using  the  sacred  cause  of  the 
city  and  its  institutions  for  their  per- 
sonal gain.  Those  men  who  were  in 
favor  of  the  civil  service  law  said  the 
employe  should  have  a hearing,  and 
that  he  should  only  be  discharged  upon 
trial,  and  a finding  that  he  was  guilty 
of  the  offtnses  charged  against  him;  if 
not,  he  was  to  be  exonerated.  Now  you 
want  to  put  the  head  of  the  department 
in  a position  of  being  the  sole  judge; 
you  would  deny  those  who  are  so  un- 
fortunate as  to  be  a public  employe 
— and  I feel  under  the  existing  circum- 
stances now  that  he  who  is  in  the  pub- 
lic employ  is  an  unfortunate  man — you 


want  to  put  him  now  under  the  super- 
intendence or  the  head  of  the  depart- 
ment, give  the  head  of  the  department 
the  power  to  discharge  him — make  him 
his  slave — his  man.  That  is  a step 
backward. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the 
law.  Let  me  read  the  law.  I read  from 
Section  12.  Oh,  we  have  had  here  in 
this  town,  you  know,  a few  fellows  that 
were  working  for  the  city  who  did  not 
fulfill  the  duties  of  their  positions  ac- 
ceptably, and  then,  because  there  were 
one  or  two  or  three  who  could  not  be 
removed  without  trial,  the  entire  num- 
ber of  the  city  employes  were  con- 
demned. 

Section  12  reads — that  is,  of  the  civil 
service  law  that  is  now  in  the  books: 
‘ 1 Removal:  No  person  employed  in  the 

classified  civil  service  in  the  city  who 
shall  have  been  appointed  under  said 
rules,  and  after  said  examination,  shall 
be  removed  or  discharged,  except  for 
cause  upon  written  charges,  and  after 
an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  his  own 
defense.  ’ ’ 

That  is  what  is  accorded  to  the 
meanest  criminal  in  the  state.  Now, 
our  civil  service  outfit — there  are  a few 
men  in  this  town  who  have  the  civil 
service  under  their  particular  charge, 
and  the  trouble  is  this  outfit  does  not 
understand  the  law,  they  do  not  under- 
stand the  system  under  which  it  is 
worked,  they  do  not  Understand  the 
spirit  that  brought  it  into  being,  and 
never  have  learned  it;  and  I have  had 
this  happen,  when  a man,  a city  em- 
ploye, is  charged  with  an  offense,  he  is 
charged  with  conduct  unbecoming  a 
city  employe,  before  the  civil  service 
commission,  and  I have  been  before 
them  and  have  said:  “Point  out  the 

rule  or  the  ordinance  that  says  this  is 
conduct  unbecoming  a city  employe.” 
Then  they  make  specifications.  They 
have  been  running  the  thing  them- 
selves, to  suit  themselves. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  this  Convention, 


February  22 


974 


1907 


there  is  no  attorney  who  has  had  any 
experience  at  all  defending  anybody 
before  this  civil  service  commission 
who  has  not  had  a similar  experience. 
Now,  in  the  history  of  the  whole  com- 
mission, there  has  only  been  one  or 
two  men  that  have  understood  this  law 
or  been  fitted  by  nature  or  education 
for  the  place  they  have  held  or  were 
given.  This  is  time  for  plain  talk,  be- 
cause we  want  to  protect  these  people 
who  are  so  unfortunate  to  have  to  seek 
such  employment,  public  employment. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  if  this  draft  as  presented 
here  by  this  civil  service  committee  is 
adopted,  you  will  have  a worse  state 
of  affairs  than  under  the  old  regime, 
when  the  ward  boss  was  king,  and  his 
man  was  the  head  of  the  department. 
Now,  I take  this  way  of  calling  your 
attention  forcibly  to  this  matter,  so 
that  you  may  give  it  your  attention.  I 
have  been  through  it,  been  all  through 
it,  and  I know  whereof  I speak,  and  I 
believe  I have  put  it  before  you  in  the 
proper  light. 

I sincerely  trust  that  this  present 
amendment  made  as  the  report  of  the 
committee  be  voted  down,  and  we  will 
go  back  to  the  original  law,  so  that 
those  who  are  in  the  employment  now 
may  have  at  least  a chance,  not  alone 
for  the  purpose  of  holding  the  place 
they  have,  but  to  take  the  stigma  that 
may  be  cast  ii^on  them  from  them,  be- 
cause they  have  not  been  heard  in  their  i 
defense.  They  are  sometimes  charged  ; 
with  crime,  and  it  is  left  to  the  say-so  ■ 
of  the  civil  service  commission  to  de-  I 
bar  them  or  discharge  them  without  ' 
an  opportunity  of  being  heard. 

ME.  POST:  May  I ask  Mr.  O'Don-  1 

nell  a question? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Yes. 

MR.  POST:  T would  like  to  ask  if 
the  insertion  of  some  words  which 
would  necessitate  a trial  would  meet 
his  point. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I don’t 


MR.  POST:  Would  the  substitution 

of  the  word  “ trial”  in  proper  context 
meet  your  objection? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:*  Would  he  put 
in  a trial  clause? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  On  proper 

charges  that  they  have  an  opportunity 
to  be  heard,  which  means  a trial. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  May  I ask  a 

question? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Doesn’t  the  old 

law  read:  “ No  officer  or  employe  in  the 

classified  civil  service  of  any  city  who 
shall  have  been  appointed  under  said 
rules,  and  after  said  examination,  shall 
be  removed  or  discharged  except  for 
cause  upon  written  charges,  and  after 
an  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  his  own 
defense.  Such  charges  shall  be  investi- 
gated by  or  before  some  officer  or  board 
appointed  by  said  committee,  to  take 
such  investigation,”  etc. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  in  this 

law? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  No,  sir;  it  is 

not. 

MR.  FISHER:  What  is  the  differ- 

ence? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  You  remove  him 
first. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  You  suspend 

him.  This  says:  “Said  commission 

may  and  shall  on  written  charges 
against  a person  sought  to  be  removed, 
shall  investigate  and  report.” 

MR.  ZIMMER:  If  this  jneans  the 

same,  why  do  we  change  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  ask  that 
question  of  Mr.  Rosenthal?  Does  Mr. 
Rosenthal  desire  to  answer  the  ques- 
tion ? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I would  like  to 

have  an  opportunity  to  explain. 

MR.  LTNEHAN:  I would  like  to 

ask  him  in  reference  to  this  question, 
I would  like  to  know  the  difference  be- 
| tween  this  and  the  old  law,  if  it  is  not 
j in  the  old  law  everybody  gets  a trial 


February  22 


975 


1907 


whether  they  want  it  or  not,  and  in 
this  law  you  only  get  a trial  where  you 
ask  for  it. 

ME.  FISHEK:  That  is  right ; that  is 

the  only  difference. 

MB.  SHANAHAN:  This  is  better, 

because  in  the  old  law  there  is  a lot 
of  things  they  don’t  want,  anyway. 

MR.  MeGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  Mr.  Linelian’s  question  has  not 
been  properly  answered.  I do  not  mean 
by  that  there  has  been  any  intention 
to  give  a different  construction  to  this 
act  from  what  it  will  bear.  But  it  is 
clear  from  comparing  the  present  law 
with  the  present  draft  that  it  is  en- 
tirely within  the  discretion  of  the  com- 
mission as  to  what  manner  of  investi- 
gation shall  be  had.  The  language  of 
the  section  itself  cannot  bear  any  other 
consideration,  if  within  the  discretion 
of  the  commission  the  accused  may  ap- 
pear in  his  own  defense,  why,  then,  it 
is  so  determined  by  the  commission  it- 
self. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  It  says  they  may 

upon  * * * 

MR.  MeGOORTY:  Yes. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  They  shall. 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  that  is  just  the 

point. 

MR.  MeGOORTY:  They  shall  inves- 

tigate. 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes. 

MR.  MeGOORTY:  Now,  then,  it 

says  they  shall  investigate  any  removal. 
The  present  act  says  at  the  outset, 
“ shall  be  removed” — that  any  officer 
or  employe  in  the  classified  civil  serv- 
ice of  any  city,  who  shall  have  been  ap- 
pointed under  said  rules,  and  after  said 
examination,  shall  not  be  removed  or 
discharged  except  upon  written  charges, 
and  the  opportunity  to  be  heard  in  his 
own  defense. 

Now,  the  obvious  purpose  of  the 
adoption  of  this  section  is  to  do  away 
with  trials.  Under  this  proposed  act 
the  civil  service  commission  may  call 
for  the  head  of  the  department,  and 


may  ask  for  the  production  of  such 
books  and  papers,  and  may  call  for 
such  witnesses  as  the  commission  in  its 
wisdom  may  deem  necessary;  but  if  it 
is  the  intention  of  the  drafters  of  this 
provision  to  enable  the  accused  to  ap- 
pear in  his  own  defense,  why,  then,  that 
right  should  be  expressly  reserved  in 
specific  language  in  the  draft  itself. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
the  present  law  provides  that  for  six 
months  every  person  employed  in  the 
city  who  is  drawn  from  the  classified 
list  is  on  probation;  that  during  those 
six  months  the  head  of  the  department 
may  remove  him  without  assigning  any 
cause  whatever,  the  same  as  any  private 
employer  can  now  do,  and  I know  of 
an  instance  in  the  building  department 
recently  where  a certain  man  who  was 
old  in  the  service,  and  perhaps  against 
whom  no  charges  could  be  sustained 
before  the  commission,  was  peremptori- 
ly removed  by  the  civil  service  commis- 
sion, on  the  reason  of  impaired  ef- 
ficiency; yet  it  is  probable  in  that  case 
that  the  charges  could  not  be  sustained. 

Now,  the  heads  of  departments  are 
vested  with  such  discretion  as  that,  and 
ought  to  be  able  to  determine  in  six 
months  whether  a man  is  eligible. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  years,  ever 
since  the  national  civil  service  law  was 
enacted,  there  has  been  an  effort  on 
the  part  of  the  friends  of  civil  service 
to  change  that  section  of  the  federal 
statute,  which  leaves  that  matter  open, 
and  which,  while  it  provides  careful 
qualifications  for  appointment  to  the 
civil  service,  it  is  practically  no  pro- 
tection to  those  persons  after  they  have 
been  appointed. 

Mr.  Roosevelt,  back  in  1887,  in  an 
article  which  appeared  when  the  ques- 
tion was  before  the  United  States  Sen- 
ate, deplored  the  fact  that  the  federal 
governcent  left  this  back  door  open, 
and,  in  substance,  said  that  it  intended 
to  emasculate  the  civil  service  law; 
and  such  was  the  contention  of  Henry 


February  22 


9 76 


1907 


Cabot  Lodge  and  other  persons  on  the 
floor  of  the  United  States  Senate. 

Now,  one  of  the  greatest  friends  of 
civil  service  in  this  country  was  the 
late  John  W.  Eaton,  and  it  was  due  to 
him  more  than  to  any  other  man  that 
the  present  law  was  enacted;  and  it  is 
regarded  today  by  the  friends  of  civil 
service  throughout  the  country  that  the 
civil  service  law  now  in  operation  and 
in  force  in  the  City  of  Chicago  is  the 
best  civil  service  law  that  this  coun- 
try has  ever  had.  It  has  been  copied 
by  other  cities.  I have  taken  occasion 
to  talk  with  the  different  men  who  are 
now  and  who  have  in  the  past  occupied 
the  position  of  civil  service  commis- 
sioners of  this  city,  and,  without  one 
exception,  every  one  of  them  regard 
any  impairment  in  the  present  act  in 
Section  12,  regarding  removals  and  re- 
ductions, as  a serious  blow  to  civil 
service. 

Now,  right  at  this  time,  while  civil 
service  is  still  on  trial,  and  while  it  is 
not  at  all  certain  in  the  minds  of  many 
that  the  administration  of  the  civil 
service  law  is  not  all  that  it  should  be, 
it  is  a somewhat  general  opinion.  I 
believe  that  every  member  of  this  Con- 
vention thinks  that  the  law  is  being 
honestly  applied,  and  honestly  and  in- 
telligently enforced.  At  the  same  time, 
it  seems  inopportune  at  this  time,  upon 
the  eve  of  a possible  change  of  ad- 
ministration, which  is  always  possible 
at  every  mayoralty  election,  that  a 
change  of  this  kind  should  be  asked 
for;  and  I do  not  wish  to  indicate  that 
there  will  be  any  change  so  far  as  the 
complexion  of  the  political  administra- 
tion is  concerned 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentleman 

may  save  his  point. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  But  I do  say, 

gentlemen,  with  all  seriousness,  that 
notwithstanding  the  fact  that  there 
have  been  protracted  trials — still,  I do 
think  you  will  agree  with  me  that  the 
effect  of  those  trials  has  been  to  in- 


crease confidence  in  civil  service.  And, 
after  all,  why  shouldn’t  a man  in  this 
country,  especially  one  who  is  employed 
in  the  public  service,  be  given  the  op- 
portunity to  appear  in  his  own  defense? 
Now,  why  should  not  that  right  be  ex- 
pressly reserved  for  him?  We  know 
that  such  person  who  has  been  dis- 
charged goes  forth  handicapped;  that 
he  goes  forth  handicapped  and  bearing 
a certain  stigma  upon  him.  It  makes 
it  more  difficult  for  him  to  obtain  pri- 
vate employment,  if  it  can  be  said,  as 
a matter  of  public  record,  that  he  has 
been  discharged  for  cause. 

Now,  before  that  final  discharge 
takes  place,  if  he  has  been  unjustly  dis- 
charged, and  if  it  has  been  due  to  con- 
sideration of  politics,  or  religion,  or 
consideration  of  race,  then  you  should 
give  him  an  opportunity  to  appear  in 
his  own  defense.  He  has  passed  the 
probationary  period;  he  has  passed  the 
examination,  and  he  is  presumably  fit 
and  competent  in  accordance  with  the 
genius  of  our  institutions,  and  the 
American  sense  of  fair  play,  you 
should  give  him  at  least  a chance  to  be 
heard.  But,  above  all,  give  this  civil 
service  law,  which  is  undoubtedly  the 
best  that  has  ever  been  devised — give 
it  a trial,  and  do  not  make  a step 
which,  I am  confident,  will  be  regarded 
by  this  community,  and  by  all  people, 
as  a step  backward,  and  a blow  at 
civil  service  itself. 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  understand 

exactly  what  the  question  is  before  the 
house — if  there  is  a question  before  the 
house — because  both  of  the  last  speak- 
ers have  been  talking  to  a different 
point  than  that  raised  by  the  motion 
of  Mr.  Robins. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the 

question  before  the  house. 

MR.  FISHER:  As  a matter  of  /act, 

the  motion  made  by  Mr.  Robins  differs 
only  from  the  proposition  that  is  be- 
fore the  house,  that  is  recommended  by 
the  committee,  and  in  which  it  puts 


February  22 


977 


1907 


the  burden  of  proof  on  the  person  dis- 
charged, to  establish  his  rights  to  a 
trial. 

The  present  draft,  the  draft  of  the 
committee,  provides  that  he  shall  have 
a right  to  a trial.  The  language  used 
is  precisely  the  same  as  that  used  in 
the  law,  and  unquestionably  is  subject 
to  the  same  interpretation. 

The  word  1 1 investigation  ’ ’ is  a word 
under  which  the  right  of  trial  was 
given  under  the  common  law. 

MR.  POST:  Do  you  refer  only  to 

the  practice  of  the  commission? 

MR.  FISHER:  No;  I refer  to  the 

question  of  the  courts,  the  question  that 
has  gone  up  from  the  commission,  or, 
rather,  the  appeals  that  have  brought  it 
into  the  courts  proper,  have  been  con- 
strued to  mean  a trial,  and  I do  not 
understand  that  there  is  any  difference 
in  that  regard  between  the  law  as  it 
now  stands,  the  report  of  the  committee 
or  the  proposition  of  Mr.  Robins.  The 
three  propositions  are  exactly  the  same 
on  that  point.  There  is  a difference, 
so  far  as  the  law  of  the  state,  as  it 
now  stands,  in  which  the  commission, 
under  the  recommendations  of  the  com- 
mittee does  not  have  to  give  a trial 
unless  the  discharged  employe  requests 
it,  which,  as  Mr.  Linehan  says,  tends 
to  good  government.  There  is  no  ne- 
cessity for  putting  the  discharged  em- 
ploye in  the  embarrassing  position  of 
saying  he  did  not  want  trial.  Under 
this  law,  as  I understand  it,  he  would 
simply  have  to  ask  for  a trial,  and  that 
trial  would  be  accorded  him. 

Now,  Mr.  Robins’  proposition,  as  I 
understand  it,  shifts  the  burden  of 
proof,  and  compels  the  employe  to  es- 
tablish the  innocence  of  the  charges, 
or  his  right  to  removal.  Now,  on  this 
whole  matter,  it  seems  to  me  that  there 
is  a general  misconception  on  ,the  part 
of  certain  gentlemen. 

I do  not  know  that  it  is  necessary 
for  me  to  defend  my  position  in  the 


matter  of  civil  service.  If  so,  I can 
show  the  necessary  credentials. 

When  the  state  civil  service  law  was 
presented  to  the  legislature  I was  the 
representative  of  the  state,  and  the 
local  committee  and  the  committee  of 
the  Union  League  Club  all  took  action 
on  this  matter;  and  I think  it  was  the 
unanimous  decision — there  may  have 
been  some  differences — but,  certainly, 
the  full  organization  that  took  an  ac- 
tive part  from  this  neighborhood  in 
the  promotion  of  the  state  civil  serv- 
ice law;  all  agreed  upon  this  propo- 
sition, that  the  right  to  discharge 
should  be  left  open  in  the  appointing 
power. 

Now,  those  that  are  familiar  with  the 
history  of  civil  service  well  know  that 
there  has  been  a steady  development 
along  that  line.  Mr.  McGoorty  cites 
the  opinion  from  Mr.  Roosevelt  back  in 
1887.  Mr.  Roosevelt  was  a state  and 
national  civil  service  commissioner,  and 
as  President  has  very  much  strength- 
ened the  application  of  the  civil  service 
rules  in  the  national  government.  It  is 
his  conviction,  as  I understand  his  at- 
titude on  this  question,  and  many 
others,  and  the  position  of  Mr.  Gar- 
field, who  succeeded  him  later  on  the 
civil  service  commission,  that  the  right 
of  discharge  should  be  left  open,  and 
that  the  only  thing  that  should  exist 
in  that  connection  would  be  the  right 
of  the  civil  service  commission  in  each 
case  to  inquire  into  the  discharge  of 
an  employe,  and  if  the  commission  was 
satisfied  that  he  was  being  improperly 
discharged,  to  order  him  back  on  the 
roll.  But  that  is  the  limit. 

Now,  the  law  started  the  other  way. 
The  truth  of  the  matter  was  that  a lot 
of  people  thought  that  the  civil  service 
reform  was  to  be  a panacea  for  all  of 
our  political  ills,  and  they  thought  it 
would  be  a panacea  for  all  of  the  at- 
tendant political  difficulties,  and  they 
felt  if  we  could  just  have  a written 
and  an  oral  examination,  on  questions 


February  22 


978 


1907 


asked,  that  if  somebody  passed  at  the 
head  of  the  list,  that  he  was,  therefore, 
going  to  make  a perfect  addition  and 
a valuable  addition  to  the  government 
of  the  city  or  the  county,  or  whatever 
it  might. 

Now,  there  are  many  questions  which 
cannot  be  tried  out  by  examination, 
either  oral  or  written.  The  institution 
of  competitive  examinations  for  civil 
service  appointments  is  merely  the  best 
available  device  for  making  those  ap- 
pointments and  discharges.  It  is  mere- 
ly better  than  any  other  system  that 
has  been  adopted. 

It  has  been  found,  and  it  must  be 
conceded  that  it  had  been  demonstrated 
that  it  is  better  than  the  old  spoils 
system  of  appointment,  or  of  any  sys- 
tem of  appointment  for  purely  political 
purposes;  that  is,  when  it  is  confined 
to  those  principles  to  which  it  is  proper- 
ly delegated,  and  that  is  all  that  can  be 
claimed  for  it,  and  that  is  all  that 
ought  to  be  claimed  for  it. 

Now,  Mr.  O’Donnell  arises,  as  he  al- 
ways does,  with  a certain  amount  of  in- 
dignation about  the  ills  of  some  indi- 
vidual. He  is  very  much  enthused  over 
somebody  being  left  with  a foul  stain, 
and  he  regards  this  in  the  nature  of  a 
trial  held  in  the  criminal  court.  Now, 
that  is  not  the  way  the  matter  should 
be  regarded  for  a moment. 

We  all  know  that  there  are  a large 
number  of  things  which  relate  to  these 
matters  of  public  service  that  cannot 
be  specified  and  proved,  and  ought  not 
to  be  specified  and  proved.  If  the 
head  of  a department  believes  that  a 
man  in  his  employ  is  dishonest,  if  he 
believes  or  is  morally  convinced  that 
he  is  guilty  of  peculation,  theft  or  any 
other  thing  that  is  dishonest,  must  he 
wait  util  he  is  absolutely  sure  that  he 
has  committed  a theft  before  he  can 
discharge  him? 

If  the  head  of  a department  believes 
that  a certain  employe  is  inefficient, 
must  he  wait  until  he  can  demonstrate 


that  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  board, 
before  that  man  is  discharged?  Per- 
sonally, I say  no. 

If  you  have  an  eligible  list,  and  a 
man  to  fill  the  vacancy  must  be  select- 
ed from  that  list,  you  have  removed 
the  chief  cause  of  difficulty.  I know 
that  it  is  susceptible  of  abuse,  but  I 
also  know  that  the  opposite  view  is 
susceptible  of  greater  abuse.  When 
you  have  a situation  where  you  must 
prove  certain  charges  on  a man,  and 
where  you  must  take  a formal  trial  be- 
fore the  civil  service  commission,  as  a 
commission,  and  where  you  have  to  drag 
before  that  commission  the  associates 
of  the  employes,  the  fellow  employes 
of  the  man  who  is  being  discharged, 
and  disorganize  a department  for  days, 
and  maybe  weeks,  as  has  been  done 
sometimes — we  have  seen  that  done  in 
this  city  time  and  time  again — in  order 
to  prove  that  a man  should  be  dis- 
charged from  the  public  service,  that  is 
a greater  evil  than  the  other  thing. 

Now,  I am  saying  these  things  from 
the  standpoint  of  a man  who  believes 
absolutely  in  the  principles  of  civil 
service  reform,  but  I say  to  you  that 
all  over  this  country,  starting  with  the 
national  commission  of  civil  service  re- 
form and  going  down  to  nearly  every 
civil  service  commission  in  that  state, 
that  men  who  are  officially  connected 
with  the  advocacy  of  this  policy,  and 
associations  formed  to  promote  them, 
believe  that  this  is  the  correct  princi- 
ple to  adopt.  I don’t  believe  that.  I 
think  the  present  proceeding  before 
the  house  doesn’t  go  that  far.  This 
proceeding  or  proposition  that  is  be- 
fore the  house  merely  changes  the  ex- 
isting law  so  that  the  employe  must 
ask  for  an  investigation,  and  allows  the 
commission'  to  investigate,  or  to  ap- 
point somebody  else  to  investigate.  I 
i see  no  objection  whatever,  if  that  is  to 
j be  the  principle  to  be  adopted,  why 
Mr.  McGoortv  provided  in  that  section 
I to  which  he  alone  talked  with  any 


February  22 


979 


1907 


definiteness  and  specifically  that  be- 
fore the  body  appointed  to  make  the 
investigation  discharges  the  employe 
he  shall  be  put  on  his  own  defense  and 
put  in  his  defense  if  he  wants  to.  But, 
of  course,  that  would  never  be  raised 
were  that  right  ever  insisted  upon.  In 
the  case  of  investigation,  if  he  asks 
for  an  investigation  he  has  the  right 
to  be  called  in  his  own  defense  if  he 
wants  to.  I cannot  see  any  reason 
why,  if,  as  a matter  of  fact,  anybody 
believes  that,  that  proposition  should 
not  be  inserted,  that  involves  the  ques- 
tion invoked  by  Mr.  O’Donnell.  It 
does  not  go  as  far  as  the  present  civil 
service  laws  in  this  country. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chairman, 

may  I ask:  Is  it  the  effect  of  Mr.  Rob- 
ins’ amendment  to  shift  the  burden  of 
proof  on  to  the  accused? 

MR.  FISHER:  I so  understand  it. 

MR.  ROBINS:  That  is  so,  Mr.  Chair- 

man. That  is  the  object  of  the  amend- 
ment. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  That  is  to  say, 

then,  that  if  he  fails  to  prove  that  the 
officer  did  wrong  in  removing  him  he 
stands  out. 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  if  he  fails  to 

prove  that  he  stands  out.  That  can  be 
remedied  by  inserting  that  he  shall  be 
heard  in  his  own  defense  if  anybody 
has  any  doubt  of  that  right. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I want  to  say 

a word  in  regard  to  that  question  of 
public  service,  the  front  and  the  back 
of  it.  I think  they  both  ought  to  be 
guarded.  I do  not  think  I am  entirely 
visionary  or  a theorist,  or  out  of  accord 
with  persons  who  are  interested  in 
these  questions,  or  have  interested 
themselves  in  the  civil  service  in  taking 
that  position.  It  is  assumed  that  an 
officer  ought  to  have  a right  to  dis- 
charge an  employe  that  has  demoralized 
a department;  but  when  the  fact  ex- 
ists that  it  is  probable  that  the  political 
power  that  the  head  of  a department 
would  have  over  an  employe  by  reason 


of  his  ability  to  remove  or  by  reason 
of  the  burden  being  shifted  on  to  the 
employe  to  prove  a removal  improper, 
it  would  be  a greater  evil  than  it  is  at 
present  to  have  the  burden  on  the  head 
of  the  department  to  say  that  the  man 
should  not  be  retained.  In  other  words, 
I mean  an  employe  of  the  public  serv- 
ice will  say:  “I  know,  and  you  know 

very  well,  that  the  head  of  a depart- 
ment can  remove  me  in  a moment.  I 
know  further,  under  this  amendment, 
that  if  I am  removed  I will  have  to 
show  that  the  head  of  that  department 
has’ had  an  ulterior  and  improper  mo- 
tive.” That  is  the  exact  object  of  the 
amendment. 

Now,  then,  how  can  I show  that  the 
head  of  a department  had  an  ulterior 
or  improper  motive  by  proving  nega- 
tively that  I never  was  a horsethief? 
By  proving  negatively  and  going 
through  the  category  of  the  command- 
ments that  I have  not  been  guilty  of 
any  one  of  them;  by  covering  my  life 
from  beginning  to  end  to  show  that 
there  cannot  be  any  cause.  Is  it  not 
for  the  man  accusing  me  to  specify  how 
and  in  what  I am  wrong;  why  I can’t 
be  retained,  and  why  I was  removed? 
Otherwise,  where  is  my  security?  If  I 
am  to  establish  that  he  had  a wrong 
motive,  how  can  I do  it  except  by  trav- 
eling through  the  whole  list  of  good 
things  and  bad  things  and  proving  my- 
self in  every  particular  to  be  good. 
AVhy,  it  seems  to  me  it  is  the  height  of 
ridiculousness  for  a man  to  allege 
things  in  that  way.  He  is  fired — to  use 
a modern  expression — unless  he  can  call 
upon  the  head  of  a department  to  show 
his  motive  in  a particular  thing.  He 
stands  expelled  from  the  service,  if  you 
please,  unless  he  will  bring  an  accusing 
and  counter-charge  against  the  head  of 
the  department  and  prove  it.  If  he 
fails  in  that  he  will  stand  out;  he  will 
have  gone  from  the  service.  I don’t 
think  that  even  in  the  interests  of 
civil  service  we  ought  to  go  up  against 


February  22 


980 


1907 


that — if  I may  use  that  expression — 
the  inherited  wisdom  of  the  ages  com- 
ing down  to  us  to  protest  against  that. 
It  says  that  an  accuser,  that  an  accu- 
sation shall  be  made  specifically  and  sus- 
tained, and  the  burden  is  upon  the  ac- 
cuser and  never  upon  the  accused.  T 
don’t  think  I ought  to  be  compelled  to 
fight  shadows,  and,  what  is  more,  in 
the  public  service  I don’t  think  an  em- 
ploye should  be  compelled  continually 
to  fight  shadows.  I don’t  think  it  will 
be  for  the  good  of  the  department. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  May  I be  per- 

mitted to  say  just  a word  in  reply  to 
the  last  speaker?  I have  spoken  once 
before  on  this  question. 

(Cries  of  “Leave!”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN : By  unanimous 

consent. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  A reading  of 

this  section  will  show  that  this  section 
simply  means  that  it  makes  it  more 
specific  than  the  law  is  at  the  present 
time,  and  is  to  that  extent  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  employe;  at  the  same  time 
it  raises  no  question  about  the  burden 
of  proof,  as  the  old  law  did.  The  old 
law  gave  the  man  the  right  to  appear 
in  his  own  defence  in  the  manner  in 
which  he  did,  and  the  manner  in  which 
he  did  it  was  by  almost  universal  con- 
struction construed  in  this  way,  that 
the  burden  of  proof  was  upon  the  em- 
ployer and  not  upon  the  employe.  Now, 
the  law  as  drafted  at  the  present  time 
leaves  that  question  open  to  suit  the 
particular  case,  and  at  the  same  time 
provides  that  written  charges  must  be 
filed  and  specifications  made,  and  it  also 
specifies  the  number  of  days  within 
which  the  answer  shall  be  made. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  civil  service 
law  for  a minute.  The  whole  reason 
for  its  existence,  the  whole  reason  for 
bringing  it  into  being  was  that  it  was 
contended  that  our  civil  service  was 
like  the  service  of  any  business,  like 
the  service  of  any  large  business,  that 
a man  should  be  selected  not  for  polit- 


ical reasons,  but  for  reasons  of  merit, 
and  on  tests  of  merit.  Now,  what  is  the 
use  of  having  it  likened,  having  civil 
service  likened  to  a criminal  procedure, 
or  likened — the  civil  service  law  likened 
— to  the  operation  of  the  law  in  the 
criminal  court.  If  we  have  the  civil 
service  law,  let  us  liken  it  to  some 
large  business.  Would  you,  if  you 
wanted  to  discharge  several  employes 
in  your  business — say  it  was  a large, 
extensive  business — tolerate  that  we 
should  have,  or  that  you  should  have, 
the  sort  of  a trial  which  we  have  at 
the  present  time,  conducted  along  crim- 
inal lines,  have  a man  proven  guilty 
beyond  a reasonable  doubt?  It  is  not 
a question  of  guilt  or  innocence,  but  it 
is  a question  of  efficiency  and  inef- 
ficieicy,  and  you  cannot  prove  a man 
inefficient  in  the  same  way  that  you 
can  prove  a man  guilty  of  murder  be- 
yond a reasonable  doubt. 

It  seems  to  me  it  is  absolutely  sense- 
less to  have  that  sort  of  an  investiga- 
tion, to  have  the  sort  of  investigation 
that  we  are  having  at  times  now. 

Now,  the  last  speaker  has  spoken 
along  the  same  lines  and  in  the  same 
trend,  and  one  of  the  great  difficulties 
is  that  usually  the  most  incompetent 
man  who  is  about  to  be  discharged  will 
retain  an  astute  lawyer  like  Mr.  Green- 
acre,  who  will  consult  Greenleaf  on 
Evidence,  and  Whigmore  on  Evidence, 
and  bring  in  a dozen  volumes  of  Illi- 
nois Reports  to  show  what  evidence  is 
admissible  and  what  evidence  is  not 
admissible,  and  then  the  man  is  tried 
before  a commission  of  three,  only  one 
of  whom  is  a lawyer. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  He  doesn’t  have 
to  be  a lawyer.  All  you  have  to  have 
is  common  sense. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Does  that  go  to 

the  question  of  efficiency,  or  does  it  go 
to  the  question  of  Mr.  Greenacre’s  bril- 
liancy before  that  commission? 

And  very  often  we  find  instead  of  the 
employe  being  on  trial,  as  a matter  of 


February  22 


981 


1907 


fact  it  is  the  employer  or  the  depart- 
ment head  and  not  the  employe  who  is 
on  trial.  This  fact  must  be  borne  in 
mind,  that  no  law  will  work  well  irre- 
spective of  the  persons  who  are  going 
to  put  the  law  into  effect.  We  always 
will  in  the  last  analysis  have  to  rely 
upon  our  commission.  We  will  always 
have  in  the  last  analysis  to  rely  on  the 
mayor  and  the  heads  of  departments. 
You  cannot  frame  a law  which  will 
work  well  automatically.  Hence,  we 
have  to  look  after  our  commissioners 
and  after  our  heads  of  departments, 
and  that  was  the  purpose  of  putting  in 
this  law,  and  the  purpose  of  extending 
the  term  of  the  commissioner  to  six 
years,  so  that  no  one  mayor  during  his 
term  can  control  the  appointment  of 
that  full  commission. 

We  have  seen  in  this  city  wholly  in- 
efficient civil  service  commissions,  and 
those  commissions  have  made  forces  of 
trials  and  those  commissions  have  dis- 
charged employes  who  ought  not  to  have 
been  discharged.  But  that  was  not  the 
fault  of  the  law;  it  was  the  fault  of 
the  commission.  Therefore,  gentlemen 
and  Mr.  Chairman,  I contend  that  this 
draft  of  the  present  law  ought  to  stand. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Rosenthal,  I 

would  like  to  ask  you  a question:  Is 

there  a civil  service  law  in  force  now 
anywhere  that  gives  the  appointing 
power  the  right  to  remove  the  em- 
ploye? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  sir;  as  a 

matter  of  fact,  Mr.  Werno,  our  law  giv- 
ing the  form  of  trial  which  it  does,  is 
an  exception  to  almost  every  civil  serv- 
ice law  in  the  country,  and  it  is  called 
the  “ Chicago  System.” 

MR.  POST:  It  seems  to  me  that  Mr. 
Rosenthal’s  argument  might  be  very 
strongly  applied  to  the  proposition  that 
there  should  be  no  civil  service  merit 
system  at  all.  The  business  house 
analogy  leads  directly  to  that  conclu- 
sion. It  is  quite  true  that  business 
houses  would  not  expect  to  put  men  on 


trial  and  give  them  any  kind  of  a hear- 
ing in  legal  form,  and  it  is  also  true 
that  a business  house  would  not  put  a 
man  on  examination  by  the  commission 
before  it  was  determined  whether  he 
would  come  in  or  not. 

MR.  FISHER:  Many  of  them  do. 

MR.  POST:  The  point  I wish  to 

make  is  that  the  system  of  public  em- 
ployment that  is  radically  different 
from  our  system  is  advocated.  The  evil 
that  was  framed  by  the  civil  service 
laws  we  are  trying  to  bring  here  is  the 
mixing  of  politics  with  the  efficient  ad- 
ministration of  matters  public  with 
matters  that  are  political.  It  was  found 
that  men  were  appointed  for  political 
reasons,  and  not  for  others,  and  that 
they  were  dismissed  for  political  rea- 
sons, and  not  for  others;  and  I have 
understood  that  some  very  good  men 
have  been  appointed  and  dismissed  on 
those  grounds.  I can  recall — very  dim- 
ly, it  is  true — but  can  recall  that  even 
Republican  administrations  have  been 
known  to  appoint  men  for  political  rea- 
sons and  dismiss  them  for  political  rea- 
sons, and,  of  course,  the  Democrats  al- 
ways have. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  has  been  a 
motion  here,  and  it  has  been  mentioned 
that  there  are  two  doors  to  the  civil 
service  employment — one  is  the  en- 
trance door  and  the  other  is  the  exit 
door.  Some  civil  service  men  and  Mr. 
Fisher,  as  I understand,  are  defending 
that  position  favoring  a strict  guarding 
of  the  entrance  door  and  leaving  the 
other  open.  Some,  I believe,  advocate 
leaving  the  entrance  door  open  and 
guarding  the  other.  It  seems  to  me, 
if  you  are  going  to  leave  either  door 
open,  it  is  better  to  guard — it  is  better 
to  leave  the  entrance  door  open  and 
guard  the  exit  door;  and  it  is,  I think, 
of  the  highest  degree  of  importance 
that  when  men  are  in  the  civil  service 
that  they  should  not  feel  that  they  have 
to  be  looking  for  political  fences  all  the 
time,  they  should  feel  when  they  are  in 


February  22 


982 


1907 


there  that  the3r  can  only  be  put  out  upon 
civil  service  grounds,  not  upon  polit- 
ical grounds,  or  grounds  that  are  kin- 
dred politically. 

On  the  question  of  trial,  which  is  the 
point  immediately  under  consideration 
here,  I disagree  utterly  with  the  gentle- 
man who  placed  in  analogy  to  that  a 
trial  upon  criminal  charges,  or  even  a 
property  right  trial.  There  is  no  ques- 
tion of  property  right  involved  here 
or  civil  rights.  No  employe  has  any 
property  right  in  his  office;  no  employe 
has  any  property  right  in  his  employ- 
ment; nor  is  there  any  civil  right  in- 
volved. The  question  is  absolutely  a 
question  of  the  efficiency  of  the  serv- 
ice, and  what  we  want  is  a system 
where  we  can  guard  the  efficiency  of 
the  service  both  as  to  admission  and 
expulsion  from  the  service.  I sup- 
pose the  only  way  is  to  avoid  politics 
in  the  appointment  in  the  first  place, 
so  that  when  an  employe  comes  in  he 
will  feel  safe  and  not  be  obliged  to  lay 
his  political  fences  then. 

Now,  I understand  that  objection  has 
been  raised  to  the  law  when  an  attempt 
is  made  to  bring  a man  before  the  com- 
mission. When  the  ease  is  before  the 
commission  a man  is  charged  with  an 
offense;  that  is,  a man  from  whom  prop- 
erty is  to  be  taken,  and  who  is  inter- 
ested, that  the  case  must  be  made  out 
against  him.  Mr.  Robins  proposes,  on 
the  other  hand,  that  there  should  be  the 
right  of  removal  for  no  other  than  civil 
service  reasons,  and  that  a statement 
shall  be  made  in  writing  of  the  specific 
grounds  of  removal,  and  that  it  shall 
not  operate  as  to  removal  unless  the 
person  removed  objects  to  it,  and  that 
he  shall  then  specify  his  grounds  of  ob- 
jection and  for  a trial,  and  that  the 
burden  should  be  on  him  to  show  that 
he  is  removed  for  other  than  civil  serv- 
ice reasons. 

It  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  per- 
fectly easy  for  a man  if  he  were  re- 
moved for  political  or  kindred  reasons 


to  show  that  he  was  removed  for  other 
than  civil  service  reasons,  and  that  it 
is  proper  not  to  put  the  burden  upon 
him  for  many  reasons,  ones  that 
would  be  avoided  in  case  of  trial,  and 
a man  who  knows  that  he  should  be  re- 
moved would  not  be  very  apt  to  demand 
a trial,  because  it  would  seem  feasible 
to  him  that  the  head  of  the  department 
would  be  able  to  make  out  a prima 
facie  case.  But  when  a man  who  knew 
he  had  been  removed  for  political  rea- 
sons, or  been  removed  for  other  than 
civil  service  reasons,  would  be  easily 
able  to  prove  that  he  had  been  re- 
moved for  other  than  civil  service  rea- 
sons, and  that  man  could  make  his  stand 
before  the  proper  commission  at  a trial 
and  prove  that  he  had  been  dismissed 
for  other  than  civil  service  reasons. 
Now,  it  is  for  that  reason,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  I am  in  favor  of  Mr.  Robins  ’ 
motion,  or  Mr.  Robin’s  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question  on  Mr.  Robin’s  amend- 
ment? 

MR.  BURKE:  As  a substitute  for 

Mr.  Robins’  motion,  I desire  to  offer 
the  present  act  of  the  present  law,  Sec- 
tion 12.  I haven’t  it  here,  but  it  is  a 
redraft — that  the  committee  redraft 
the  present  section  of  the  present  civil 
service  law  in  the  City  of  Chicago,  not 
a state  law.  On  that  subject  I would 
just  like  to  say  a word. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Burke 

moves  as  a substitute  for  the  entire 
matter  that  Section  12,  the  present  act 
relating  to  removals,  the  present  act  in 
the  present  civil  service  law,  be  substi- 
tuted for  the  one  as  printed. 

MR.  BURKE:  I do  not  wish  to  take 

up  the  time  of  the  Convention  to  speak 
upon  this  matter  for  any  length  of  time. 
It  has  been  threshed  out  pretty  thor- 
oughly. I can  remember  my  friend,  Mr. 
Fisher,  down  at  the  civil  service  com- 
mittee; I remember  his  being  before 
the  civil  service  committee  at  Spring- 
field,  of  which  I had  the  pleasure  of 


February  22 


983 


1907 


being  a member;  and  I can  also  remem- 
ber men  of  considerable  public  spirit 
promoting  a law  similar  to  this;  and  I 
can  also  look  back  to  1895,  when  the 
late  John  H.  Hamline  spent  the  greater 
part  of  his  time  passing  the  present 
law.  This  law  could  not  pass  that  legis- 
lature, and  the  late  Mr.  Hamline,  to 
whom  general  credit  is  given  on  ac- 
count of  the  present  law,  was  com- 
pelled, in  order  that  this  law  might 
pass,  to  have  it  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple of  the  City  of  Chicago  and  every 
other  city  which  wished  to  adopt  the 
same  law.  The  law  was  submitted  to 
the  people  of  Chicago,  and  up  to  the 
present  time  it  has  been  in  effect.  I 
have  listened  patiently  for  a real  argu- 
ment, warranting  any  change  in  the 
present  law.  It  is  true  enough  that 
certain  gentlemen  have  taken  the  floor 
and  said:  “Well,  if  the  head  of  the 

department  cannot  run  his  department, 
he  has  no  control  whatever.  He  has 
not  the  ability  to  discipline  his  men.” 
We  have  been  going  on  some  twelve 
or  fourteen  years  under  the  present  law, 
and  not  an  instance  has  been  pointed 
out  by  any  member  of  this  Convention 
as  a reason  why  a change  should  be 
made. 


I am  as  honest  and  sincere  as  any 
gentleman  taking  the  floor  in  behalf  of 
the  motion  of  Mr.  Rosenthal,  or  the 
other  gentleman,  Mr.  Robins.  I be- 
lieve, gentlemen,  in  protecting,  in  so 
far  as  we  can,  a faithful  employe.  I 
do  not  feel — and  it  makes  little  differ- 
ence to  me  whether  any  change  is  made 
in  this  building  April  next — I am  not 
making  a living  from  politics — but  I 
can  say,  if  there  is  any  change  in  this 
building,  that  the  men  performing  the 
services  for  the  people  in  this  building, 
and  for  the  people  outside  of  this  build- 
nig,  should  be  protected.  I believe 
that  the  only  way  in  which  they  can  be 
protected  is  to  tie  the  hands  of  the 
man  that  may  be  elected  mayor. 

T feel  that  that  should  be  so,  that  we 


should  tie  the  hands  of  the  head  of  the 
department  and  not  let  the  next  mayor 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  build  up  a ma- 
chine legalized  by  the  gentlemen  or  in- 
dorsed by  you  and  legalized  by  the 
legislature. 

I believe  in  a square  deal,  as  the 
President  of  the  United  States  has  said, 
a square  deal  for  all,  is  only  fair  to 
these  people  who  are  devoting  their  en- 
ergy and  their  time  to  us,  the  people. 
What  harm  has  ever  come  from  a public 
hearing?  Is  it  not  a fact  that  the  pub- 
lic hearings  before  the  Civil  Service 
Commissioners  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
have  been  the  cause, — one  of  the  causes, 
at  least,  for  the  good  administration  of 
the  civil  service  and  the  fact  that  the 
people  of  Chicago  have  an  opportunity 
of  knowing  what  is  doing,  so  to  speak. 
Now,  is  it  fair  to  take  the  heads  of 
the  departments  into  the  back  room  of 
the  mayor ’s  office  and  say,  1 1 Smith  or 
Jones  failed  to  carry  his  precinct  yes- 
terday, he  is  inefficient.  Brown  carried 
his.  Let  us  substitute  Brown  for 
Smith”? 

I submit,  gentlemen,  in  all  fairness, 
without  taking  up  any  further  time  of 
this  convention,  that  the  motion  I made 
should  be  adopted. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Just  a word.  It  seems 

to  me  that  most  of  the  speakers  are 
losing  sight  of  the  important  question 
in  this  matter,  and  that  is  good  public 
service;  by  providing  an  examination,  we 
probably  have  the  best  method  of  secur- 
ing employes  in  the  first  instance,  and 
that  does  away  with  the  political  spoils 
system. 

A man  enters  the  service,  and  if  he  is 
in  the  service  for  six  months  we  can 
then  tell  whether  he  should  be  retained 
or  discharged.  If  he  becomes  a perma- 
nent employe  and  afterwards  becomes  in- 
competent there  is  authority  given  for 
the  head  of  the  department  to  remove 
j him,  and  in  removing  him  he  must  file 
written  charges  specifically  setting  forth 
I the  cause  for  which  he  is  removed;  then 


February  22 


984 


1907 


he  has  an  opportunity  to  reply,  if  he  i 
wants  to,  and  justice  has  been  done 
him ; and  again  upon  written  request 
for  an  investigation  the  commission  must 
investigate.  It  ought  to  be  a very  easy 
matter,  if  the  specific  charges  are  un- 
true, for  the  employe  to  be  able  to  prove 
that.  1 think,  therefore,  that  Mr.  Rob- 
ins ’ motion,  added  to  the  other  parts 
of  the  section  as  drawn,  is  eminently 
fair  in  every  particular  and  will  work 
out  justice  both  to  the  public  service 
and  to  the  employe,  and  I think  that 
his  motion  ought  to  prevail. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  This  report  of  the 

committee  as  it  now  comes  to  us  is  in 
itself  really  a compromise.  The  provis- 
ions of  the  civil  service  law  for  Cook 
county  as  worked  out  by  the  representa- 
tive conference  provided  that  the  com- 
missioner— that  the  commission,  in  its 
discussion  investigate  any  removal  or  re- 
duction, and  shall  investigate  only  in  such 
cases  where  it  has  reason  to  believe  that 
there  is  some  good  cause  for  investi- 
gation. 

In  other  words,  the  1905  Cook  county 
law  provides  that  the  commission  may 
or  may  not,  in  its  discretion,  investi- 
gate a particular  case  of  removal,  but  by 
no  means  requires  in  any  case  such  in- 
vestigation shall  be  made.  That  Cook 
county  civil  service  law  was  considered 
again  this  year  at  the  representative  con- 
ference, composed  of  men  like  Mr.  Ed- 
gar L.  Bancroft,  Merritt  Starr,  Western 
Starr,  Edgar  Tolman,  Mr.  Eckhart,  Mr. 
Handy,  and  others  of  the  Cook  county 
civil  service  commission. 

They  recommend  that  the  civil  service 
commission  should  under  no  circum- 
stances, be  required  to  institute  inves- 
tigations against  its  own  will — merely 
that  they  might  make  an  investigation 
if  they  saw  fit  in  their  discretion.  That 
is  the  principle  adopted  by  universities, 
and  that  is  the  principle  adopted  by  the 
Illinois  civil  service  laws  and  the  Wis- 
consin civil  service  laws.  Neither  re- 
quire any  investigation ; they  leave  it  to 


the  option  of  the  board  or  the  commis- 
sion, if  they  see  fit  to  investigate.  They 
do  not  denfand  that  they  make  an  in- 
vestigation. I think  Mr.  Young  pointed 
out  that  the  bill  under  consideration  in 
this  case  recommends  in  the  interests 
of  the  employe,  and  the  interests  of 
the  public,  the  commission,  in  order  to 
secure  efficiency  of  service  and  to  have 
a guarantee  and  check,  should  do  this. 
The  thing  Mr.  Burke  refers  to,  that  a 
man  may  be  put  out  because  he  doesn’t 
carry  the  district,  or  simply  will  be  put 
in  because  he  carries  the  district,  is  not 
applicable,  because  the  obvious  objection 
is  that  the  man  must  be  able  to  qualify, 
and  if  he  is  not  qualified  he  cannot  get 
in.  If  he  doesn’t  pass  the  examination, 
and  pass  it  first,  he  doesn’t  get  the  po- 
sition. That  seems  to  me  to  be  a suffi- 
cient safeguard  against  ruthless  inter- 
ference and  unfair  removal  of  city  em- 
ployes. 

On  the  other  hand,  as  the  old  law 
now  stands,  you  have  very  serious  dan- 
ger that  the  service  is  retained  by  men 
who  are  ‘ i safe”;  they  are  safe  in  what? 
That  they  cannot  be  removed.  Under 
that  principle  we  are  apt  to  perpetuate 
an  inefficiency. 

(Cries  of  question.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Robins’ — 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I wish  to 

make  a request  as  to  the  order  of  voting. 
Unless  we  adopt  a certain  line  of  voting, 
we  shall  not  bring  out  the  real  sense 
of  the  convention.  I ask  that  Mr.  Rob- 
ins’ motion  be  put  first  for  that  rea- 
son; that  Mr.  Robins’  motion  be 
put  first,  and  Mr.  Burke ’s  motion 
as  a substitute  for  the  draft. 
Mr.  Robins  ’ proposition  should  be  put 
first,  as  that  is  a radical  change  in  both, 
and  then  the  best  sense  of  the  convention 
will  be  obtained.  I think  you  should 
proceed  in  that  order.  > 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal. 


February  22 


985 


1907 


For  what  purpose  did  Mr.  Rosenthal 
arise  ? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Let  me  suggest 

something  in  reference  to  Mr.  Robins’ 
motion  before  you  decide  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal, 

you  have  discussed  the  question. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : I don ’t  want  to 

discuss  it,  but  after  consultation  with  the 
gentlemen,  including  Mr.  Robins  and  Mr. 
Young,  Mr.  Robins  is  willing  to  with- 
draw his  motion  and  have  inserted  after 
the  word  “investigation”  in  the  16th 
line,  No.  12:  “In  the  course  of  which 

any  such  person  sought  to  be  removed, 
shall  be  given  an  opportunity  to  be 
heard.  ’ ’ 

Now,  that  presents  the  whole  matter 
before  the  convention;  that  brings  the 
whole  matter  before  the  house,  and  it 
seems  to  me,  if  it  is  so  amended,  it  will 
be  satisfactory  to  most  everybody,  and 
we  can  all  vote  on  that  first. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Burke’s 

amendment  has  the  right  of  way,  unless 
he  cares  to  waive  his  right  of  way. 
The  chair  will  be  willing  to  do  that  in 
regard  to  the  roll  call. 

MR.  BURKE : I will  waive  my  right 

of  way  as  far  as  the  roll  call  is  concerned 
to  allow  Mr.  Robins’  motion. 

MR.  POST:  If  Mr.  Robins’  motion 

is  changed  in  that  way,  I will  withdraw 
my  request. 

(Cries  of  question.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  RITTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  just 

one  moment.  So  we  may  vote  intelli- 
gently, that  last  amendment,  does  that 
provide  merely  that  the  employes  shall 
be — after  he  is  discharged,  shall  have 
the  right  to  appear  personally,  or  does 
it  mean  that  he  shall  have  the  right  to 
present  his  side  of  the  case?  As  the 
law  is  now,  it  provides  that  he  shall 
have  the  right  to  present  his  side  of 
the  case.  Does  this  provide  that  he  shall 
have  the  right  to  be  personally  there 
and  appear  in  his  own  behalf? 


MR.  ROBINS:  There  is  no  doubt 

about  that;  there  is  no  doubt  about  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  vote 

in  favor  of  Mr.  Robins’  amendment,  sig- 
nify same  by  saying  aye — 

MR.  RITTER:  As  changed  by  Mr. 

Rosenthal? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  changed  by 

Mr.  Rosenthal.  As  many  as  favor  Mr. 
Robins’  amendment  as  changed  by  Mr. 
Rosenthal,  signify  by  saying  aye;  op- 
posed, no.  It  is  carried. 

The  question  now  is  upon  Mr.  Burke ’s 
substitute  for  the  entire  matter,  and  up- 
on that  the  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Burke,  Greenacre,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Ritter,  Zimmer — 6. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.,  Eckliart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann, 
Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hunter, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan, 
Merriam,  Michaelis,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Post,  Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Seth- 
ness,  Shepard,  Snow,  Taylor,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  White,  Young — 34. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  inquire  how  I am  recorded  on 
this  vote. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Badenoch,  aye. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  I want  to  vote  no 

on  Mr.  Burke’s  motion. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Badenoch,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Burke’s 
motion,  the  yeas  are  6 and  the  nays  34. 
The  motion  is  lost.  The  secretary  will 
continue  reading  by  numbers. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  propose  an  amendment  to  sec- 
tion 12 : “ Such  suspension  shall  be  with- 

out pay,  provided,  however,  that  said 
commission,  in  case  of  a disapproval, 
may  direct  that  pay  shall  be  restored.  ’ ’ 
It  seems  to  me  that  this  might  be  made 
a means  by  some  head  of  a department 
to  persecute  some  disliked  employe,  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  quite  proper 
that  in  case  that  a man  does  prove  the 
charges  against  the  head  of  a depart- 
ment, that  the  pay  should  be  restored,  and 


February  22 


986 


1907 


I move  that  the  word  ‘ 1 may  ’ ’ shall  be 
changed  to  “shall”. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : What  is  that  mo- 

tion? 

MR.  BADENOCH:  “Such  suspension 

shall  be  without  pay,  provided,  however, 
that  said  commission,  in  case  of  a dis- 
approval, shall  direct  that  pay  shall  be 
restored.  ’ ’ 

MR,  McGOORTY : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

wish  to  rise  to  a point  of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  point 
of  order? 

MR.  McGOORTY : As  I understand 

it,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Robins  is  now  be- 
fore the  house  for  consideration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  of 

Mr.  Robins  is  carried. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Very  well. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  is  a provision  that  is 
desirable.  The  point  raised  by  Alder- 
man Badenoch  would  be  passed  upon  by 
the  commission,  and  would  naturally  be 
passed  upon  by  the  commission.  What  in 
a great  many  cases  we  now  encounter 
is  where  the  council  is  called  upon  and 
ordered  to  pay  a man  during  suspension. 
I think  there  is  a provision  in  the 
charter  as  printed,  and  I move  that  the 
provisions  stand  as  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

Alderman  Bennett’s  motion.  All  those 
in  favor  of  the  same  signify  the  same  by 
saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  Carried. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  as  an  amendment,  that  the  draft- 
ing committee  in  this  act,  fix  the  num- 
ber of  the  commission,  as  provided  for — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that 

again,  please? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  the  drafting 

committee  fix  the  number  of  the  civil  ser- 
vice commission.  You  must  provide  for 
the  appointment  of  a civil  service  com- 
mission before  you  have  civil  service. 

MR.  ROBINS:  That  is  in  another 

section. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Another  section, 

you  say? 


MR.  FISHER : The  first  section  pro- 

vides that. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  No,  it  does  not. 

This  is  a matter  that  doesn ’t  require 
any  discussion. 

MR.  FISHER : Mr.  Chairman,  there 

is  a provision  in  regard  to  the  appoint- 
ment. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  No,  there  is  not. 

MR.  FISHER:  Page  72,  Article  YI, 

section  3.  It  is  expressly  provided  for 
there  that  they  shall  be  appointed  by 
the  mayor — 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  is  ambiguous. 

It  does  not  refer  to  the  civil  service  com- 
mission at  all. 

MR.  BURKE:  Let  us  find  out  some- 

thing about  that. 

MR,  FISHER:  I don’t  know  where 

there  is  any  ambiguity  in  it,  if  the  gen- 
tleman will  hear  it  read;  I cannot  see 
any  ambiguity  in  it.  It  says : ‘ ‘ All 

officers  of  the  city,  except  as  expressly 
otherwise  provided,  shall  be  appointed  by 
the  mayor.  ’ ’ I don ’t  see  how  you  can 
twist  that  into  any  ambiguity. 

MR.  SHEPARD : But  there  is  no  such 
office. 

MR.  FISHER : It  expressly  says,  ‘ ‘ all 

officers  of  the  city”. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  chair  doesn’t 
see  any  reason  for  debate.  It  won ’t 
hurt  it  if  it  is  put  in  the  charter  that 
the  mayor  shall  appoint,  and  the  num- 
ber shall  be  provided  for. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I object  to  having 

so  much  interruption  while  I have  the 
floor.  This  seems  to  be  a trivial  matter. 
You  must  provide  for  the  appointment 
of  a civil  service  commission,  if  we  are 
going  to  have  civil  service ; I therefore 
move  that  the  drafting  committee  ap- 
point or  provide  for  the  number  and  the 
manner  of  appointing  such  commission. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  ob- 

jection? 

MR.  HUNTER : I second  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  motion  say  aye;  opposed,  no. 

I It  is  carried. 


February  22 


987 


1907 


MR,  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  edi- 
tor’s notes  at  the  end  of  sections  9 and 
10  and  34  and  37,  as  misleading,  use- 
less and  harmful  in  their  operations. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I second  the  mo- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  mo- 

tion? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Amend  by  striking 

out  the  editor’s  notes  at  the  end  of  sec- 
tions 9 and  10  and  34  and  37.  Nine  is 
a sort  of  caption.  It  is  evidently  a cap- 
tion for  the  guidance  of  the  committee, 
from  the  words  of  the  statutes  of  the 
state.  Thirty-four  is  unnecessary,  those 
words. 

MR.  FioHER : But  you  want  them 

all  out,  don’t  you? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  1 understand 

they  are  supposed  to  be  out.  If  there 
is  no  objection,  in  the  second  print  they 
will  be  dropped. 

MR.  RITTER:  Does  this  law,  this 

section  6,  provide  a method  by  which  an 
employe  may  be  retained  in  the  service 
during  the  investigation  of  his  case? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal, 

there  is  a question  asked  you  of  your 
committee. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I didn’t  hear 

that. 

MR.  RITTER:  Does  this  law,  as  now 

drafted,  prevent  the  retention  of  an  em- 
ploye in  the  service  pending  investiga- 
tion of  his  case  ? As  I read  it  now,  sus- 
pension is  required.  Now,  that  works  a 
hardship  on  the  public  funds,  as  we 
have  had  experience  in  the  board  of  edu- 
cation where  an  employe  has  been  sus- 
pended during  trial  and  later  on  has  been 
found  to  be  innocent,  and  in  the  mean- 
time another  employe  has  held  the  same 
position,  we  have  been  required  to  pro- 
vide double  pay.  That  has  been  signifi- 
cant. In  such  cases  it  has  almost  inva- 
riably been  a temporary  employe  has 
been  employed  and  not  a man  from  the 
classified  list.  You  can  very  readily  see 
that  a man  would  not  give  up  a regular 


job  to  take  a temporary  position.  The 
question  is,  will  this  require  in  every 
case  double  pay?  I think  the  way  I 
read  it,  it  does.  I think  if  the  law  is 
so  framed  the  present  drafting  commit- 
tee can  very  readily  prepare  something  to 
take  care  of  that  condition. 

MR.  BENNETT:  That  is  a point  to 

be  passed  on  on  Alderman  Badenoch ’s 
motion. 

MR.  RITTER : I do  not  so  under- 

stand it. 

MR.  BENNETT : The  motion  pro- 

vides that  a man  shall  be  paid  during 
the  time  of  suspension. 

MR.  RITTER:  That  takes  care  of 

the  man,  but  I want  to  take  care  of  the 
public  funds.  There  are  occasions  where 
charges  are  brought  against  a public  offi- 
cer, and  we  have  had  them  in  the  board 
of  education,  where  charges  are  made 
and  found  to  be  unfounded,  and  the  em- 
ployes put  back  with  pay.  I think  the 
law  should  provide  some  way  that  in- 
vestigations should  be  had  and  the  em- 
ploye allowed  to  remain  at  work  during 
that  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Isn ’t  that  within 

the  power  of  the  civil  service  commis- 
sion? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  This  does  not 

make  suspension  compulsory,  but  this 
provides  that  if  it  is  found  necessary  to 
suspend  in  order  not  to  demoralize  the 
service  of  the  department,  that  that  man 
should  not  be  in  the  service,  and  if 
there  is  reason  for  his  removal,  if  it 
would  be  demoralizing  for  the  service  to 
retain  that  man  in  his  position  during 
that  time,  that  power  be  given  to  sus- 
pend the  appointment. 

MR.  FISHER:  Where  is  that? 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  says  li notice  of 

such  suspension  ’ ’. 

MR.  FISHER : It  doesn ’t  say  any 

place  he  may  be  suspended.  There  is 
an  implication  he  may  be  suspended.  On 
the  other  point  Mr.  Ritter  makes,  I do 
not  think  has  been  answered. 


February  22 


988 


1907 


MR.  BURKE : Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

ask  the  gentleman  to  refer  to  page  81, 
section  12:  “Such  suspension  shall  be 

without  pay;  provided,  however,  that  said 
commission,  in  case  of  a disapproval,  may 
direct  that  pay  shall  be  restored.  ’ ’ 

MR.  RITTER:  Which  is  always  the 

case;  or  it  is  usual,  if  not  always  the 
case,  where  a man  is  found  not  guilty 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  question 

has  been  passed  upon,  Mr.  Ritter,  by 
this  convention. 

MR.  ROBINS:  No,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  the  chair  could 
get  this  variety  of  questions  he  would 
be  more  correct. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

you  that  the  drafting  committee  be  so 
instructed  to  so  draft  this  section  that 
the  appointing  officer  shall  have  power 
either  to  suspend  or  not,  during — pend- 
ing the  charges  and  trial. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Here  is  the  case  of  a 

janitor  against  whom  there  is  no  com- 
plaint as  to  his  work.  So  far  as  he  is 
a janitor,  he  is  a good  janitor,  and  there 
is  no  cause  for  removal,  but  so  far  as 
the  children  in  the  school  are  concerned 
there  may  be  cause  for  removal.  It  is 
necessary  to  substitute  a man  for  him. 
The  man  would  have  to  be  substituted  on 
Salary,  and  the  salary  of  the  other  man 
would  go  on  at  the  same  time.  This 
extra  cost  is  in  my  opinion  unwise. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  All  those  in  fa- 
vor of  Mr.  Robins’  motion  signify  the 
same  by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 
It  is  carried. 

Proceed.  Mr.  Lathrop  has  an  amend- 
ment. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman,  be- 

fore the  second  amendment  is  passed  on 
I wish  to  have  an  amendment  read 
which  I have  handed  up  to  the  clerk ’s 
table. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  La- 
throp: Amend  section  11  of  article  7 

by  inserting  the  words  “superintendent 
of  parks  ’ ’ after  the  word  * 1 schools  ’ ’, 
in  the  fourth  line. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  exempts 

the  superintendent  of  the  parks  from 
the  operation  of  the  civil  service  law, 
I believe. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Yes.  As  I under- 

stood the  chairman  of  the  rules  and  pro- 
cedure committee,  he  is  in  favor  of  this. 
It  is  evident  that  the  park  commission- 
ers should  be  allowed  to  select  the  best 
men  to  be  found  in  the  country  for 
the  very  important  position  of  superin- 
tendent of  parks;  as  important  as  it  is 
for  the  school  board  to  be  free  to  select 
a superintendent  of  schools  and  teach- 
ers. I therefore  move  the  adoption  of 
this  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  All  those  in  favor  signify 
the  same  by  saying  aye ; opposed,  no. 
It  is  carried.  The  secretary  will  pro- 
ceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  82,  13. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  I would  like 

to  have  this  section  read.  I have  an 
amendment  to  it  which  I should  like  to 
have  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  J.  W. 

Eckhart:  page  81,  5th  line,  section  11, 

after  the  word  ‘ 1 city ’ ’,  strike  out  the 
words  “members  of  the  law  depart- 
ment. ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  brings  the 

law  department  under  the  civil  service. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  Some  of  the 

ideas  of  the  council  conference  commit- 
tee have  been  talked  of  here,  and  they 
have  placed  another  bill  that  the  so- 
called  assistant  state’s  attorneys  should 
be  put  under  the  civil  service.  There 
is  no  reason  I know  of  that  the  city 
law  department  should  be  exempted,  un- 
less lawyers  are  different  from  any  other 
profession.  There  is  no  reason  why  the 
lawyers  should  not  be  perfectly  willing 
to  come  under  it  as  the  physicians.  There 
is  no  reason  why  the  law  department 
should  not  be  under  the  civil  service. 

MR.  COLE : I have  been  sitting  here 

all  these  days  listening  to  one  or  the 
other  of  you  making  exemptions  in  the 


February  22 


989 


1907 


civil  service  law,  and  now  I am  glad  to 
be  able  to  vote  in  favor  of  adding 
something. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  motion — 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I don’t  know 

what  the  method  would  be  here,  but  I 
think  the  lawyers  who  have  had  practical 
experience  in  this  matter — I * think  it 
would  be  a mistake  to  put  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  law  department  under  civil 
service.  It  may  be  that  upon  investiga- 
tion we  might  approve  that  the  clerks 
in  the  office  might  be,  but  hardly  the 
persons  at  the  head  of  the  department. 
I do  not  believe  they  are  quite  suited 
for  it. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  The  head  of 

the  department  should  be. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  “Question”.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  who 

favor  the  proposition  of  Mr.  J.  W.  Eck- 
hart,  placing  the  members  of  the  law 
department  under  civil  service,  will  sig- 
nify the  same  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Brosseau,  Cole,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Greenacre,  Linehan,  Post,  Ritter,  Shan- 
ahan, Shepard,  Snow — 10. 

Nays  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eidmann, 
Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hunter, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  McGoorty, 
Merriam,  Michaelis,  O ’Donnell,  Owens, 
Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Sethness, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  White,  Young,  Zimmer 
—28. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

should  be  in  favor  of  the  law  clerks 
being  placed  under  civil  service,  but  not 
putting  the  people  who  assist  the  cor- 
poration counsel  or  the  city  attorney. 
I do  not  believe  they  are  proper  persons 
for  that  operation.  I think  that  the 


board  under  the  classification  could  de- 
termine that,  and  should  determine  the 
men  you  exempt  in  every  department. 
That  principle  could  not  be  put  in  any 
such  broad  form  as  this  proposition  pro- 
vides. I therefore  vote  no. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  If  the  examina- 

tions of  the  civil  service  department  are 
not  calculated  to  find  out  which  is  the 
best  lawyer,  they  ought  to  change  the 
examinations.  I vote  aye. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

might  be  proper  to  exempt  all  lawyers 
from  voting  on  this  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  chair  can- 

not agree  with  the  gentleman ’s  views  on 
the  disfranchisement  of  the  lawyers. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  vote  is  10 

ayes  and  28  nays,  and  the  motion  is 
lost. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  to  in- 

sert after  the  words  1 1 members  of  the 
law  department  ”,  “ excepting  clerks, 

stenographers  and  investigators  ’ ’.. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Do  you  offer  that 

as  an  amendment? 

MR,  ROSENTHAL;  I do. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  All  those  in  favor  say 
aye ; those  opposed,  nay.  The  clerks, 
stenographers  and  investigators  are  ex- 
cepted. Now,  are  there  any  other  objec- 
jections  and  amendments? 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  82;  13, 

14,  15,  16,  17,  181,  19,  20,  21,  22, 
23,  24,  25,  26,  27,  28,  29,  30,  31,  32,  33, 
34,  35,  36  and  37. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  section  is 

adopted,  as  variously  amended. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  I desire  to  call  at- 
tention, for  one  moment,  to  the  compen- 
sation of  the  civil  service  commissioner. 

Three  thousand  dollars  a year,  in  my 
judgment  that  is  entirely  inadequate 
for  the  responsibility  involved  in  the  po- 
sition, and  I move  that  that  be  changed 
to  five  thousand  dollars. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Bad- 

enocli  moves  that  the  compensation  of 
the  civil  service  commission  be  raised 


February  22 


990 


1907 


from  three  thousand  dollars  to  five  thou- 
sand dollars  a year.  Those  in  favor  will 
signify  by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 
The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  POST— Now,  we  should— 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I move  'we. adjourn. 

MR.  POST:  The  motion  to  adjourn 

to  2 o ’clock — I move  to  adjourn  to  2 
o ’clock,  but  add  a proviso  that  the  room 
be  warm. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  seems  to  me,  gen- 
tlemen, that  we  should  continue  here  now 
in  session,  as  long  as  necessary,  for  the 
entire  day,  and  then  adjourn  finally.  If 
we  adjourn  now  for  a couple  of  hours — 

MR.  ROBINS;  When  did  you  eat 
your  breakfast? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  You  can  wait  a half 
an  hour  for  lunch.  I move  you,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  we  continue  this  session 
until  half-past  1 o ’clock  or  2 o ’clock,  and 
adjourn  until  tomorrow  at  10  o’clock, 
when  we  do  adjourn. 

MR.  COLE : Let  us  have  an  afternoon 

session. 

MR.  FISHER : I think  these  extra- 

ordinary measures  which  are  suggested, 
in  regard  to  the  sessions  of  this  con- 
vention, ought  to  be  preceded  by  some 
word  of  notice.  We  cannot,  all  of  us, 
give  our  entire  time  all  day  and  every 
day,  to  this  particular  proposition,  and 
if  we  had  some  previous  notice  so  that 
Ave  could  make  our  engagements  con- 
form to  the  desire  of  the  house,  we 
might  be  able  to  do  some  of  these  extra- 
ordinary things.  That  is,  as  far  as  I 
am  personally  concerned,  I cannot. 

Of  course,  there  Will  be,  probably,  a 
quorum ; but  I cannot,  myself,  be  here 
before  2 or  3 o ’clock.  I have  an  engage- 
ment at  1 o ’clock  and  I do  not  think  I 
can  get  here  until  2 o’clock. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  the  house  will 

agree  on  when  to  adjourn  I will  put 
the  motion. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Monday  at  2 

o ’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Oh,  no. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I move  we  adjourn — 

MR.  YOUNG:  I move  you,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  we  adjourn  to  tomorrow  at  2 
o ’clock. 

MR.  COLE:  I move  we  adjourn  to 

2 o ’clock  this  afternoon. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Cannot  we  com- 
promise by  meeting  tomorrow  morning  at 
10  o’clock? 

MR.  POST:  I move  you  as  substi- 

tute the  entire  matter,  and  move  that 
we  adjourn  to  tomorrow  at  10  o’clock. 

MR.  VOP1CKA:  There  is  a demo- 

cratic convention  tomorrow  morning. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  a dem- 

ocratic conA7ention  on? 

MR.  YOPICKA:  Yes. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I move  you  we 

adjourn  to  tomorroAV  at  the  hour  of 
2 o ’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

moAred  and  seconded  that  the  com'ention 
adjourn  to  tomorrow  afternoon  at  2 
o ’clock ; as  many  as  are  in  favor  will 
signify  by  saying  aye ; those  opposed,  no. 
The  motion  is  carried. 

And  the,  convention  stood  adjourned  to 
Saturday,  February  23rd,  1907,  at  2 

o’clock  p.  m. 


991 


1907 


February  22 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  Of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary  to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary’s  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary’s 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  and  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicle. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly‘represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 

BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 


February  22 


992 


1907 


paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  MR.  YOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 

BY  MR.  YOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  PENDARYIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  II,  on  page  593,  pro- 
viding that  “ members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation’J was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 
laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  the  present  pension  law 
providing  for  a pension  system  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Chicago  Public  Library  be 
included  in  the  proposed  charter  for  the 
City  of  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  McCORMICK: 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually,  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
city,  and  the  report  thereof,  together 
with  any  recommendation  of  such  ac- 
countants, as  to  change  in  the  business 
methods  of  the  city,  or  of  any  of  its  de- 
partments, officers,  or  employes,  shall 
be  made  to  the  mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, and  be  spread  upon  the  records  of 
the  latter.  The  expenses  of  such  audit 
shall  be  paid  by  the  city. 


Report  of  the  COMMITTEE  on  MU- 
NICIPAL ELECTIONS,  APPOINT- 
MENTS and  TENURE  of  OFFICE: 

Lessing  Rosenthal,  Chairman  Chicago 
Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen — Your  Committee  on  Mu- 
nicipal Elections,  Appointments  and 
Tenure  of  Office,  to  which  was  referred 


February  22 


993 


1907 


the  subject  of  Civil  Service,  begs  leave  i 
to  report: 

That  the  provisions  of  the  present  [ 
Civil  Service  Act  shall  be  incorporated  | 
in  the  charter  with  the  following 
changes  or  additions: 

(1.)  That  the  term  of  office  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commissioners  shall  be 
six  (6)  years,  one  to  be  appointed 
every  two  (2)  years. 

(2.)  Section  -.-REMOVALS,  RE- 
DUCTIONS AND  SUSPENSIONS.  No 
person  shall  be  removed  from  the  classi- 
fied civil  service  nor  reduced  in  grade 
or  compensation,  except  as  hereinafter 
provided. 

Removals  from  the  classified  civil  ser- 
vice or  reduction  in  grade  or  compensa- 
tion, or  both,  may  be  made  in  any  de- 
partment of  such  service  by  the  appoint- 
ing power,  to  promote  the  efficiency  of 
the  service,  or  for  other  proper  cause,  in 
the  manner  following:  The  person 

sought  to  be  removed  shall  be  served 
with  a copy  of  the  order  of  removal  and 
notice  of  suspension  from  such  service 
and  also  written  specifications;  and 
such  person  shall  have  not  less  than 
three,  nor  more  than  seven  days,  to  an- 
swer the  same  in  writing.  A copy  of  the 
order,  specifications  and  answer,  if  any, 
shall  be  filed  with  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission, which  shall  approve  or  disap- 
prove of  such  order.  Said  commission 
may,  and  upon  the  written  request  of 
the  person  sought  to  be  removed,  shall 
investigate  any  removal  or  reduction,  or 
proposed  removal  or  reduction,  either  by 
or  before  itself,  or  by  or  before  some 
officer  or  board  appointed  by  said  com- 
mission, to  conduct  such  investigation. 
Such  suspension  shall  be  without  pay, 
provided,  however,  that  said  commission 
in  case  of  a disapproval  may  direct  that 
pay  shall  be  restored.  All  findings  and 
decisions  by  said  commission,  or  of  the 
investigating  officer,  or  board,  when  ap- 
proved by  said  commission,  shall  be 
final,  and  shall  be  certified  to  the  ap- 


pointing officer  and  shall  be  forthwith 
enforced  by  such  officer. 

Reductions  in  grade  or  compensation, 
or  both,  shall  be  made  in  the  like  man- 
ner, as  near  as  may  be,  but  without  sus- 
pension, pending  such  approval  or  dis- 
approval. A copy  of  said  papers  in  each 
case  shall  be  made  a part  of  the  record 
of  the  division  of  the  service  in  which 
the  removal  or  reduction  is  made. 
Nothing  in  this  act  shall  limit  the  pow- 
er of  any  officer  to  suspend  a subordi- 
nate without  pay  for  cause  assigned  in 
writing,  a copy  of  which  shall  be  de- 
livered to  such  subordinate.  Such  sus- 
pension shall  be  for  a reasonable  period 
not  exceeding  thirty  days,  and  any  sus- 
pension may  be  investigated  by  said 
Civil  Service  Commission.  In  the 
course  of  any  investigation  provided  for 
in  this  section,  each  member  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commission,  or  of  any 
board  so  appointed  by  it,  and  any  inves- 
tigating officer  so  appointed,  shall  have 
the  power  to  administer  oaths,  and  said 
commission  shall  have  the  power  to  se- 
cure by  its  subpoena  both  the  attend- 
ance and  testimony  of  witnesses,  and 
the  production  of  books  and  papers  rele- 
vent  to  such  investigation. 

Nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  con- 
strued to  require  charges  or  investiga- 
tions in  the  case  of  laborers. 

(3.)  Section— .—PROMOTIONS.  The 
commission  shall,  by  its  rules,  provide 
for  promotions  in  such  classified  service, 
and  shall  provide  that  vacancies  shall 
be  filled  by  promotion,  in  all  cases 
where,  in  the  judgment  of  the  commis- 
sion, it  shall  be  for  the  best  interests  of 
the  service  so  to  fill  such  vacancy.  If, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  commission,  it 
is  not  for  the  best  interests  of  the  ser- 
vice to  fill  such  vacancy  by  promotion, 
then  such  vacancy  shall  be  filled  by  an 
original  entrance  examination;  provi- 
ded, however,  that  the  commission  shall 
in  its  rules  fix  upon  a credit  based  upon 
seniority  and  ascertained  merit  in  ser- 
vice to  be  given  to  all  employes  in  the 


February  22 


994 


1907 


classified  service  in  line  of  promotion 
who  submit  themselves  to  such  original 
examination.  All  promotional  examina- 
tions shall  be  limited  to  such  members 
of  the  next  lower  rank  or  grade  as  de- 
sire to  submit  themselves  to  such  exami- 
nation. The  method  of  examination 
and  the  rules  governing  the  same  and 
the  method  of  certifying  in  promotion 
shall  be  the  same  as  provided  for  appli- 
cants for  original  appointment. 

Section  — . — .No  applicant  for  exami- 
nation for  any  office  or  place  of  employ- 
ment in  said  classified  service  shall  wil- 
fully or  corruptly,  by  himself  or  in  co- 
operation with  one  or  more  other  per- 
sons deceive  the  said  commission  with 
reference  to  his  identity,  or  wilfully  or 
corruptly  make  false  representations  in 
his  application  for  such  examination,  or 
commit  any  fraud  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
proving his  prospects  or  chances  in  such 
examination. 

Bespectfully  submitted, 
LESSING  KOSENTHAL, 
Chairman. 


The  following  have  been  referred  to 
the  Law  Committee: 

XII.  EEVENTJE. 

BY  MB.  SHEPAKD: 

12-1.  The  City  Council  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  shall  annually  in  the  first  quar- 
ter of  its  fiscal  year  by  ordinance  levy 
a general  tax  on  all  real  and  personal 
property  not  exempt  from  taxation  for 
all  corporate  purposes,  including  gen- 
eral city,  school,  park  and  library  pur- 
poses, not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate, 
exclusive  of  the  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  five  per 
centum  of  the  assessed  value  of  the  tax- 
able property  of  said  city  as  assessed 
and  equalized  according  to  law  for  cor- 
porate purposes.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  said  annual  levy  shall  specify  the 
respective  amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 


amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  educational  pur- 
poses, the  amount  levied  for  school 
building  purposes,  the  amount  levied  for 
park  purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for 
library  purposes.  A certified  copy  of 
such  ordinance  shall  be  filed  in  the 
county  clerk’s  office.  The  county  clerk 
shall  extend  upon  the  collector’s  war- 
rant all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the 
limitation  herein  contained,  in  a single 
column  as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall 
exceed  five  per  centum  of  such  assessed 
value,  such  excess  shall  be  disregarded, 
and  the  residue  only  treated  as  certified 
for  extension.  In  such  case  all  items 
in  such  tax  levy,  except  those  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be 
reduced  pro  rata.  The  tax  so  extended 
shall  be  collected  and  enforced  in  the 
same  manner  and  by  the  same  officers 
I as  state  and  county  taxes,  and  shall  be 
paid  over  by  the  officers  collecting  the 
same  to  the  city  treasurer.  The  city 
treasurer  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall 
keep  separate  funds  in  conformity  to 
said  tax  levy,  which  funds  shall  be  paid 
out  by  him  upon  order  of  the  proper  au- 
thority for  the  purposes  only  for  which 
the  same  were  levied. 

12-2.  The  Board  of  Education,  the 
Board  of  Park  Commissions  and  the 
Board  of  Library  Directors,  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  respectively,  shall  each, 
yearly,  upon  the  request  of  the  City 
Council,  prepare  and  transmit  to  it  a 
statement  of  its  receipts  and  expenditures 
for  the  current  or  preceding  fiscal  year 
(as  the  case  may  be),  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expenditures. 
It  shall  also,  upon  such  request,  prepare 
and  transmit  to  the  City  Council  an  esti- 
mate of  its  expenditures  for  the  ensuing 
fiscal  year,  stating  therein  the  several 


February  22 


995 


1907 


•objects  and  purposes  of  such  expendi- 
tures. 


BY  MB,  SHEPABD: 

Whereas,  the  charter  for  the  city  con- 
tains provisions  for  the  levy  and  exten- 
sion of  city,  school,  park  and  library 
taxes,  and  the  provisions  contained  in 
section  two  of  an  act  entitled  “An  act 
for  the  levy  and  extension  of  taxes,”  in 
force  July  1,  1905,  are  no  longer  neces- 
sary and  are  in  conflict  with  the  purposes 
of  the  charter  provisions  aforesaid, 
Therefore  be  it  Besolved  that  this  Con- 
vention recommend  to  the  General  As- 
sembly the  enactment  of  the  following 
bill  into  law: 

A BILL. 

For  an  act  to  repeal  Section  2 of  an 
act  entitled,  1 1 An  act  concerning  the  levy 
and  extension  of  taxes,”  approved  May 
9,  1901,  in  force  July  1,  1901,  as  amend- 
ed by  an  act  approved  March  29,  1905, 
in  force  July  1,  1905. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the 
People  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  repre- 


sented in  the  General  Assembly,  that  Sec- 
tion two  of  an  act  entitled,  “An  act  con- 
cerning the  levy  and  extension  of  taxes,  ’ ’ 
approved  May  9,  1901,  in  force  July  1, 
1901,  as  amended  by  an  act  approved 
March  29,  1905,  in  force  July  1,  1905, 
be  and  the  same  hereby  is  repealed. 


BY  ME.  GKEENACBE: 

Amend  Section  1 of  Article  12  (page 
104)  by  inserting  therein  immediately 
after  the  "words  ‘ ‘ levied  for  library  pur- 
poses ’ ’ and  before  the  words  1 1 certified 
copy  of  such  ordinance, 1 ’ the  following 
sentence: 

Said  City  Council  shall  have  power  to 
set  aside  from  any  such  specified  amount 
levied  for  any  of  said  purposes,  parts 
thereof,  together  not  exceeding  one  per 
cent  thereof,  and  contribute  the  same  to 
pension  funds  for  disabled,  retired  or 
superannuated  public  servants  of  any  de- 
partment toward  the  maintenance  of 
which  such  specified  amount  levied  ap- 
plies. 


February  22 


996 


1907 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  thei 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may? 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe.)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


Tebruary  22 


997 


1907 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

SATURDAY,  FEBRUARY  23,190V 


\ 


(El|tragtf  (ftliartrr  (Hmturutuin 

Convened, December  12,  1 90S 

H CADQUARTFR0 

171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TCICPHONC  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Revell,  . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Asst  Secy 


February  23 


1001 


1907 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
Regular  Meeting,  Saturday,  February  23,  1907 
2 O’clock  P.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention . 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  come  to  order  for  the  purpose  of 
ascertaining  whether  there  is  a quorum 
present.  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brosseau,  Brown,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eidmann,  Erickson,  Fisher, 
Gansbergen,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harri- 
son, Hill,  Hunter,  Lathrop,  Linehan, 
MacMillan,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  Michaelis,  O’Donnell,  Post,  Ray- 
mer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Sethness,  Shan- 
ahan, Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Taylor, 
Vopicka,  Walker,  Werno,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 43. 

Absent — Baker,  Burke,  Carey,  Church, 
Clettenberg,  Crilly,  Dever,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Graham,  Haas, 
Hoyne,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lundberg, 


McCormick,  Oehne,  Owens,  Paullin, 
Pendarvis,  Powers,  Rainey,  Revell,  Rin- 
aker,  Ritter,  Shedd,  Sunny,  Swift, 
Thompson,  White,  Wilson — 31. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  lack  three 

of  a quorum. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

that  the  sergeant-at-arms  be  sent  to  the 
Democratic  convention  to  produce  a few 
delegates. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

appoint  Mr.  Post. 

(Cries  of  “Hear!  hear!”  and  “Con- 
sent! ’’) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Some  of  us  can- 

not get  in.  There  will  be  some  more 
delegates  here  presently. 

A DELEGATE:  Here  is  another  del- 
egate, Mr.  O’Donnell. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  any 
corrections  to  be  made,  let  them  be 
handed  in  to  the  Secretary;  otherwise 
the  minutes  of  the  last  meeting  will 
stand  approved  as  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  remaining 

member  of  the  Convention  required  to 
make  a quorum  is  on  his  way  over.  The 


February  23 


1002 


r 


1907 


Secretary  will  proceed  with  the  reading 
of  the  draft  beginning  1 1 Corporate  Pow- 
ers,’ ’ page  87. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  Are  corrections 

to  the  minutes  in  order? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  For  what  para- 

graph? 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  On  page  — I 

have  sent 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  What  is  your 

question,  sir? 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  I have  sent  to 

the  Secretary’s  desk  a correction  for 
page  98. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  We  have  it. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  correction 

has  been  made,  the  Secretary  tells  me. 
Proceed. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  Page  87,  Article 
VIII,  11  Corporate  Powers,”  1;  page  88, 
2,  3,  4,  5,  6. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Not  so  fast. 

Give  them  a chance.  Go  ahead. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  7,  8,  9,  10, 

11,  12. 

ME.  BENNETT:  Is  this  page  89? 

THE  SECEETAEY:  Yes,  sir. 

ME.  BENNETT:  Page  89.  I want 

to  call  attention  to  the  last  paragraph 
of  8- — 9:  ”No  property,  the  ownership 

or  management  of  which  will  entail  any 
expense  on  the  city,  will  be  accepted 
by  the  city  council,  under  any  gift,  de- 
vise or  bequest,  without  the  consent 
of  the  head  of  the  department  out  of 
whose  appropriation  the  cost  of  main- 
tenance is  to  .be  met.” 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  That  is  sup- 

posed to  apply  particularly  to  the  mu- 
seums and  matters  of  that  kind,  that 
are  presented  to  the  parks,  and  the  idea 
was  they  are  to  get  the  city  council — 
to  prevent  the  city  council  from  accept- 
ing them,  when  the  result  would  be  that 
the  maintenance  would  be  taken  out  of 
an  appropriation. 

ME.  BENNETT:  I understand'  the 

purpose;  that  the  city  council  should 
consult  the  head  of  the  department.  Do 


you  want  to  except  the  park  board? 
Will  you  not? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  I see  the  point. 

ME.  BENNETT:  It  seems  to  me  un- 
wise in  this  charter  to  place  on  the 
head  of  a department  so  serious  a 
proposition. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Do  you  desire 

to  limit  to  the  parks,  libraries  and 
schools? 

ME.  BENNETT:  I would  move  that. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  amendment.  All  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  It  is  carried. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  Thirteen. 

ME.  BENNETT:  Item  12. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  No.  12. 

ME.  BENNETT:  Item  12  limits  the 

rights  of  the  city  to  secure  property  by 
condemnation  to  water  works,  sewers 
and  for  parks  and  boulevard  purposes 
only. 

I do  not  think  that  we  can  foresee 
at  this  time  just  what  we  may  need 
outside  of  the  city  limits,  and  my  judg- 
ment would  be,  and  I would  so  hold, 
that  if  we  give  them  the  right  to  se- 
cure the  property  outside  of  the  city 
limits  that  it  should  be  without  the  re- 
strictions contained  in  this  provision. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  city  has  the 
right  to  acquire  the  property  by  pur- 
chase. 

ME.  BENNETT:  Yes,  I know. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  But  when  the 

subjects  were  first  considered  it  was 
determined  that  the  city  should  not 
have  the  right  to  determine  against  the 
will  of  some  neighboring  property  for 
some  characters  of  business;  and  so  the 
city  was  given  the  right  to  condemn 
for  certain  purposes,  and  to  purchase  for 
all  purposes;  I think  it  is  a mistake  to 
limit  it.  Of  course,  I appreciate  the 
serious  nature  of  the  question.  But 
no  one  can  tell  at  this  time,  outside  of 
the  limits. 

MB.  MacMILLAN:  The  particular 

point  made  at  that  time  was  to  Jimit 


February  23 


1003 


1907 


the  annexation  of  property  to  these 
purchases  because  the  suggestion  was 
made  that  there  might  be  pesthouses 
and  garbage  establishments  and  things 
of  that  kind.  You  may  remember  the 
discussion  that  arose  with  regard  to 
putting  a plant  of  that  sort,  for  ex- 
ample, in  the  center  of  the  city  of 
Evanston;  that  is  why  this  was  lim- 
ited to  these  particular  matters. 

It  might  meet  the  point  made  by  Al- 
derman Bennett  if  this  were  to  be 
added,  “and  for  such  other  purposes 
as  the  city  council  may  by  ordinance 
determine.  ” 

MR.  BENNETT:  That  is  all  right. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  “And  for  such 

other  purposes  as  by  ordinance  the  city 
council  may  determine.”  I will  write 
that  out,  if  you  wish. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  point  was 

raised  at  that  time  that  the  members 
of  the  general  assembly  from  outside 
of  the  city  might  probably  object  very 
seriously  to  giving  such  right  to  con- 
demn for  garbage  reduction  plants  in 
the  city  of  Evanston  or  the  town  of 
Oak  Park,  or  something  like  that. 
Pending  Mr.  MacMillan’s  amendment 
being  written  out,  we  will  pass  that 
temporarily.  Go  ahead. 

THE  SECRETARY:  14,  15 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  15,  next  to 

the  last  line,  the  words  “a  bid”  in- 
stead of  “bidding.” 

MR.  HUNTER:  It  should  be  “bid” 
instead  of  “bidding.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  correction 

will  be  made  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal. Now  turn  to  No.  12. 

THE  SECRETARY:  As  amended  by 
Mr.  MacMillan,  adding  the  words  “and 
for  such  other  public  purposes  as  the 
city  council  may  by  ordinance  deter- 
mine.” 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  you  have  just  the  same 
objection  to  that  as  before  urged,  when 
the  matter  came  up,  and  even  under 
any  form  of  condemnation  the  city 


council  would  have  to  pass  an  ordinance 
providing  actually  and  openly  for  the 
right  to  condemn  the  property  outside 
of  the  city  limits  for  whatever  pur- 
pose it  sees  fit.  That  matter  was  very 
thoroughly  thrashed  out  and  argued  pro 
and  con,  and  there  were  some  very 
weighty  objections  against  allowing  the 
broad,  untrammeled  right  of  condem- 
nation outside  of  the  city  limits.  It 
was  felt  that  it  would  simply  invite  ob- 
jection on  the  part  of  the  members  of 
the  legislature  from  the  adjoining  dis- 
tricts to  the  City  of  Chicago.  I think 
we  should  not  ope*h  that  matter  up 
again,  but  leave  it  as  drafted.  I think 
that  is  as  far  as  we  should  go.  I move, 
therefore,  as  a substitute — well,  I will 
withdraw  that,  never  mind. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I introduced 

this  rather  for  the  purpose  of  bringing 
up  the  subject  than  for  pressing  its 
passage.  I think  it  is  of  doubtful  pro- 
priety myself,  but  it  is  in  accordance 
with  the  suggestion  made  by  Alderman 
Bennett.  As  General  Young  has  sug- 
gested, we  took  the  matter  up  before 
and  discussed  it  very  fully,  and  I think 
the  objection  was  considered  by  the 
Convention  sufficiently  strong  to  vote 
it  down,  and  it  was  voted  down. 

I bring  it  up  rather  as  a subject  for 
the  purpose  of  discussion.  Perhaps  it 
would  be  a wiser  plan,  under  the  cir- 
cumstances, to  leave  it  to  the  legisla- 
ture to  pass  upon  that  proposition. 

(Cries  of  “Question!  Question!”) 

MR.  BENNETT:  I have  nothing 

definite  in  mind  at  this  time,  but  un- 
der the  provisions  now,  we  are  limited 
to  no  specific  thing,  and  no  one  can 
tell  what  we  might  need  in  the  future. 
I cannot  see  that  the  condemnation  pro- 
ceedings gives  us  the  right  to  condemn 
— giving  us  the  right  to  condemn  is 
much  different  from  the  right  of  pur- 
chase. Condemnation  would  be  applied 
as  against  the  owner  of  property  un- 
doubtedly if  we  wanted  to  purchase 
from  the  owner  and  if  the  price  wanted 


February  23 


1004 


1907 


by  him  is  too  high;  it  would  be  an  ad- 
vantage if  he  made  the  price  too  high; 
we  could  get  it  then  for  what  it  is 
worth.  In  my  judgment  it  should  be 
made  broader  than  it  is  now,  although 
if  the  Convention  feels  it  has  passed 
upon  this  question  finally,  I do  not 
wish  to  press  it. 

MR.  FISHER:  I believe  a sub-com- 

mittee, or  the  general  committee,  made 
some  suggestion  along  the  line  suggest- 
ed in  regard  to  hospitals,  contagious 
hospitals,  or  anything  of  that  sort,  that 
owners  of  certain  property  might  refuse 
to  sell  because  of  the  sentiment  of  his 
neighbors,  and  that  there  would  be 
some  check  on  the  neighboring  munici- 
pality or  neighborhood  if  that  pro- 
vision was  made;  it  would  have  the 
effect  of  there  being  a voluntary  pur- 
chase, whereas,  if  it  was  put  in  by 
condemnation,  if  it  was  acquired  by 
condemnation,  the  owner  of  the  proper- 
ty would  simply  say  to  any  objector, 
“Why,  I have  nothing  to  do  with  it; 
I had  nothing  to  do  with  the  sale;  they 
condemned  it.  ” The  question  is 
whether  the  legislature  would  not  find 
objection  under  the  unlimited  power 
reposed  in  the  city  council  by  this  pro- 
posed vesting  of  power. 

MR.  COLE:  I call  for  the  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  Mr.  MacMillan’s  motion  will 
say  aye;  opposed,  no.  The  motion  is 
lost.  No.  16. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  90,  the 

16th. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I want  to  call 

attention  to  the  fourth  line  of  Section 
15,  reported  on  page  90.  The  words 
“may  in  its  discretion,”  should  be 
given,  as  “shall;”  the  word  “shall” 
should  be  substituted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  a typo- 

graphical error,  Mr.  O ’Donnell.  The 
Secretary  reports  that  the  change  will 
be  made. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  the  third  line 
of  that  paragraph  the  word  “meeting” 


should  follow  after  the  word  “regu- 
lar. ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair 

stated,  when  this  matter  was  taken  up, 
that  the  typographical  errors  would  be 
corrected.  It  will  all  be  gone  over  to 
correct  the  typographical  errors. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  hardly 

typographical. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right.  The 

word  1 ‘meeting”  shall  be  put  in,  Mr. 
Rosenthal.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  16,  17,  18,  19. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  the  18th, 

after  the  word — after  the  word  * 1 shall  ’ ’ 
it  should  be  “in  the  name  of  the  city.” 
That  is  on  page  91,  in  the  first  line; 
the  mayor  and  comptroller  shall,  in  the 
name  of  the  city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right.  Pro- 

ceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Nineteen. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Shouldn’t  there  be 
a limit  there,  that  the  council  may  pro- 
vide by  ordinance,  that  all  supplies 
needed  for  the  use  of  the  city  shall 
be  furnished  by  contract  let  to  the 
lowest  bidder? 

Shouldn’t  there  be  a reglulation  or 
limit  of  allowing  the  council  to  pur- 
chase to  some  small  amount,  say,  like 
$100? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  there  is 

a provision  that  there  shall  be  adver- 
tising for  everything  over  $300  worth 
of  supplies. 

MR.  HUNTER:  “The  lowest  respon- 
sible bidder,”  instead  of  “the  lowest 
bidder,”  I suggest  ought  to  be  put  in 
there. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I sug- 
gest that  the  word  “responsible”  be 
inserted  between  the  word  “lowest” 
and  “bidder.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

objections? 

(Cries  of  “ Agreed  1”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  not,  “respon- 
sible” will  be  inserted. 


February  23 


1005 


1907 


THE  SECRETARY:  Twenty-one. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish 

to  make  a motion  to  strike  out  a por- 
tion of  this  section,  but  I shall  wil- 
lingly withdraw  the  motion  if  any  ex- 
planation is  made  for  the  insertion  of 
the  words.  I move  to  strike  out  about 
the  middle  of  the  section  the  words 
il  together  with  all  appurtenances,  ex- 
cepting from  this  grant  all  waters  and 
land  under  waters  heretofore  conveyed 
by  the  State  of  Hlinois  to  other  per- 
sons or  bodies  corporate  and  politic,” 
and  then,  two  lines  down,  “subject  to 
any  lawfully  existing  riparian  rights 
and  easements,  and  subject  to  all  public 
rights  of  commerce  and  navigation,  and 
to  the  authority  of  the  United  States  in 
behalf  of  such  public  rights.” 

I apprehend  that  the  State  of  Hlinois 
cannot  give  the  City  of  Chicago  any- 
thing it  has  heretofore  granted  to  any- 
body else,  and  it  cannot  give  the  City 
of  Chicago  any  rights  that  are  not  es- 
tablished, at  least  specified.  The 
clause  I move  to  strike  out  seems,  to  be 
innocent  enough,  but  their  basis  is 
merely  reserving  to  the  previous 
grantees  of  the  state  what  may  have 
been  granted  to  them.  It  seems  to  me 
that,  for  the  purposes  of  this  section, 
that  they  have  no  real  function,  and  it 
is  better  to  have  them  out  so  that  there 
may  be  no  basis  for  unnecessary  litiga- 
tion possibly  lurking  in  the  sentences. 
Therefore,  I make  that  motion,  unless 
some  explanation  is  given  for  the  neces- 
sity of  the  language  being  in. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

had  a conversation  with  Mr.  John  P. 
Wilson  in  regard  to  that  provision,  and 
I think  those  are  Mr.  Wilson's  sug- 
gestions, if  I am  not  mistaken,  that 
those  words  were  inserted  on  his  sug- 
gestion. He  thought  that  without 
those  words,  as  I understood  it,  Mr. 
Post  and  Mr.  Chairman,  without  those 
words,  and  a limitation  of  that  kind, 
some  of  the  lands  might  be  subject  to 
attack,  and  might  have  a flaw  upon 


the  title.  Some  of  the  lands  on.  the 
north  side  might  be  subject  to  a tax, 
which  might  be  guarded  by  this  sec- 
tion of  the  charter,  with  this  limitation. 
I am  sure  it  was  with  Mr.  Wilson's  ap- 
proval this  was  drafted,  if  not  on  his 
suggestion. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  If  Mr.  Post  will 

include  in  his  motion  the  insertion  of 
the  words  “all  of  its  rights,  title  and 
interest,''  it  will  be  all  right. 

MR.  POST:  In  the  first  two  lines. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes. 

MR.  POST:  Yes,  I would  move  to 

strike  out  those  words  and  adopt  the 
words  suggested  by  Mr.  Shepard  in  the 
first  line. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  this 

section  was  much  discussed  by  the  com- 
mitte,  and  Mr.  Wilson  has  definite 
opinions  in  regard  to  it,  so  as  to  save 
litigation  both  on  behalf  of  private 
owners  and  the  park  commissioners, 
both  on  the  north  and  south  sides. 
There  was  such  general  language,  as  I 
recall  it,  in  the  original  draft,  and  it 
was  referred  to  him  to  make  sugges- 
tions in  regard  to  this  language.  Un- 
less some  very  good  reason  to  strike 
it  out  or  modify  it  is  given,  I would 
leave  it  as  it  is.  At  any  rate,  it  should 
be  left  to  the  drafting  committee  with- 
out instructions  or  motions  to  take 
it  up  and  consider  whether  this  lan- 
guage might  not  be  stricken  out  without 
danger  to  the  rest,  because  it  is  a mat- 
ter of  great  importance. 

As  regards  land  under  Lake  Michi- 
gan, they  vary  from  time  to  time,  as 
we  all  know,  owing  to  the  height  of  the 
water,  and  the  manner  in  which  the 
same  is  driven  inshore.  There  are  al- 
ready statutes  passed  which  test  title 
in  the  parks  exclusively  for  park  pur- 
poses. This  new  proposition  to  convey 
title  to  this  property  solely  to  the  City 
of  Chicago  might  cause  considerable 
confusion.  It  might  cause  confusion 
as  to  whether  it  was  intended  to 


February  23 


1006 


1907 


MR.  SHEPARD:  May  I ask  a ques- 

tion? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Is  it  only  the  pur- 

pose to  convey  only  the  present  right, 
title  and  interest  that  you  have  held 
heretofore? 

MR.  FISHER:  No,  I don’t  think 

that.  That  would  be  a question  of  ex- 
actly what  was  the  effect  of  this  limi- 
tation without  legislation.  Take,  for 
instance,  in  regard  to  the  parks.  I 
don’t  know  whether  under  state  legis- 
lation you  have  the  right  to  repeal  the 
statute  which  vests  in  the  park  boards, 
which  are  governmental  bodies,  to  fill 
in  submerged  lands  or  not.  It  would 
raise  a serious  question.  In  other 
words,  that  might  grant  to  the  com- 
missioners of  Lincoln  Park  the  right 
to  fill  in  certain  submerged  land,  and 
the  omission  would  raise  difficulty;  or 
not  taking  certain  steps  according  to 
correct  technical  political  instructions, 
there  might  be  a flaw  in  the  title.  I 
suppose  the  legislature  would  be  in- 
terested. Any  right  the  park  commis- 
sioners have  not  acquired  in  that  land 
might  entail  failure  to  comply  with  the 
technical  requirements.  While  I am  not 
expressing  any  positive  opinion  on  this 
matter  at  all,  I say  that  Mr.  Wilson 
regarded  it  as  a matter  of  great  im- 
portance, and  it  was  on  his  advice  that 
the  language  was  adopted,  and  unless 
there  is  some  definite  explanation,  it 
should  be  left  to  the  drafting  com- 
mittee. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Fisher  himself,  Mr. 

Chairman,  has  given  a definite  reason, 
it  seems  to  me,  that  this  language  is 
necessary  possibly  to  preserve  to  the 
grantees,  some  of  whom  may  not  be 
Chicago  parties,  a right  heretofore 
granted,  but  which  they  have  forfeited. 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems  to  me 
that  we  should  not  allow  any  language 
to  creep  into  this  charter  which  might 
confirm  titles  that  have  been  forfeited, 
titles  granted  to  private  persons.  Let 


the  State  of  Illinois,  give  us — under 
my  amendment,  as  amended  by  Mr. 
Shepard — let  the  State  of  Illinois  give 
to  us  all  its  rights  in  this  land,  and  let 
us  stand  by  to  protect  the  people  in 
those  rights.  If  private  corporations 
have  acquired  rights  and  forfeited  them 
by  failure  to  carry  out  the  conditions 
of  those  rights,  let  those  rights  come  to 
us.  Let  us  not  legislate  here  for  the 
steel  trust  or  for  any  other  of  the 
grantees  under  the  state  whose  rights 
under  those  grants  have  been  forfeited. 
Mr.  Fisher’s  explanation,  while  prob- 
ably not  the  purpose  of  the  insertion  of 
this  language,  shows,  in  all  probability, 
what  would  be  its  effect.  I shall,  there- 
fore, urge  my  motion  as  amended  by 
Mr.  Shepard. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

it  strikes  me  this  whole  Section  21 
should  be  referred  to  the  law  commit- 
tee. Mr.  Wilson  is  chairman  of  the 
committee.  It  is  a section  the  drafting 
of  which  we  should  be  very  careful  on, 
more  so  than  any  other  section  in  this 
charter.  Now,  there  is  another  point 
in  regard  to  this:  I have  some  little 

doubt  as  to  whether  our  title  under 
the  narrow  construction  put  upon  titles 
by  the  Supreme  Court  is  sufficiently 
broad  to  include  and  cover  this  section. 
It  is  very  desirable  this  section  should 
go  into  our  charter.  It  really  cedes 
land  that  is  not  at  present  in  existence 
to  the  City  of  Chicago,  and,  in  drafting 
it,  the  question  would  be  whether  we 
could  extend  the  boundaries  in  the  man- 
ner in  which  you  do  there. 

The  Supreme  Court  has  held,  in  one 
case  I have  in  mind,  in  the  124th  111., 
where  a right  outside  of  a city  cannot 
be  granted  in  a charter  relating  solely 
to  the  city,  because  persons  outside  the 
city  are  interested,  and  there  is  no 
question  under  the  legislature  of  such 
title.  I move  it  be  referred  to  the  law 
committee. 

MR.  POST:  May  I ask  if  this  whole 

section  has  not  been  submitted  before 


February  23 


1007 


1907 


to  the  law  committee,  and  if  it  had  not 
been  for  my  motion  it  would  not  have 
gone  through  in  all  respects  to  which 
my  remarks  refer? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I do  not  think 

it  has  been  considered  by  the  whole 
law  committee,  and  it  was  my  inten- 
tion, whether  you  got  up  or  not,  to  make 
this  motion. 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  think  this 

first  section  has  ever  been  referred  to 
the  committee  at  all. 

MR.  POST:  No. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  was  discussed 

for  several  hours  at  a meeting  of  the 
sub-committee.  Now,  I want  to  say,  in 
answer  to  Mr.  Post's  suggestion,  that 
I cannot  understand,  from  a lawyer's 
standpoint,  how  this  section  could  be 
contorted  into  a confirmance;  it  does 
not  tend  to  confirm  anything. 

MR.  POST:  Do  you  sustain  it  on 

that  ground? 

MR.  FISHER:  No. 

MR.  POST:  Then  I misunderstood 

you. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  does  grant  the 

city  those  rights  which  have  by 
previous  acts  been  granted  to  the  parks. 
Now,  if  there  is  a defect  in  the  title, 
it  would  not  cure  that  defect;  it  would 
simply  convey  it  to  the  city  of  Chicago 
as  a corporate  body,  whatever  rights 
the  state  may  have  in  that  revisionary 
part;  but  there  is  nothing  in  here  that 
would  confirm  the  title  of  any  property 
owner,  but  it  would  merely  convey 
whatever  title  the  owner  had. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  matter  was 
discussed  for  several  hours  in  the  com- 
mittee. If  you  will  pass  this  matter 
temporarily,  the  Secretary  is  under  the 
impression  that  this  matter  has  been 
referred  to  the  law  committee,  and  that 
there  is  a report  from  the  law  commit- 
tee here;  and,  if  you  will  temporarily 
pass  this  matter,  we  will  try  to  find  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  While  that  is  being 
looked  up,  I desire  to  call  your  atten- 
tion to  Section  3,  this  chapter.  I have 


not  any  preconceived  views  on  Section 
3,  except  on  page  88,  where  it  provides 
that  a suit  may  be  brought  by  any  tax- 
payer in  the  name  and  for  the  benefit 
of  the  city  against  any  person  or  cor- 
poration to  recover  any  money  or  prop- 
erty belonging  to  the  city,  or  for  any 
money,  and  so  forth.  At  first  view, 
that  strikes  me  as  very  bad,  that  a cor- 
porate authority,  elected  and  bonded 
with  their  various  officers  and  law  de- 
partments, to  specifically  place  in  the 
hands  of  any  person  at  all  times  the 
authority  to  bring  any  suit  at  any  time 
against  any  person  or  corporation  in 
the  name  of  the  city  is  too  broad  an 
authority. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Isn't  that  the 

law. now,  Mr.  Shepard? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I do  not  under- 

stand it  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  property  owner 
or  the  taxpayer  has  his  remedy  to  com- 
pel the  performance  of  public  duty  by 
mandamus  or  otherwise — by  injunction 
and  by  various  other  forms,  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  this  is  too  broad  an 
authority  to  put  into  the  hands  of  any 
community  without  any  restriction. 

Under  the  present  law,  I understand, 
there  is  a limitation — I am  informed  it 
is  so.  I am  also  informed  that  is  not 
the  present  law — though  under  the  pres- 
ent law  my  recollection  is  there  are 
safeguards  and  restrictions;  but  there 
are  no  restrictions  in  this. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  try  to 

find  the  present  law  here  and  see. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  members  of 

the  city  council  and  the  city  officials, 
those  who  have  been  at  this  Conven- 
tion, are  perhaps  better  posted  and 
more  competent  than  I am  to  speak  up- 
on this;  but  this’ at  once  assumes  no 
city  official  will  ever  do  his  duty  in 
initiating  the  proper  proceedings.  It 
seems  to  me,  whether  it  is  in  the  pres- 
ent law  or  not,  in  its  present  form  or 
not,  it  should  be  stricken  out  in  toto. 


February  23 


1008 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Section  172  of 

the  present  statute,  “ Cities  and  Vil- 
lages, Chapter  24.  " 

The  Chairman  read  from  Hurd's  Re- 
vised Statutes. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I have  inquired  of  one  of  the  gentle- 
men of  this  body — I am  not  sure 
whether  it  was  the  last  speaker  or  not, 
because  I did  not  read  the  charter  as 
to  whether  that  particular  section  was 
in — but  it  has  been  the  law,  as  the 
chairman  has  pointed  out — under  our 
old  charter  it  has  been  the  law  in  those 
words,  with  the  exception  of  one  word, 
since  1872.  Nobody  has  abused  it  in 
thirty-five  years  in  this  city.  I think 
that  of  itself  answers  the  gentleman's 
argument  that  this  should  be  the  -law, 
or  that  this  should  not  be  the  law  and 
subject  to  objection.  It  is  a salutary 
law;  none  was  ever  more  salutary. 
Once  or  twice  I know  personally  of  its 
having  been  used  in  this  sense,  when 
the  citizen  told  the  city  officer  that 
if  the  city  did  not  proceed,  he  (the 
citizen)  would  proceed,  and  the  city 
officer  never  failed  to  proceed.  That 
has  occurred  twice  in  my  knowledge. 

I think  it  is  a very  good  tfoing  that 
there  should  be  in  the  hand  of  the  pri- 
vate citizen  the  right  to  say  to  a pub- 
lic officer,  if  somebody  is  defrauding 
the  City  of  Chicago,  “You  proceed  in 
the  name  of  the  city.  If  you  will  not, 
I will."  The  officer  is  never  willing  to 
allow  a private  citizen  to  do  so;  he  is 
not  willing  to  be  shown  up  as  being 
derelict  in  his  duty,  as  seeking  to  shirk 
his  duty,  and  he  is  not  willing  to  allow 
a private  citizen  to  have  the  credit 
which  might  follow  to  him,  political  or 
otherwise,  from  doing  his  duty;  and  the 
only  way  that  the  gentleman  has — 
the  only  thing  the  gentleman  has  said 
for  having  the  law  not  remain  as  it  is, 
after  thirty-five  years  of  experience,  is 
that  we  are  growing  so  bad,  so  bad  sud- 
denly, that  although  no  evil  has  come 
from  this  law  in  thirty-five  years,  some 


interests  somewhere  fear  that  the  peo- 
ple have  grown  so  suddenly  bad  that 
this  law  is  absolutely  dangerous,  and 
the  people  ought  not  to  have  the  right 
to  have  any  means  of  compelling  a pub- 
lic officer  to  do  his  duty. 

Now,  then,  what  reasonable  conten- 
tion can  be  offered  for  striking  out  a- 
particularly  well  tried  law  after  thirty- 
five  years  of  existence?  Can  the  gen- 
tleman point  to  a single  instance  any- 
where in  the  books,  or  in  the  history  of 
this  city,  since  this  section  has  been 
tried,  where  it  has  been  abused,  or  it 
might  be  abused,  or  attempted  to  be 
abused? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Well,  has  it  ever 

been  used? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Yes,  sir;  I know 
of  twice  at  least  where  it  has  been 
used,  when  the  section  was  pointed  out 
to  them,  and  not  before.  We  must  be 
getting  awfully  bad  if  there  is  occa- 
sion to  come  here  now  and  alter  the 
law  after  it  has  been  in  successful 
operation  for  thirty-five  years.  I re- 
spectfully insist,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
that  is  one  of  the  most  vital  sections 
in  favor  of  the  people  and  in  favor  of 
the  public  duty,  to  compel  an  officer 
to  do  it;  it  is  a weapon  to  compel  an 
officer  to  do  his  duty;  to  compel  offi- 
cers to  do  their  duty  that  they  should 
do  under  the  law,  and  I certainly  main- 
tain that  if  it  was  copied  inadvertently 
from  the  old  law  that  it  was  a splendid 
accident.  I was  afraid  it  was  not  here. 
I have  not  found  that  it  was  here,  but 
I am  told  that  it  is.  I certainly  hope 
that  it  will  remain,  and  that  the  gentle- 
man's  motion  to  strike  out  the  para- 
graph will  not  succeed. 

^HE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Shepard's  motion  to  strike 
out  that  section.  As  many  as  favor 
that  will  signify  by  saying  aye;  those 
opposed,  no.  The  motion  to  strike  out 
is  lost.  We  will  revert  now  to  Section 
12 


February  23 


1009 


1907 


MR.  GREENACRE:  If  the  Chairman 
please,  I will  ask  for  a roll  call.  I 
consider  this  is  a most  vital  question, 
and  we  should  have  a roll  call  on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  has 

declared  that  Mr.  Shepard 's  motion  was 
lost. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Oh,  all  right;  I 

thought  you  said  the  section  was  out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  now  re- 
vert to  Section  21. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I desire  to  inquire 

with  regard  to  that  section  as  it  is  now 
drawn,  assuming  that  some  right  had 
been  granted  by  the  state  and  it  has 
become  forfeited,  after  this  charter  is 
passed  would  that  property  revert  to 
the  state  or  would  it  revert  to  the  city, 
under  the  exception  as  it  is  drawn? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I don't  get  the 

gentleman's  point. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I am  referring  to  the 
one  .just  spoken  of,  Section  21. 

MR.  ROBINS':  I would  rise  for  a 

point  of  information.  Are  we  consid- 
ering Section  12  or  Section  21? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Section  21. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I inquired,  under  the 

section  as  it  is  now  drawn,  supposing 
some  right  previously  granted  by  the 
state  becomes  forfeited,  where  would 
the  right  revert  to — back  to  the  state, 
or  would  it  revert  to  the  city?  It  seems 
to  me  it  would  revert  back  to  the  state, 
and  for  that  reason  it  seems  to  me  we 
should  discuss  this  matter  and  find  out. 

MR.  FISHER:  Perhaps  I might  an- 

swer that,  although  it  is  only  a guess; 
1 assume  that  it  would  revert  to  the 
state. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  would  revert 

to  the  granting  power. 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  I believe  that 

is  right. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Is  it  not  desirable, 

under  this  section,  that  the  state  give 
all  its  lights  to  the  city  in  the  partic- 
ular property,  and  would  it  not  be  bet- 
ter not  have  any  exceptions  to  any 
of  those  rights,  not  to  have  any  rights 


become  forfeited  under  such  conditions? 

MR.  FISHER:  It  is  my  understand- 

ing that  this  reversionary  right  could 
not  be  changed  at  all;  it  would  have  to 
revert  according  to  law.  It  seems  to 
me  this  is  another  thing  that  should  be 
given  to  the  committee  to  look  into, 
and  to  have  an  opinion  from  them  on 
this  matter. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I do  not  refer  to  the 

property  already  reverted,  but  to  the 
other. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  difficulty  about 

the  matter  is  this,  that  there  would 
not  be  a reverting  by  operation  of  law, 
there  would  have  to  be  a proceeding  by 
the  state  before  it  would  get  title  by 
reversion. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Would  not,  if  these 

exceptions  were  left  out — would  not  the 
city  have  the  right,  as  suggested? 

MR.  FISHER:  I don't  think  it 

would,  unless  it  was  expressly  con- 
veyed, and  I doubt  if  it  could  be.  The 
general  rule  of  law  would  be  that  the 
full  power  could  not  be  conveyed. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I don't  think  Mr. 

Fisher  gets  my  point  exactly.  I may 
not  have  made  myself  clear,  but  what 
I wanted  to  know  was  this:  In  the 

first  place,  when  the  state  granted  all 
its  rights  to  the  city  in  that  section  of 
land  without  exception,  in  that  case 
would  not  the  city  have  the  right  to 
proceed  in  the  same  sense,  the  same  as 
the  state  would? 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  understand 

General  Young.  I have  never  examined 
the  authorities  on  that  point,  but  my 
understanding  is,  it  would  not  have; 
that  is  also  Professor  Freund's  under- 
standing. That  is  one  of  the  troubles 
with  this  section. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  If  it  conveyed  the 
greater,  would  it  not  convey  the 
lesser? 

MR.  FISHER:  They  would  not  have 

title;  they  would  have  a right  of  action 
to  secure  the  reversion  of  what  they 
had  before  conveyed. 


February  23 


1010 


1907 


MR.  POST:.  Could  not  they  convey 
that  right  to  the  city? 

MR.  FISHER:  My  understanding  is 

not,  and  that  is  Professor  Freund’s  un- 
derstanding. I am  merely  answering 
this,  merely  expressing  my  personal 
opinion.  I think  it  would  be  better,  in 
an  important  matter  of  this  kind,  if 
these  questions  could  go  back  to  the 
law  committee  and  let  them  look  up  the 
question  from  a technical  point  of  view. 

I think  it  is  too  important  to  be  passed 
upon  hurriedly;  it  ought  not  to  be 
passed  upon  hastily. 

MR.  POST:  If  Mr.  Rosenthal  will 

include  in  his  motion  that  the  motion 
now  pending  to  strike  out  and  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  gentlemen  on  the  motion 
be  deferred,  and  that  it  revert  to  the 
law  committee,  this  section,  and  that 
the  law  committee  be  directed  to  report 
to  the  committee  on  rules,  I should  be 
glad  to  second  that  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  came 
up  on  a resolution  of  Mr.  Patterson’s 
and  was  referred  to  the  law  commit- 
tee. 

The  Chair  is  advised  by  the  Secretary 
that  the  report  of  the  law  committee 
came  to  the  committee  on  the  procedure 
in  a verbal  report  from  Mr.  Wilson, 
and  that  this  section  was  afterwards 
redrafted  by  the  special  committee  as 
a result  of  that.  The  matter  certainly 
went  to  the  law  committee  once. 

MR.  FISHER:  But  I do  not  think 

the  law  committee  made  a report. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I stated  that  the 
Secretary  so  advised  me. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Just  permit  me 

a word  in  explanation.  The  matter  was 
referred  to  the  law  committee,  but  be- 
fore the  law  committee  reported,  Mr. 
Freund  had  drawn  the  section,  and  at 
the  last  meeting  I'  introduced  this  par- 
ticular section,  but  the  matter  was 
never  considered  by  the  law  committee 
at  any  time,  and  on  account  of  this 
question  that  has  been  raised  by  Mr. 
Post,  and  other  questions,  that  it  is 


not  an  assignment,  and  cannot  be  con- 
veyed, as  has  been  held  many  times 
by  the  courts — I think  the  matter 
should  be  referred  to  the  law  committee 
now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  it  may  go  to  the  law  com- 
mittee, and  the  law  committee  should 
draw  the  section. 

MR.  FISHER:  And  then  report  to 

the  rules  committee. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  move 

that  as  an  amendment,  if  Mr.  Rosenthal 
does  not  accept 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I will  accept  it. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Rosenthal  says  he 

will  accept  it,  so  that  it  may  go  to 
the  law  committee,  and  a report  made. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  If  it  is  going  to  the 
law  committee,  we  should  put  some 
limit  on  the  time  in  .which  to  report. 

I understand  the  members  are  busy, 
and  it  may  be  a couple  of  weeks  be- 
fore we  get  a report  back  from  them. 
Now,  it  would  not  do  to  have  this  mat- 
ter sidetracked,  because  some  of  the 
matters  of  this  importance  should  be  in 
the  hands  of  the  law  committee;  and, 
as  I understand  it,  the  law  committee 
has  already  reported  on  it,  and  reported 
this  section  just  as  it  stands,  and  we 
can  just  as  well  act  on  it. 

If  it  is  going  to  the  law  committee, 
we  should  see  that  the  law  committee 
should  report  within  one  week. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  we 

should  have  a report  before  that,  be- 
cause we  ought  to  have  our  work  done 
before  that. 

MR.  POST:  Friday. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chairman 

would  suggest  that  the  matter  go  to 
the  law  committee,  and  that  the  law 
committee  then  refer  it  to  the  commit- 
tee on  rules,  procedure  and  general 
plan,  if  it  at  that  time  determines  so 
to  do. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  question  involved 

in  Mr.  Post ’s  motion  involves  cer- 


February  23 


1011 


1907 


tain  questions  of  policy ; and  the 
law  committee  might  report  that  cer- 
tain things  could  be  done,  and  it  might 
be  done  in  the  alternative,  and  be  law- 
ful, but  I think  there  is  a question  of 
policy  about  it. 

MR.  WALKER:  What  is  it  that  is 

to  be  referred  to  the  law  committee? 
Just  what  is  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  The  section,  as 
printed,  and  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Post, 
and  the  various  legal  questions  that  were 
raised  by  Mr.  Rosenthal,  and  by  Mr. 
Fisher,  relating  to  the  rights  of  the  leg- 
islature to  grant  these  rights  to  the 
City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  WALKER:  I suggest  that  we 

also  refer  the  question  raised  by  Colonel 
Young,  as  to  whether  or  not  we  cannot 
include  the  words  in  the  grant,  “All  re- 
versionary interest  that  the  state  may 
possess  now,  or  may  hereafter  possess 1 \ 
because  I think  that  is  a very  impor- 
tant point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  at  all,  that  will  go  to  the  law 
committee.  The  secretary  will  now  con- 
tinue with  the  reading.  The  matter  has 
been  referred  to  the  law  committee. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Police  pow- 

ers, 1. 

MR.  POST : May  we  have  the  lights 

turned  on.  It  is  getting  pretty  dark 
here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Two. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  There  is  an 

amendment  to  the  first  part  of  section 
3,  which  Mr.  Greenacre  has  agreed  to. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  what  section? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Section  3 of  the 

act  just  read;  the  first  part  of  section  3. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  does  it  re- 
fer to?  , 

THE  SECRETARY:  Police  powers, 

on  page  88. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Section  3. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Section  3,  page 

88. 


THE  SECRETARY:  Section  3,  page 

88:  “After  written  demand  made  upon 

the  proper  officer,  and  refusal  or  failure 
by  such  officer  to  act  within  30  days 
thereafter.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  that  section  will  be  added. 

Proceed  with  the  reading. 

THE  SECRETARY:  2;  1,  2,  3,  4;  3, 
4,  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10. 

MR.  SNOW:  I wanted  to  ask  a ques- 

tion, which  perhaps  Prof.  Merriam  will 
answer.  It  is  this  question:  I wanted 

to  know  whether  or  not  under  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  last  section,  or  the 
last  paragraph  of  section  4,  artivle  V, 
if  it  would  be  possible  for  the  city  coun- 
cil, with  a referendum  vote,  to  repeal 
section  10  of  article  XXIX,  or  any  por- 
tion of  that  section? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I did  not  get  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Snow  desires 

to  ask  you — will  you  state  it  again,  Mr. 
Snow? 

MR.  SNOW : What  I want  to  know 

is  this : Whether,  under  the  last  sec- 

tion, the  last  paragraph  of  section  4, 
article  Y,  if  it  would  be  possible  for  the 
city  council  with  the  referendum  vote  to 
repeal  section  10  of  XXIX,  or  any  por- 
tion of  that  section? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I do  not  think  so; 

my  understanding  is  that  it  would  not. 

MR.  SNOW:  It  struck  me  so,  and  yet 

the  wording  of  that  last  paragraph  is 
such  that  I cannot  be  quite  sure  about  it. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  You  might  insert 

this  if  you  have  any  doubt  about  it,  as 
to  the  payments,  and  the  conditions,  and 
so  on. 

MR.  SNOW:  Then,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  move  that  under  section  4 of  art- 
icle Y there  be  an  express  inhibition  to 
repeal  section  10  of  XXIX. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Alderman  Snow 

moves  that  section  4,  article  V,  shall  pro- 
hibit any  change  in  the  prohibition  laws 
of  the  annexed  districts. 

MR.  SNOW:  Exactly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 


February  23 


1012 


1907 


vor  that  will  signify  by  saying  aye ; op- 
posed, no.  The  motion  is  carried. 

ME.  BENNETT:  Going  back  to  sec- 

tion 7 : No  ordinance  shall  be  enacted, 
ordering  the  limit  of  the  height  of  build- 
ings, except  by  a two-thirds  vote  of  the 
city  council,  and  no  such  ordinance  shall 
go  into  effect  unless  it  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  people.  I would  like  to  inquire 
where  that  section  is  so  covered?  I did 
not  think  that  it  was  in  the  original 
draft? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  chair  is  un- 

able to  state. 

ME.  ROSENTHAL:  Well,  then,  I 

move  to  strike  it  out. 

MR,  BENNETT:  The  present  limit 

fixed  is  too  weak.  I think  we  will  come 
to  that  conclusion  before  many  years  in 
this  city,  that  the  council  should  have 
the  power  to  change  the  heights  of  build- 
ings, and  I therefore  second  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion — 

MR.  FISHER:  'I  do  not  think  we 

want  to  enter  on  this  quite  so  freely. 
There  is  a good  reason  why  the  city  coun- 
cil will  have  the  right  to  change  the  lim- 
itation on  the  height  of  the  buildings, 
but  one  thing  we  do  not  want,  and  that 
is  to  have  the  limitation  on  the  height 
of  the  buildings  go  up  and  down  with 
the  exigencies  of  some  particular  prop- 
erty owner  that  wants  to  boost  his  build- 
ing. 

The  great  objection  heretofore  with 
regard  to  ordinances  regarding  the 
height  of  buildings  is  that  they  have 
been  really  special  legislation.  When- 
ever we  fix  the  height  of  buildings,  and 
somebody  wants  to  erect  a building 
higher,  he  works  through  an  ordinance, 
increasing  the  height  of  buildings,  tem- 
porarily; and  there  it  stands  until  some- 
body else  works  up  to  that. 

I do  not  know  in  what  form  that 
was  covered  in  the  committee ; all  I 
know  is  that  in  the  draft  of  the  charter 
that  was  submitted  to  the  special  com- 
mittee of  the  committee  on  rules,  there  • 


was  an  ordinance  on  this  matter,  and 
it  was  discussed  at  great  length.  I do 
not  know  where  it  originated. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL;  Mr.  Fisher,  will 
you  yield  to  a question? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  What  is  the 

purpose  of  submitting  a question  of  that 
sort  to  a vote  of  the  people? 

MR.  FISHER:  I beg  your  pardon? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Why  is  this  or- 

dinance so  different  from  all  other  ordi- 
nances that  it  must  be  submitted  to  a 
vote  of  the  people? 

MR.  FISHER:  All  I can  do  is  to 

repeat  the  reasons  given  in  the  com- 
mittee. 

MR.  HARRISON : There  is  a mo- 

tion before  the  house  to  strike  out  this 
section? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  HARRISON:  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I move  to  amend  that  motion  by 
striking  out  all  after  the  words  “city 
council”,  in  the  third  line.  I think  the 
point  urged  by  Mr.  Fisher  would  be 
gained  by  compelling  a two-thirds  vote 
to  pass  such  an  ordinance. 

MR,  FISHER : Mr.  Chairman— 

MR.  FISHER;  We  have  been  using 
the  name  of  Mr.  Wilson  a good  deal 
here,  and  I am  sorry  he  is  not  present. 
It  was  one  of  the  few  places  in  this 
charter  that  Mr.  Wilson  was  so  enthusi- 
astically in  favor  of  the  application  of 
the  principle  of  the  referendum. 

His  point  was  that  the  city  council 
ought  to  adopt  an  ordinance  placing  a 
limit  on  the  height  of  buildings,  and 
then  it  ought  to  be  made  as  difficult  as 
possible  to  change  that  height,  unless  the 
people  of  the  city  as  a whole  really  de- 
sire to  change  it. 

The  important  thing  in  this  regard 
was  to  fix  some  limit,  and  stay  there, 
and,  therefore,  the  vote  in  the  city  coun- 
cil should  pass  by  a two-thirds  vote,  or  a 
unanimous  vote — if  the  council  should 
pass  by  a two-thirds  vote  or  a un- 
animous vote,  an  ordinance  which  would 


February  23 


1013 


1907 


change  the  height  of  the  building  from 
going  up  or  down  to  suit  the  exigencies 
of  any  particular  case,  that  the  people 
ought  to  have  a vote  on  it,  and  it  should 
not  be  changed  unless  they  desired  it. 

ME.  HUNTEB:  I call  for  the  ques- 

tion on  the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  question  is 

on  Mr.  Harrison’s  amendment  to  Aider- 
man  Bennett’s  motion. 

ME.  POST:  What  is  the  amendment? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Sir? 

MB.  POST:  What  is  the  amendment? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Harrison 

moved  to  strike  out  the  words,  and  no 
such  ordinance  shall  go  into  effect  un- 
less it  shall  have  been  submitted  to  the 
voters  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  ap- 
proved by  them  in  a manner  provided 
by  law.  It  requires  a two-thirds  vote  of 
the  city  council  to  change  the  height  of 
the  buildings. 

ME.  MEEEIAM : Mr.  Wilson  argued 

very  strongly  before  the  committee  that 
the  referendum  should  be  applied  in 
such  cases  as  this,  and  I think  it  would 
be  a great  mistake,  where  a principle  of 
the  referendum  is  involved  here. 

ME.  COLE:  Mr.  Wilson  has  got  his 

head  turned,  and  I believe  it  is  encour- 
aging that  that  amendment  will  not  pre- 
vail. 

ME.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Fisher  has  ac- 

cused me  with  this  sort  of  gaiety.  I 
disclaim  any  such  condition  of  mind. 

I understand  the  purpose  of  this  con- 
dition is  to  retain  the  present  heights  of 
the  buildings.  Now,  any  ordinance 
passed  by  the  city  council  may  be  sub- 
mitted to  a referendum,  upon  a petition, 
and  I see  no  reason  why  we  should  spe- 
cially attach  a referendum  provision  to 
this  section.  On  the  other  hand,  I see 
many  reasons  why  we  should  not.  As  1 
said  before,  the  time  may  come  when 
we  will  want  to  lower  the  heights  of 
these  buildings,  and  I believe  it  will. 

I think  we  made  a mistake  when  we 
raised  the  height  the  last  time.  The 
condition  of  the  downtown  district  is 


such,  to  my  mind,  that  in  the  near  future 
the  height  of  the  buildings  should  be 
limited  to  a lower  height  than  at  the 
present  time. 

I realize  that  investors  in  real  estate 
in  the  downtown  district,  and  those  in- 
terested in  them,  might  desire  to  fix  the 
act  as  at  present,  and  protect  them  from 
any  possibility  of  attack  or  change.  But 
to  my  mind  the  best  interests  of  the 
city  is  to  leave  this  matter  in  the  hands 
of  the  council,  with  the  vote  provided 
here,  and  I concur  with  Mr.  Harrison  in 
his  motion  to  strike  out  the  last  provi- 
sion. 

ME.  FISHEB;  I would  like  to  ask 
Mr.  Bennett  a question  which  was  pro- 
pounded in  the  committee;  these  argu- 
ments I think  were  all  gone  over  in  the 
committee  and  I am  only  repeating  them 
for  the  Convention. 

Does  Mr.  Bennett  think  the  people  will 
vote  against  the  proposition  to  lower 
the  height  of  the  buildings? 

ME.  BENNETT:  They  might. 

ME.  FISHEE:  You  think  they 

would? 

ME.  BENNETT:  You  cannot  tell 

what  they  would  do. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  question  is 

on  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Harrison ’s 
amendment,  striking  out  all  the  words 
in  section  7 after  the  word  1 1 council.  ’ ’ 
The  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett, 
Brosseau,  Brown,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Harrison, 
Hill,  Hunter,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoor 
ty,  McKinley,  Michaelis,  Eaymer,  Bosen- 
thal,  Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smul- 
ski,  Snow,  Taylor,  Yopicka,  Walker, 
Werno,  Wilkins,  Young — 30. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Cole,  Fisher,  Green- 
acre,  Guerin,  MacMillan,  Merriam, 
O’Donnell,  Post,  Eobins — 10. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  ayes  are  30 

and  the  nays  are  10.  The  motion  to 
amend  is  carried.  No.  11. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  Page  94,  11. 

Page  95,  12,  13,  14,  15,  16,  17,  18. 


February  23 


1014 


1907 


MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  sec- 

tion 16.  I don’t  recollect  that  the  con- 
vention ever  passed  on  that  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A'  little  louder, 

please. 

MR.  BENNETT : The  last  paragraph, 

which  gives  a contractor  the  right  to 
acquire  the  claim  and  the  lien,  the  right 
to  impose  a lien,  on  property,  for  al- 
terations made.  It  seems  to  me  that  is 
pretty  broad.  I believe  in  the  spirit  of 
the  section,  but  I doubt  if  we  could 
give  such  a right.  This,  as  I under- 
stand it,  provides  that  when  an  owner 
refuses  to  comply  with  an  order  direct- 
ing him  to  take  measures  or  make  al- 
terations in  his  property,  such  measures 
may  be  taken  or  alterations  made  by 
the  city  at  the  expense  of  the  owner 
or  occupant  and  the  city  shall  be  au- 
thorized to  collect  all  charges  by  legal 
proceedings  against  the  owner  or  occu- 
pant and  to  impose  a lien,  or  the  contrac- 
tor may  do  it.  Was  that  matter  fully 
considered  in  the  committee,  Mr.  Fisher? 

MR.  FISHER;  It  was  considered,  but 
not  very  fully.  It  is  not  considered  an 
important  matter,  but  it  is  considered 
that  the  city  should  be  authorized  to 
collect  all  charges  incurred  by  it  by  legal 
proceedings  against  the  owner  or  occu- 
pant. The  question  was,  whether  the 
city  in  the  end  would  have  to  pay  the 
money  and  proceed  against  the  owner, 
or  whether  it  might  require  the  contrac- 
tor to  go  on  with  the  lien.  It  is  a mat- 
ter of  no  great  importance  and  it  was 
not  discussed  to  any  great  length.  No- 
body thought  it  was  dangerous. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I think,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  that  matter  might  be  referred 
to  the  committee  for  further  considera- 
tion. It  might  involve  us  in  lawsuits. 

MR.  FISHER:  Move  to  strike  it  out 

if  you  don’t  like  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Strike  it  out,  that 

section  16. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the  mo- 

tion? 

MR.  FISHER:  I don’t  see  any  pur- 


pose in  referring  it  to  the  committee;  it 
is  a question  that  should  be  decided  here. 

MR.  BENNETT : I move  to  strike 

out  the  last  paragraph. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  last  sentence. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : < ‘If  the  city  em- 
ploys a contractor,  for  the  purpose  of 
doing  such  work  it  may  assign  to  him 
the  claim  and  the  right  to  impose  the 
lien  herein  provided  for”?  You  move 
to  strike  that  out? 

MR.  BENNETT:  I do. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  All  those  in  favor  of 
Mr.  Bennett ’s  motion  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  suggestion  oc- 

curs to  me  that  in  view  of  striking  out 
that  last  sentence  that  perhaps  we 
should  insert  above  there:  “And  the 

city  shall  be  authorized  to  collect  all 
charges  incurred  by  it”,  “or  under  its 
authority”.  That  is,  insert  the  words 
1 1 or  under  its  authority  ’ ’.  Then  the 
city  would  not  have  to  be  knocking  at 
the  treasury,  but  would  itself  enforce  the 
laws  that  it  found  necessary  for  the 
public  protection. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : What  is  in- 

curred by  it,  you  mean. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any 

objections  to  that? 

MR.  SHANAHAN : Mr.  Chairman,  1 

would  ask  the  drafting  committee  how 
9-16  compares  with  the  present  law. 

MR.  FISHER;  I understand  it  is 
new  in  the  law  of  this  city  and  state. 
It  is  contained  in  the  charters  of  many 
other  cities,  but  not  here. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : I move  to  strike 

out  the  entire  section.  I think  it  is  a 
dangerous  proposition. 

MR.  SHEPARD : I second  the  mo- 

tion. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  it  would  be 

a serious  mistake  to  strike  out  that  sec- 
tion if  you  want  to  safeguard  our  in- 
terests in  any  way.  Certainly  the  city 
ought  to  be  left  the  power  to  make  these 
changes  and  alterations  if  the  owner  re- 


February  23 


1015 


1907 


fuses  to  make  them.  They  don’t  want 
to  be  held  absolutely  to  the  present  con- 
dition. The  building  commissioner  now 
absolutely  and  ruthlessly  destroys  the 
buildings;  his  only  recourse  is  a law- 
suit. This  provision  has  worked  well 
elsewhere.  As  I understand,  in  New 
York  they  have  had  this  provision  for 
a long  time;  and  if  it  is  properly  safe- 
guarded it  seems  to  me  there  is  no  harm 
in  it  at  all  and  might  accomplish  a 
very  great  deal  of  good.  The  rules  in 
regard  to  this  matter  should  be  more 
effective. 

ME.  HUNTEB : I think  this  is  a 

very  dangerous  section.  Some  such  men 
as  we  have  working  for  us  now  might 
make  alterations,  and  it  would  be  prac- 
tically impossible  to  control  them  once 
they  started,  unless  they  absolutely  con- 
fiscate the  property.  There  is  no  doubt 
about  it;  we  know  from  experience  what 
it  is,  and  what  it  has  been  in  the  past. 

ME.  FISHEE:  May  I ask  you  if 

you  have  noticed  that  it  merely  author- 
izes the  city  council,  provided  it  cannot 
be  done  any  other  way? 

ME.  HUNTEE : I know  and  the 

other  gentlemen  have  had  experience 
who  have  sat  on  the  city  council,  what 
has  been  done  in  the  past  and  what 
will  be  done  in  the  future.  I have 
been  a member  of  the  council  for  some 
years  and  that  is  the  reason  why  I think 
this  section  ought  to  be  stricken  out. 

ME.  YOUNG:  It  seems  to  me  the 

city  has  authority  enough;  all  it  really 
needs.  It  can  pass  an  ordinance  re- 
quiring certain  things  and  can  impose 
a sufficient  fine  to  compel  the  owner  to 
do  that.  It  seems  to  me  it  is  unnec- 
essary to  put  that  paragraph  in  at  all. 
As  it  now  stands  it  is  unnecessary.  A 
change  might  be  made  involving  the 
rights  of  the  property  owner,  and  as 
has  been  suggested,  to  the  injustice  and 
the  detriment  of  the  owner.  Under  the 
present  plan  it  seems  to  me  we  can  ac- 
complish all  that  is  necessary. 

ME.  MEBBIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 


seems  to  me  this  should  be  taken  in 
connection  with  page  94,  article  9-9 : 
1 1 The  power  of  the  tenement  or  lodg- 
ing houses  may  be  exercised  so  as  to 
prescribe  regulations,  additional  to  those 
provided  for  by  the  general  laws  of  the 
state.  ’ ’ This  will  authorize  the  city 
to  pass  more  complete  and  thorough- 
going tenement  and  lodging  house  reg- 
ulation ordinances.  Unless  you  have  an 
article  like  16  it  will  be  found  that  the 
city  is  practically  impossible  to  carry 
out  the  requirements  of  law.  In  New 
York,  for  example,  when  they  organized 
the  tenement  houses  commission  it  was 
serious  work  to  clean  out  the  crowded 
districts  and  the  unsanitary  districts, 
which  were  found  to  be  greatly  detri- 
mental to  health  in  those  places  in  New 
York  city;  they  found  they  had  to  have 
a clause  of  this  sort;  I do  not  know 
of  any  case  where  it  has  been  abused. 
Unless  the  state  has  that  power,  if  it 
can  only  fine  the  owner  of  property, 
they  cannot  enforce  the  law. 

ME.  SHEPAED : It  seems  to  me 

this  section  should  be  stricken  out.  If 
the  city  is  going  to  have  the  power  to 
rebuild  a building,  contractors  will  fol- 
low the  city  around  and  see  how  many 
buildings  may  be  remodeled  on  the  vio- 
lations found  to  be  committed  by  the 
property  owner,  which  is  wholly  in  the 
judgment  of  the  commissioner,  and  we 
would  have  a very  broad  abuse  of  the 
power.  You  will  remember  that  under 
the  present  law  the  city  can  compel  the 
discontinuance  of  the  use  of  any  build- 
ing for  a violation  of  any  of  its  san- 
itary laws.  During  last  year  we  had 
some  big  stores  in  the  down  town  dis- 
trict closed  up  because  a door  was  not 
put  in,  or  a stairway  put  in  or  taken 
out.  If  we  follow  that  out  by  author- 
izing the  city,  or  one  of  its  officers,  to 
hire  a contractor  or  contractors,  to  re- 
model that  building  at  the  expense  of 
the  property  owners,  we  put  in  an  in- 
vitation to  use  very  great  and  wide  pow- 
ers. The  power  provides  what  is  sani- 


February  23 


1016 


1907 


tary  and  what  is  necessary,  and  the 
additional  power  to  close  a building  un- 
less the  owner  complies  with  the  re- 
quirements, and  that  seems  to  me  is  suf- 
ficient. If  the  owner  then  does  not  care 
to  continue  the  use  of  its  building  it 
is  in  his  discretion  to  vacate  it  or  stop, 
but  we  should  not  give  the  city  through 
a private  contractor  powers  to  enter 
that  building  against  the  owner’s  wish 
and  remodel  it  and  saddle  the  expense 
upon  the  people.  It  would  invite  abuses. 
There  is  no  reason  for  it.  It  would 
go  to  the  extent  of  confiscation.  At 
any  rate,  it  would  always  run  against 
the  property  owner ’s  wish.  If  he  did 
not  want  to  comply  with  the  rules  he 
would  have  to  stop  use  of  the  building. 
At  least  that  discretion  should  be  vested 
in  the  property  owner.  I think  it  should 
be  stricken  out. 

ME.  EOBINS:  The  question  before 

the  convention  at  this  time,  is  whether 
the  tenement  house  ordinance  is  going 
to  be  made  effective,  or  whether  it  is 
not  to  be  made  an  effective  ordinance. 
I hope  this  question  will  not  be  de- 
cided upon  the  vagaries  of  any  partic- 
ular passing  building  commissioner ; I 
hope  it  will  not  be  decided  on  the  as- 
sumption of  unfairness  in  its  opera- 
tion against  the  landlords  entirely.  The 
operation  of  this  clause  in  other  cities 
has  been  absolutely  against  any  such 
assumption. 

The  facts  are  there:  You  have  a 

health  department  with  certain  powers; 
you  have  provisions  in  regard  to  your 
building  ordinance,  and  more  particular- 
ly matters  of  health  regulations  in  re- 
gard to  plumbing.  There  are  in  the 
crowded  areas  of  this  city  at  the  pres- 
ent time — there  is,  within  one  block, 
within  my  knowledge,  or  was  within 
two  months  ago,  thirty-eight  violations 
within  that  block  of  the  plumbing  ordi- 
nance. There  have  been  reports  upon 
that  time  and  time  again ; there  have 
been  fines  paid  of  ten  or  fifteen  or  fifty 
dollars  in  some  cases;  but  the  cost  of 


putting  in  adequate  and  proper  plumb- 
ing facilities  in  these  tenements  would 
be  several  hundred  dollars,  and  the  own- 
ers of  the  property  prefer  to  pay  that 
fine  and  neglect  to  fulfill  the  law. 

Now,  you  say  that  property  can  be 
closed.  Let  us  see  if  it  can.  Here  is  a 
building,  four  stories,  rear  and  front 
flats;  we  have  a provision  supposed  to 
be  enforced  by  the  health  department 
in  regard  to  the  plumbing,  and  the 
people  have  paid  their  rent.  Can  you 
close  that  building  and  put  those  people 
out  on  the  street?  You  do  not  do  it. 
The  practice  is  that  it  is  never  done; 
the  practice  is  that  though  it  has  the 
power  to  force  the  landlord  to  do  his 
duty,  it  works  out  that  the  tenants 
simply  suffer.  When  you  have  a vigor- 
ous health  inspection  department,  there 
are,  occasionally,  fines  paid,  and  some 
landlords,  when  the  cost  is  not  too  great, 
fulfill  the  requirements,  otherwise  they 
wait  for  the  time  when  they  pay  their 
fine,  and  so  escape  it.  The  whole  ques- 
tion before  us,  in  my  judgment,  with 
the  experience  I have  had  in  this  mat- 
ter, and  I have  had  considerable,  as 
far  as  that  goes,  is  this : I suppose 

there  is  not  a member  of  this  conven- 
tion who  is  not  familiar  with  the  ty- 
phoid epidemic  of  some  three  years  ago; 
and  the  fact  that  certain  of  the  san- 
itary inspectors  of  the  city  lost  their 
positions,  because  of  the  investigation 
made  into  the  actual  conditions  in  the 
territory  where  the  typhoid  epidemic  pre- 
vailed to  the  greatest  extent  in  the  city. 

We  found  that  the  whole  difficulty  in 
this  matter  of  violation  was  because  the 
law  as  at  present  framed  was  lax,  and  it 
will  be  objected,  possibly,  that  it  would 
put  the  incidents  of  hardship  upon  the 
tenant  rather  than  upon  the  landlord. 
The  landlord  can  afford,  if  he  owns  his 
building, — suppose  you  go  to  him  and 
say  that  you  will  close  his  building,  and 
suppose  you  do  close  it, — let  us  sup- 
pose the  case  of  a lot  of  Greeks  down 
along  Halsted  street;  you  put  them  out 


February  23 


1017 


1907 


on  the  sidewalk.  The  alderman  will 
come  along  and  say,  “What  is  the  mat- 
ter with  you?  Haven't  you  got  any  hu- 
man sympathy  whatever?  Are  you  going 
to  put  these  people  out?  Are  you  going 
to  do  this  thing?"  And  they  can't  do 
it,  and  the  people  go  back  to  the  houses. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of 
the  convention,  it  seems  to  me  it  is 
simply  a question  of  whether  you  are 
going  to  enforce  the  tenement  laws,  par- 
ticularly in  the  matter  of  sanitary  plumb- 
ing, in  the  homes  of  the  poor,  or  whether 
you  are  going  to  put  the  burden  of'  the 
failure  of  its  enforcement  upon  the  ten- 
ants. I think  this  section  should  be 
retained  in  the  law;  I believe  it  is  what 
we  need;  in  other  cities  there  have  been 
no  hardships  where  such  law  has  been 
enforced,  and  I see  no  reasons  for  ob- 
jecting to  it.  If  a commissioner  does 
not  do  his  duty,  Mr.  Chairman,  an  in- 
junction will  run,  and  no  commissioner 
will  dare,  and  no  health  inspector  will 
dare  to  make  a demand  that  is  not  with- 
in the  law. 

Are  we  suffering  in  Chicago  because 
people  make  demands  in  excess  of  the 
law  for  enforcing  the  law?  I believe 
not.  It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  this 
charter  convention  wants  to  leave  that 
condition  for  the  future  to  take  care  of, 
in  a great  city  like  Chicago,  growing  all 
the  time,  with  its  great  tenement  popu- 
lation and  constant  influx  of  emigrants 
that  cannot  protect  themselves,  who  come 
here  to  live.  This  is  a matter  that  we 
ought  to  take  care  of  now. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I second  the  mo- 

tion of  Mr.  Shepard,  to  strike  out  this 
clause.  I have  had  some  experience  with 
tenants  in  tenement  buildings,  and  I 
know  that  a man  has  to  pay — when  a man 
has  to  pay  a fine,  why  he  complies  with 
the  law.  I do  not  believe  this  charter 
convention  should  adopt  any  law  which 
would  be  arbitrary  on  the  landlord.  Prop- 
erty in  Chicago  does  not  pay  any  too 
much  now,  and  we  want  to  give  the  prop- 
erty ownefs  a chance,  we  do  not  want 


to  send  them  away ; in  other  words, 
we  want  the  people  to  stay  in  Chicago, 
we  want  to  give  them  a chance  to  re- 
main, and  we  also  want  to  give  a chance 
to  outsiders  to  invest  their  money  here. 
I believe  it  would  be  detrimental  to 
the  interests  of  the  City  of  Chicago  if 
an  article  of  this  kind  would  be  passed. 
I hope  it  will  not  pass,  but  that  it 
will  be  stricken  out.  I second  the  mo- 
tion made  by  Mr.  Shepard. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  If  it  is  a question 

of  the  possibility  of  abuse,  it  seems  to 
me  we  should  ask  who  are  the  most 
likely  to  be  abused.  In  my  opinion,  the 
inhabitants  of  the  tenements  are  the 
most  likely  to  be  abused.  In  all 
the  cities  where  their  general  improve- 
ment has  been  looked  after,  some  such 
general  provision  as  this  has  been  found 
to  be  necessary ; and,  while  it  sounds 
very  plausible  that  in  this  or  that  in- 
stance you  may  fine  a man,  or  close 
his  particular  building,  the  question  be- 
fore Chicago  is  the  general  importance 
of  the  general  improvement  of  the  ten 
ement  house  districts  of  the  City  of 
Chicago,  which  are  rapidly  increasing. 
I fail  to  see  how  any  general  improve- 
ment can  be  obtained  unless  there  is 
some  general  charter  provision  such  as 
is  here  proposed.  I think  it  would  be 
a calamity  to  the  tenement  house  dis- 
tricts to  have  this  section  stricken  out, 
without  some  reasonable  substitute  placed 
in  the  charter  or  in  the  law  for  it. 

MR.  POST : I would  like  to  ask  Mr. 

Robins  or  Mr.  Taylor,  if  this  section  is 
adopted — if  this  section  would  not  be 
just  as  effective  if  the  last  three  lines, 
with  reference  to  contractors,  were 
stricken  out  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  has  been 

stricken  out. 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  has  been  striven 

out,  and  we  raised  no  objection  to  strik- 
ing it  out,  and  I think  it  shorn*  i he 
stricken  out. 

MR.  POST:  Well,  all  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 


February  23 


1018 


1907 


now  is  upon  the  motion  to  strike  out 
the  balance  of  the  section.  Upon  th^t 
the  secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Bennett,  Eidmann,  Erickson, 
Guerin,  Hunter,  MacMillan,  Sethness, 
Shanahan,  Shepard,  Yopicka — 10. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Beilfuss, 
Brosseau,  Brown,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Greenacre,  Harri- 
son, Hill,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Merriam,  Michaelis,  Post, 
Baymer,  Bobins,  Sethness,  Smulski,  Snow, 
Taylor,  Walker,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Young 
—28. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MB.  GUEBIN:  What  is  the  motion, 

to  strike  out,  or  what  ? 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  You  asked  what 

the  motion  is? 

MB.  GUEBIN:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIBMAN : The  motion  is 

to  strike  out  No.  16,  article  IX. 

MB.  GUEBIN:  I vote  aye. 

MB.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I under- 

stand that  the  last  three  lines  have 
already  been  stricken  out;  therefore  I 
vote  no. 

MB.  YOUNG:  I do  not  usually  rise 

to  explain  my  vote,  but  as  I spoke  on 
the  opposite  side  of  the  question,  after 
hearing  Mr.  Bobins  and  Dr.  Taylor  pre- 
sent their  objections,  I have  taken  that 
into  consideration,  and  therefore  I vote 
no. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 
tion to  strike  out,  the  yeas  are  10  and 
the  nays  28,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 

MB.  EOSENTHAL:  In  the  first  line 

of  the  section,  after  the  words  “the  city 
council  may”,  I ask  to  insert  the  words 
“without  prejudice  to  its  other  rights, 
powers  and  remedies”,  and  in  the  second 
line,  after  the  word  “fail”,  add  “after 
due  notice”. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  Mr.  Bosenthal 

presents  two  amendments,  which  the  sec- 
retary will  read. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  That  is  in  the 

first  line,  after  the  words,  1 1 the  city 
council  may”. 


THE  SECBETABY : After  the  word 

“may”,  in  the  first  line  of  9-16,  page 
95,  insert  the  words,  “without  prejudice 
to  its  other  rights,  powers  and  reme- 
dies ’ \ 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  Are  there  any 

objections  to  that?  If  so,  all  those  in 
favor  will  signify  by  saying  aye;  those 
opposed,  no.  It  is  so  ordered. 

ME.  BOSENTHAL:  Then  the  next 

line — 

THE  CHAIBMAN : What  is  the  next 
one? 

MB.  BOSENTHAL:  After  the  word 

“fails”. 

THE  SECBETABY:  In  the  second 

line,  after  the  word  ‘ ‘ fails  ’ \ add  the 
words  “after  due  notice”,  “ refuses  or 
fails  after  due  notice”. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  Are  there  any 

objections  to  that  amendment? 

MB.  FISHEB : Mr.  Bosenthal  says 

“due  notice”;  does  that  mean  any  par- 
ticular kind  of  notice? 

MB.  BOSENTHAL:  After  reasonable 

notice ; 1 ‘ written  notice  ’ ’ is  probably 
better. 

THE  CHAIBMAN;  After  reasonable 
written  notice. 

MB.  BOSENTHAL:  After  reasonable 
written  notice. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  I suppose  that 

means  that  the  writing  shall  be  reason- 
able. Well,  the  drafting  committee  will 
catch  the  idea.  The  secretary  will  pro- 
ceed with  No.  17. 

THE  SECBETABY:  No.  17,  bottom 

of  page  95;  No.  18,  page  95;  19,  page — 

ME.  BOSENTHAL:  I have  an 

amendment  to  offer  to  that  section,  to 
strike  out  the  words  1 1 the  city  may  main- 
tain an  action  in  the  municipal  court  of 
the  City  of  Chicago”,  and  substitute  the 
words  which  I have  sent  up  to  the  desk. 

THE  SECBETABY:  In  lieu  of  the 

words  in  section  19,  at  page  96,  in  lieu  of 
the  words  1 1 the  city  may  maintain  an 
action  in  the  municipal  court  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  ’ ’,  insert  the  words,  1 1 the  city 
may  begin  and  maintain  proceedings  ’ \ 


February  23 


1019 


1907 


ME.  HUNTEE:  May  what? 

THE  SECEETAEY : “The  city  may 

begin  and  maintain  proceedings  ’ ’. 

ME.  FISHEE:  That  does  not  pro- 

vide the  court  in  which  it  may  be 
brought. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  No,  it  does  not 

provide  the  court  in  which  it  may  be 
brought.  I do  not  believe  in  this  indi- 
rect way  of  extending  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  municipal  court;  it  has  now  no 
jurisdiction  in  chancery  matters,  no  chan- 
cery jurisdiction. 

ME.  FISHEE  : Is  it  not  the  reverse 

of  what  Mr.  Eosenthal  is  stating?  If 
we  are  going  to  confer  power  to  main- 
tain such  an  action  in  any  court,  it  must 
be — this  charter  must  be — in  the  munic- 
ipal court — if  we  are  going  to  confer 
power  to  maintain  such  action  in  any 
court  in  this  charter,  it  must  be  in  the 
municipal  court.  We  cannot  enlarge  the 
jurisdiction  in  the  circuit  courts  of  the 
state  by  a law  relating  only  to  Chicago; 
their  jurisdiction  must  be  general  through 
the  state. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  It  does  not  en- 

large the  jurisdiction,  because  the  cir- 
cuit court  of  Cook  county  already  has 
jurisdiction  in  matters  of  this  kind,  and 
the  superior  court  has  jurisdiction ; but 
that  authorizes  the  city  in  these  cases  to 
begin  proceedings  in  courts  having  juris- 
diction. 

ME.  FISHEE:  The  question,  if  the 

Chairman  please,  is  whether  or  not  the 
circuit  court  will  have  jurisdiction  in 
restraining  violations  of  the  ordinances 
by  injunction.  It  is  the  opinion  of  a 
portion  of  the  law  committee,  which  sat 
with  the  drafting  committee,  that  it  could 
not  be  done,  if  this  precise  language 
was  adopted,  because  Mr.  Wilson  con- 
tended that  that  was  the  only  way  in 
which  it  could  be  accomplished,  the  only 
way  in  which  this  jurisdiction  could  be 
conferred,  it  would  have  to  be  limited 
to  the  municipal  court. 

I concur  with  the  general  principle 
recommended  by  Mr.  Eosenthal  in  re- 


gard to  the  municipal  court  act;  but  it 
does  not  have  that  effect,  but  merely  in- 
dicates the  court  in  which  such  action 
so  created  would  be  brought.  There 
does  not  now  exist  an  action  to  restrain 
violations  of  the  ordinance,  and  this  was 
meant  to  confer  upon  the  municipal  court 
that  right,  and  this  is  the  opinion  that 
Mr.  Wilson  gave,  that  this  would  be  the 
proper  way  to  reach  that  point. 

ME.  GEEENACEE : I would  like  to 

ask  if  that  is  legal* 

ME.  FISHEE:  Well,  perhaps  I ought 

not  to  give  my'  opinion  in  the  matter, 
and  perhaps  I have  no  opinion  that 
would  have  any  great  weight  in  the 
matter.  It  is  Mr.  Wilson ’s  opinion 
that  this  is  legal,  and  it  is  the  only 
way  it  can  be  done;  if  it  is  not  legal, 
it  cannot  be  done  at  all. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  motion  on  Mr.  Eosenthal ’s  amend- 
ment? All  those  in  favor  will  signify 
by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no.  It 
seems  to  be  lost.  It  is  lost.  The  sec- 
retary will  proceed. 

THE  SECEETAEY:  20,  21,  page  97, 

article  X:  “Powers  for  aid,  relief  and 
correction.  ’ ’ 1,  2,  3, — 

ME.  MEEEIAM : No.  3,  strike  out, 

“in  connection  therewith”,  “municipal 
lodging  houses  for  unemployed  persons 
and  employment  bureaus  in  connection 
therewith”,  seems  to  be  ambiguous  and 
uncertain.  It  does  not  add  anything  to 
what  is  already  there.  I move  to  strike 
out  the  three  words  mentioned. 

THE  CHAIEMAN ; That  came  from 
Mr.  Cole’s  committee,  didn’t  it? 

ME.  COLE : Yes. 

ME.  EOBINS:  There  was  a very  de- 

cided reason  for  having  this  inserted  in 
this  matter. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Yes,  and  I think 

Mr.  Merriam  knows  what  it  was. 

ME.  EOBINS:  There  is  an  objection 

held  by  many  people  to  the  city’s  estab- 
lishing employment  bureaus  as  a gen- 
eral proposition ; but  there  is  no  ob- 
jection by  informed  persons  to  the  city’s 


February  23 


1020 


1907 


establishing  a bureau  for  the  purpose  of 
finding  employment  for  indigent  persons 
who  may  come  to  municipal  lodging 
houses,  and  who  have  not  money  to  pay 
fees,  and  who  will  become  vagrants  and 
charges  on  the  community,  and  it  is  a 
social  service,  a municipal  benefit,  to 
give  those  persons  a job,  to  get  them  to 
working  and  on  their  feet;  but  we  don’t 
want  to  have  established  the  principle 
that  the  City  of  Chicago — at  least  some 
persons  don’t  want  to  have  it,  I would 
not  object — some  persons  don’t  want  to 
have — 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Will  Mr.  Robins 

yield  to  a question? 

MR.  ROBINS : Certainly. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Do  you  insist  upon 

those  words  there? 

MR.  ROBINS:  I do  not.  I insist 

upon  an  explanation  for  the  reason  why 
the  words  are  there,  and  why  it  was 
thought  desirable  that  they  be  there,  and 
after  that  is  made,  if  it  is  desired  that 
they  be  stricken  out,  why,  they  can  be 
stricken  out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Professor  Mer- 

riam  has  moved  to  strike  out  three  words 
in  that  section. 

MR,  FISHER:  When  this  matter 

was  discussed  before  the  committee,  if 
I may  venture  the  explanation,  we  were 
informed  that  those  words  were  put 
in  by  express  action.  The  difficulty 
arises  from  the  ambiguity  of  the  words 
themselves.  I do  not  understand  that 
there  is  any  ambiguity  in  the  idea;  the 
ambiguity  is  in  the  language. 

MR.  COLE:  I will  explain  how  the 

ambiguity  arises,  if  you  wish.  I want 
to  say,  in  the  first  place,  that  Mr.  Wilson 
was  not  consulted  when  those  words  were 
put  in.  But  it  was  threshed  out  in  the 
committee  very  thoroughly,  Mr.  Walker 
was  there,  and  Mr.  Robins  was  consulted, 
and  some  of  the  committee  felt  very 
reluctant  about  the  city  having  anything 
to  do  with  an  employment  agency,  Mr. 
Sunny  particularly;  the  chairman  of  the 
convention  was  present  also,  I think,  and 


I,  for  one,  had  a few  words  to  say  in 
regard  to  this  matter,  and  we  wanted 
to  add  those  words.  There  was  not 
much  ambiguity  about  it, — about  the  par- 
ticular language  of  the  words,  for  we 
got  the  unanimous  report  of  the  com- 
mittee on  it. 

MR.  FISHER : The  ambiguity  still 

remains;  that  is  to  say,  it  is  entirely 
uncertain  as  to  just  exactly  what  it 
means;  it  says  “The  city  council  shall 
have  power  to  establish,  erect  and  main- 
tain, alms  houses,  municipal  lodging 
houses  for  unemployed  persons  and  em- 
ployment bureaus  in  connection  there- 
with.” Now,  the  question  is,  howr  con- 
nected? Does  that  mean  connected  in 
the  house  or  connected  with  some  par- 
ticular ordinance,  with  relation  to  some 
particular  ordinance,  or  what  is  the  ef- 
fect of  it  ? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Connected  with  the 

house  itself. 

MR.  FISHER:  Connected  with  the 

house  itself? 

MR,  ROBINS:  Right  in  the  house. 

MR,  FISHER  : That  should  be  stated, 

then ; it  is  an  ambiguity  in  the  lan- 
guage, as  I understand.  “Employment 
bureaus  in  connection  with  municipal 
lodging  houses  ’ ’,  in  ordinary  legal 
phraseology,  I assume,  would  be  inter- 
preted as  being  in  connection  with  it,  if 
it  had  any  connection  at  all. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Cannot  we  get 

through  with  this?  I understand  Mr. 
Fisher  is  troubled  about  the  ambiguity 
of  his  own  language. 

MR,  FISHER:  Not  at  all. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Let  it  go  back  to 

his  own  sub-committee  to  clear  up  the 
ambiguity. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  agreed  that 

the  intent  of  the  section  is  that  the 

employment  bureaus  will  be  maintained 
and  operated  in  the  lodging  houses,  and 
the  drafting  committee  will  be  instruct- 
ed to  phrase  it. 

MR.  BADENOCH : Substitute  the 

words  “therein”  and  strike  out  “in  con- 


February  23 


1021 


1907 


nection  therewith”,  “ municipal  lodging 
houses  for  unemployed  persons  and  em- 
ployment bureaus  in  connection  there- 
with”. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Leave  it  to  the 

sub-committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  drafting 

committee  will  take  that  into  consider- 
ation, and  they  will  take  care  of  that. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  revert,  for  a moment  to  section 
2,  ‘ ‘ The  city  council  shall  have  power 
in  its  discretion  to  indemnify  persons 
whose  property  has  been  destroyed  by 
or  under  the  authority  of  the  fire  de- 
partment of  the  city  in  order  to  check 
the  spread  of  a conflagration.” 

It  seems  to  me  this  opens  up  a new 
field  and  a dangerous  one.  On  the 
face  of  it  it  would  seem  that  it  is 
just  to  reimburse  people  for  property 
destroyed  in  case  of  conflagration;  yet 
the  law,  as  it  now  stands,  does  not  fix 
a liability  upon  the  city  for  anything 
that  is  necessary  in  such  cases,  in  order 
to  check  fire,  for  any  property  destroyed. 
The  chances  are  that  the  conflagration 
would  destroy  the  property  anyhow.  I, 
for  one,  am  somewhat  in  doubt  about 
the  wisdom  of  inserting  this  section.  I 
would  like  to  ask  where  it  came  from 
and  what  were  the  reasons  given  for  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  does  not  say 

* ‘ shall 1 \ it  says  ‘ 1 may  in  its  discre- 
tion ’ \ 

MR.  BENNETT : I understand,  where 
a case  comes  in  that  may  appeal  to  the 
council — we  have  many  of  those  cases 
now,  for  minor  matters — but  1 think 
this  is  dangerous. 

MR.  HUNTER:  It  says  “shall”. 

MR.  BENNETT : The  tendency  is  to 

take  care  of  the  loss  of  the  individual. 
Unless  there  is  some  good  reason  for  this 
that  can  be  given  by  the  members  who 
originated  it,  I think  we  had  better  leave 
it  out.  Where  did  it  come  from,  Mr. 
Fisher,  do  you  know? 

MR.  FISHER:  Was  that  question  ad- 

dressed to  me? 


MR.  BENNETT : Yes. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  situation  was 

this:  The  attention  of  the  committee 

was  called  to  the  fact  that  in  a great 
many  of  the  states  there  is  a constitu- 
tional provision  that  a person  whose  prop- 
erty is  destroyed  by  the  fire  marshal  to 
prevent  the  spread  of  a conflagration, 
may  have  the  right  of  recovery,  and 
that  is  in  the  nature  of  a right  to  any 
other  property  owner  who  has  property 
which  is  taken  for  public  use.  You 
have  no  more  right  to  destroy  a man’s 
house  to  stop  a conflagration  than  you 
have  to  take  property — than  a railroad 
has  to  take  property,  or  any  other  cor- 
poration, for  railroad  or  any  other  pur- 
poses, take  it  by  condemnation,  and  the 
committee ’s  idea  was  that  the  city  coun- 
cil should  have  the  power  if  they 
wished  to  use  it,  but  not  to  make  it  ob- 
ligatory. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I think  it  would 

be  the  better  part  of  wisdom  to  leave 
that  out,  and  I therefore  move  that  it 
be  stricken  out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

made  and  seconded  that  the  second  par- 
agraph of  article  X be  stricken  out, 
1 1 The  city  council  shall  have  the  power 
in  its  discretion  to  indemnify  persons 
whose  property  has  been  destroyed  by 
or  under  the  authority  of  officers  of  the 
fire  department  of  the  city  in  order  to 
cheek  the  spread  of  a conflagration.  ’ ’ 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question  ? 

MR.  TAYLOR : May  I ask  of  some 

lawyer  here  present  whether  a person 
who  has  property  and  whose  property 
is  thus  destroyed,  whether  he  has  any 
ground  for  action?  If  this  is  stricken 
out — what  is  the  general  law  of  indem- 
nity now? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Under  the  law,  as  it 

stands  now,  he  cannot  recover.  Most 
cases  that  come  to  us  nowr  are  cases 
where  the  fire  marshal,  in  the  line  of 
his  duty,  destroys  a vehicle  on  the  street 
or  injures  a person  driving  to  a fire.  I 
do  not  remember  lately  of  having  any 


February  23 


1022 


1907 


claim  for  any  building  destroyed.  In 
all  these  eases  which  have  come  to  us 
heretofore,  the  law  department  has  rules 
that  we  are  not  liable,  that  it  is  one  of 
the  risks  citizens  take;  it  is  one  of  the 
burdens  imposed  upon  our  citizens,  in 
the  case  of  conflagration,  and,  as  I 
said  before,  his  property  would  probably 
be  destroyed  by  fire,  anyway,  and  it 
would  probably  be  necessary  to  tear  it 
down. 

MR.  TAYLOR  : There  is  just  a ques- 

tion there,  Mr.  Chairman;  he  cannot  re- 
cover from  the  insurance  company  if  the 
city  destroys  it,  can  he? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  That  is  a ques- 

tion I would  like  to  ask,  Mr.  Chairman, 
if  there  is  an  insurance  lawyer  here.  I 
don’t  know  whether  the  insurance  com- 
panies are  liable  or  not;  I rather  think 
not,  but  I don’t  know.  If  this  property 
is  destroyed  by  the  city,  not  in  conse- 
quence of  fire. 

MR.  HARRISON : It  is  my  recollec- 

tion that  in  San  Francisco  the  insurance 
companies  are  held  liable  for  the  prop- 
erty destroyed  in  checking  the  spread 
of  conflagration.  It  may  have  been  vol- 
untary on  their  part,  but  the  news- 
papers have  contained  articles  to  that 
effect,  that  they  held  themselves  liable 
for  all  the  property  dynamited  in  check- 
ing the  spread  of  conflagration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  yield- 

ed the  floor,  Mr.  Greenacre? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Yes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  The  policies  ex- 
pressly except  against  anything  of  the 
sort,  and  if  a building  is  blown  up  by 
dynamite  or  in  any  other  way  de- 
stroyed, in  order  to  check  the  confla- 
gration, the  insurance  company  is  in  no 
way  liable. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  this  is  a very 
simple  thing  to  retain  in  the  charter — 
the  council  could  exercise  it.  But  it 
makes  it  discretionary  with  the  council 
to  indemnify  a person  who  has  suffered 
a loss  for  the  benefit  of  the  general 
people.  I think  it  ought  to  remain  in. 


MR.  POST:  The  danger  of  this  sec- 

tion is  that  it  leaves  the  matter  within 
the  rights  of  the  city  council  to  either 
reimburse  a party  or  not  to  reimburse 
him,  and  to  state  how  much  they  will 
reimburse  one  and  how  much  another. 
I believe  thoroughly  in  the  proposition 
stated  by  Mr.  Rosenthal  that  the  citi- 
zen who  suffers  in  this  way  should  not 
be  compelled  to  bear  the  whole  burden 
of  the  property  which  is  destroyed  for 
the  common  good,  but  it  seems  to  me 
we  ought  not  to  pass  this  section,  but 
that  this  is  something  that  should  be 
referred  to  the  law  committee,  with  in- 
structions to  draft  a section  which  will 
enable  a person  or  persons  whose  prop- 
erty is  so  destroyed  to  bring  an  action, 
on  the  basis  of  a judgment  under  which 
suit  he  may  be  reimbursed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  seems  to  me, 

Mr.  Post,  we  had  better  first  decide 
on  the  policy  of  the  thing,  as  to  whether 
or  not  you  want  to  leave  the  section 
in  here  or  not.  The  motion  is  to  strike 
it  out. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Post  in  the  first 
place  really  gave  the  reason  why  I 
take  my  position.  It  leaves  the  mat- 
ter discretionary  to  the  city  council  as 
to  who  should  be  reimbursed  and  under 
what  conditions  they  should  be  reim- 
bursed. I think  this  provision  would 
be  a very  unwise  one  to  stay  in  the 
charter.  As  a matter  of  fact,  a claim 
can  be  presented  to  the  city  for  dam- 
ages on  account  of  destroying  property 
and  every  influence  which  could  be 
brought  to  bear  would  be  used  on  the 
finance  committee  and  on  the  members 
of  the  city  council  - to  get  it  through, 
whether  it  was  absolutely  just  or  other- 
wise. I believe  it  is  a very  dangerous 
provision  to  have  in  the  charter. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  Mr.  Post’s 

point  is  well  taken,  and,  as  I recall  it, 
the  words  “by  ordinance”  were  in  this 
resolution  when  it  was  originally  draft- 
ed— and  that  is  Mr.  Freund’s  recollec- 
tion. I do  not  see  how  they  came  to  be 


February  23 


1023 


1907 


stricken  out.  It  seems  to  me  it  is 
proper  to  authorize  the  city  council  to 
pay  in  part  or  in  whole  the  damages 
sustained  in  this  manner,  and  I now 
move  that  the  drafting  committee  be 
instructed  to  redraft  that  section.  I 
think  that  compensation  in  whole  or 
in  part  for  these  damages  should  appeal 
to  the  fairness  of  every  person  who  is 
a member  of  this  Convention. 

The  old  theory  that  people  ought  to 
suffer  for  the  general  benefit  is  pretty 
generally  getting  out  of  vogue,  and  it 
certainly  should  not  appeal  to  the  gen- 
tlemen of  this  Convention,  who  are 
here  to  protect  rights  and  property. 

If  a property  owner’s  property  is 
blown  up  by  dynamite  to  stop  the 
spread  of  conflagration,  there  should  be 
proof  brought  of  that  fact.  The  ques- 
tion is  whether  they  should  be  com- 
pensated for  that. 

ME.  MEERIAM:  There  is  here  in 

the  statute  a part  which  refers  to  tear- 
ing down,  but  not  in  quite  the  same 
words.  I refer  to  No.  62.  (Reads  sec- 
tion.) 

MR.  BENNETT:  Upon  the  subject 

of  providing  for  this  matter  by  gen- 
eral ordinance,  I do  not  see  how  that 
can  be  done.  All  that  the  general  ordi- 
nance could  do  would  be  to  say  that 
the  council  shall  allow  such  claims,  but 
the  particulars  relating  to  each  claim 
would  have  to  be  considered  and  passed 
on  by  the  council  and  then,  as  a neces- 
sity, would  become  a subject  matter  to 
be  passed  on  by  itself. 

As  I understand  Mr.  Post,  his  motion 
was  to  give  the  owner  the  right  to  re- 
cover in  court,  and  if  it  is  to  take  that 
course,  then  it  is  not  a charter  matter 
at  all,  but  is  a matter  that  should  be 
provided  for  in  the  general  laws  of 
the  state.  That  is  the  way  it  occurs 
to  me. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  As  many  as  are  in 
favor  of  the  motion  of  Mr.  Bennett  to 
strike  out  this  section  will  vote  aye; 


opposed,  no.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

Yeas — Bennett,  Gansbergen,  Green- 
acre,  Hunter,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Post, 
Raymer,  Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow, 
Walker,  Young — 13. 

Nays  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Beilfuss, 
Brosseau,  Brown,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eidmann,  Fisher,  Guerin,  Harrison,  Hill, 
MacMillan,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  Michaelis,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Sethness,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno,  Wil- 
kins— 24. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  HUNTER  : Does  this  carry  with 
it  the  provision  by  Mr.  Post? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : It  carries  the 

whole  matter. 

MR.  HUNTER:  The  suggestion  of 

Mr.  Post? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  suggestion 

of  Mr.  Post  would  carry  it  outside  the 
charter.  The  question  is  simply  on 
the  motion  of  Alderman  Bennett  to 
strike  out  this  section. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I would 

like  to  explain  my  vote.  I am  in  favor 
of  the  principle  of  this  section,  the  prin- 
ciple of  compensation  for  such  losses, 
but  I am  opposed  to  this  method  of 
applying  the  principle.  I,  therefore, 
would  join  with  those  who  vote  to 
strike  out  the  amendment  and  vote  aye. 
I should  like  to  reserve  the  right  to 
make  a motion  on  this  subject  before 
we  pass  it. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wish  to  vote  no,  but 
for  the  purpose  of  having  it  re-referred, 
and  having  the  provision  and  protec- 
tion under  the  general  ordinance — and 
I hope  that  that  will  be  the  action 
taken  after  this  vote  is  completed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  yeas  are  14 

and  the  nays  24,  and  the  motion  is 
lost. 

The  Secretary  will  read— — 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I would 

like — Mr.  Robins,  will  you  make  the 
motion? 


February  23 


1024 


1907 


MR.  ROBINS:  What  is  the  next 

section? 

MR.  POST:  The  second  section. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I want  you  to  move 

that. 

MR.  POST:  I move  that  Section  2 

be  referred  to  the  committee  on  law, 
to  report  upon  the  question  of  whether 
under  the  constitutional  amendment  un- 
der which  we  are  acting  such  a legal 
liability  as  is  here  indicated  may  be 
established  by  the  charter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

objections? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

it  seems  to  me  that 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A little  louder. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  seems  to  me 

it  is  unnecessary  to  refer  that  to  the 
law  committee,  for  the  reason  that  you 
are  going  to  create  a remedy  here  not 
possible  to  the  individual.  You  can- 
not do  it  except  by  general  law  op- 
erative throughout  the  city.  Whereas, 
if  you  give  power  to  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago that  it  can  be  done  by  this  char- 
ter, I don’t  think  that  is  a matter  that 
should  be  referred  to  the  law  commit- 
tee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

Mr.  Post’s  motion.  As  many  as  favor 
the  same  signify  by  saying  aye;  op- 
posed, no. 

MR.  POST:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor Mr.  Post’s  motion  say  aye;  op- 
posed, no.  The  secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

Yeas — Beilfuss,  Brown,  Gansbergen, 
Greenacre,  Guerin,  Hunter,  Linehan, 
MacMillan,  Post,  Raymer,  Robins, 
Sethness,  Taylor,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Zim- 
mer— 16. 

Nays  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett, 
Brosseau,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eidmann, 
Fisher,  Harrison,  Hill,  Lathrop,  Me- 
Goorty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  Michaelis, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smulski, 
Snow,  Yopicka,  Walker,  Young — 23. 

(During  roll  call.) 


MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I want 

to  say  that  it  seems  to  me  that  we  are 
wasting  a valuable  lot  of  time.  Our 
legislature  is  about  half  through;  prob- 
ably it  does  not  look  as  though  we  are 
going  to  get  this  down  there  inside  of 
two  weeks.  This  has  all  got  to  be  gone 
over  in  the  legislature.  I think  we 
should  expedite  this  and  not  be  running 
around  in  a circle.  I vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post’s  mo- 

tion. The  yeas  are  16,  the  nays  23,  and 
the  motion  is  lost.  Section  4. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Four.  Page 

97,  5. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I didn’t 

know  that  we  had  considered  3.  I wish 
to  offer  a suggestion,  and  I put  it  in  the 
form  of  a motion,  or  a slight  amend- 
ment there,  in  order  to  enable  the  City  of 
Chicago  to  do,  if  it  should  wish  to  at 
any  time,  what  other  cities  in  this  coun- 
try and  in  England  are  doing,  with 
the  view  of  making  our  vagrants  and 
criminal  classes  self-supporting  and 
self-respecting  men,  instead  of  contin- 
uing vagrants  and  criminals. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Will  the  Conven- 
tion come  to  order? 

MR.  POST:  Instead  of  continuing  in 
their  lives  of  vagrancy  and  criminal- 
ity. 

For  the  purpose  of  bringing  that  be- 
fore the  Convention,  I move  to  amend 
line  2,  Section  3,  by  inserting  after  the 
words  “lodging  houses”  “gardens  and 
farms,”  and  in  Section  5,  after  the 
word  “workhouses,”  by  inserting  the 
same  phrase. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  POST:  That  the  words  “gar- 

dens and  farms”  should  be  inserted. 
The  reading  of  the  clause  would  be 
this,  that  in  addition  to  providing 
places  for  the  confinement  and  punish- 
ment and  temporary  relief  of  these  in- 
dividuals the  city  would  have  the 
power,  without  going  directly  to  the 
legislature,  to  establish  gardens  and 
farms  to  which  people  might  be  con- 


February  23 


1025 


1907 


fined.  The  same  method  has  been  in 
force  in  other  places  in  this  country 
and  in  England,  and  it  has  been  found 
a success  in  any  place  where  it  is 
adopted. 

ME.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  with 

the  permission  of  Mr.  Post  I will  sug- 
gest that  Section  5 be  amended,  if  he 
has  no  objection,  that  that  section 
read:  “The  city  council  shall  have 

the  power  to  establish  and  maintain 
jails,  houses  of  correction  and  work- 
houses” — that  we  strike  out  the  word 
“and”  and  insert  the  words  “work 
farms. ” “Jails,  houses  of  correction, 
workhouses  and  work  farms  for  the 
confinement  and  reformation  of  va- 
grants, disorderly  persons  and  persons 
convicted  of  violating  any  city  or  de- 
partmental ordinance,  or  of  commit- 
ting any  misdemeanor.  ” The  object 
being,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  purpose 
of  the  work  farm,  that  instead  of  put- 
ting people  in  the  close — there  is  a class 
of  vagrants  and  disorderly  persons  that 
are  not  helped  by  a short  term  in  the 
house  of  correction.  Everyone  famil- 
iar with  that  character  of  work  knows 
that  to  be  true.  That  experiment  has 
been  found  to  be  very  beneficial  in 
Massachusetts  and  in  many  other 
places  where  it  has  been  adopted,  and 
I believe  power  should  reside  in  the 
City  of  Chicago  to  make  such  provision, 
if,  in  its  judgment,  it  sees  fit. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins 

moves  to  insert  the  words  “work 
farms”  in  the  second  line  after  the 
words  “houses  of  correction.”  Are 
you  ready  for  the  question?  All  those 
in  favor  of  the  motion  say  aye;  op- 
posed, no.  It  is  so  ordered.  The  next. 

MR.  POST:  Does  that  apply  to  Sec- 
tion 3 also? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  96 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be  put  in 
Section  3,  too. 

MR.  POST:  That’s  right. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Seven. 


MR.  WALKER:  I desire  to  offer  an 

amendment  to  Section  7,  after  the  words 
‘ 1 work  of,  ’ ’ in  the  next  to  the  last 
line  of  Section  7,  there  be  inserted  the 
words  “detection,  prevention,  prosecu- 
tion and  punishment  of  crime.”  I offer 
this  amendment  for  the  reason  that  the 
dealing  of  the  municipalities  on  the 
subject  of  the  prevention  and  prosecu- 
tion of  crime  is  one  of  the  functions  in 
which  the  city  and  county  necessarily 
overlap. 

Possibly  it  is  not  the  right  place  for 
it,  but  I think  it  is.  The  idea  of  the 
committee  was  this  originally  when  we 
drafted  this  report,  but  it  was  omitted 
for  some  reason  or  other.  So  that  the 
language  from  that  on  would  read: 

‘ 1 Mutual  co-operation  in  the  work  of 
the  detection,  prevention,  prosecution 
and  punishment  of  crime,  reformation, 
correction,  charity,  aid  or  relief.” 

MR.  COLE:  I second  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  All  those  in  favor  signify 
the  same  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no. 
It  is  carried.  Article  XI. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  After  the  word 
“co-operation,”  in  10 — 7,  I think  we 
ought  to  have  “and  contribution,”  so 
that  it  will  read  in  Section  7,  “for  mu- 
tual co-operation  and  contribution.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  to  insert  the  words  “and  con- 
tribution.” 

MR.  HUNTER:  What  does  it  mean? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mutual  co-op- 

eration and  contribution. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  means  it 

should  be  done  at  the  general  expense 
or  partial  expense.  Something  of  that 
sort. 

MR.  WALKER:  Don’t  the  general 

wording  cover  that,  “the  municipal  au- 
thorities shall  have  power  to  enter  into 
agreements  and  arrangements  with  the 
authorities  of  Cook  County  or  other 
governmental  bodies  for  mutual  co- 
operation and  contributions,”  etc.? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  you 


February  23 


1026 


1907 


do  with  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  amendment? 
All  those  in  favor  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried.  Arti- 
cle XI. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  98. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  these 

are  two  of  the  most  important  articles 
in  the  charter,  and  I think  I noticed 
the  departure  of  sufficient  members  to 
make  this  Convention  without  a quorum, 
and  I would  move  you,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  we  adjourn  to  such  time  as  meets 
the  pleasure  of  the  Convention.  I have 
not  a suggestion  or  I would  make  one. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  we  have 

got  to  get  through  at  some  time  or  an- 
other. Along  in  last  December  we  ad- 
journed for  only  a few  days,  and  here 
it  is  the  23d  of  February.  We  must 
remember  that  the  legislature  has  got 
to  consider  this  charter  and  it  must  go 
into  committees.  We  have  got  to  rush 
it  through,  but  the  country  members 
have  got  to  give  it  careful  considera- 
tion. We  have  got  to  get  action  on 
this  thing.  I think  we  should  adjourn 
till  9 o’clock  tomorrow,  and  spend  all 
day  Sunday  on  it,  so  we  can  do  some- 
thing, so  we  can  get  action  on  it. 
Either  we  must  have  more  meetings  or 
less  talking. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Why  is  it  not 

possible  to  finish  this  next  section? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Well,  I withdraw  my 
suggestion,  Mr.  President. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  try,  any- 

way. Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  98,  Ar- 

ticle XI,  Finance.  1,  2,  3,  4,  5. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  Sec- 

tion 5,  nearly  to  the  end,  after  the 
’ word  1 ‘found,”  in  the  second  line, 
“ found  by  the  head  of  the  depart- 
ment for  which  such  appropriation  has 
been  made.”  I move  to  strike  out 
that  language,  “by  the  head  of  the  de- 
partment for  which  such  appropriation 
has  been  made.”  This  section  relates 
to  transfer  of  appropriations,  and  I 
think  it  should  be  left  in  the  hands  of 


the  council  to  deal  with  that  subject. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  didn’t 
get  the  motion. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I move  to  strike 

out  “by  the  head  of  the  department 
for  which  such  appropriation  has  been 
made.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett 

moves  to  strike  out  in  paragraph  5,  1 1 by 
the  head  of  the  department  for  which 
such  appropriation  has  been  made.” 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question?  All 
those  in  favor  signify  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  Carried.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Six. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to 

move  to  amend  11 — 6,  line  4,  by  substi- 
tuting for  the  words  “two-thirds”  “a 
majority  vote,”  and  on  line  5,  for 
“like  vote”  “a  two-thirds  vote  of  all 
its  members.  ’ ’ This  section  provides 
for  setting  aside  of  a special  fund, 
money  for  particular  purposes.  As  I 
understand  the  law  now,  such  an  ap- 
propriation would  lapse  at  the  end  of 
the  year.  Unless  you  have  a special 
provision  made  to  prevent  it  lapsing  in- 
to the  general  fund,  it  would  go  back 
there.  There  seems  to  me  no  reason 
why  we  should  require  a two-thirds  vote 
to  set  aside  a particular  fund,  or  a 
particular  source  of  the  city  revenue 
for  that  purpose.  But,  of  course,  there 
should  be  a stipulation  in  line  9 re- 
quiring a two-thirds  vote  in  order  to 
carry  it  back  to  its  original  fund.  But 
on  a question  of  broad  policy  it  is  not 
necessary  that  more  than  a majority 
vote  should  be  required.  I think  a two- 
thirds  vote  should  be  required  to  trans- 
fer to  a sinking  fund 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  is  not  a sinking 

fund. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  It  is  not  a sinking 

fund,  no.  It  is  a special  fund. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

to  strike  out  two-thirds  and  make  it  a 
majority.  All  those  in  favor  say  aye; 
opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 


February  23 


1027 


1907 


MR.  FISHER:  And  a like  vote  to 

two-thirds. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  to  change 

it  wherever  it  appears. 

THE  SECRETARY:  7,  8,  9,  10,  11, 

12,  13.  Page  101,  14. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  under 
this  provision  the  city  collector  and 
the  city  treasurer  would  be  one  and  the 
same  person. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  ought  to 

be  changed. 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  should  be 

changed;  that  is  a mistake.  There 
was  an  alternative  provision  drawn  up 
by  the  committee  covering  that  point. 
I remember  it  was  under  discussion 
at  one  meeting  when  I was  present. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  question  was 

raised,  but  the  committee  was  not  clear 
on  the  matter.  I don't  think  any  alter- 
native provision  was  drawn  up. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I understood  there 
was  an  alternative. 

MR.  FISHER:  There  is  none. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I move  it  be  with- 
drawn; that  this  provision  providing 
for  a city  collector  and  city  treasurer 
be  withdrawn.  It  is  a mistake  to  have 
a man  who  receives  money  account  to 
himself.  There  are  two  offices  for  one 
person.  I believe  it  is  a great  mistake 
to  make  it  that  way. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  Alderman  Bennett's  motion  sig- 
ify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  Car- 
ried. No.  15. 

THE  SECRETARY:  15,  16. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  in 

regard  to  16,  where  it  reads  now,  it  is 
impossible  to  say  that  the  moneys,  the 
property  of  the  school  board  and  the 
library  board  and  other  organizations, 
that  the  interest  on  that  money  should 
also  be  returned  to  the  city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  this  par- 
agraph is  a copy  of  the  old  statute. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I know  it,  Mr. 

Chairman,  but  the  controversy  has 
arisen  on  different  occasions.  The  comp- 


troller insists  that  the  interests  on  the 
money  owing  to  the  library  board  and 
the  school  board  shall  be  returned  to 
the  city.  Now,  I don't  think  the  in- 
tention of  that  paragraph  is  to  have  it 
this  way.  There  is  no  sense  in  hav- 
ing that  returned  that  way.  Can  that 
be  cleared  up? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett, 

can  you  clear  that  up? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  the 

operation  and  the  interests  of  the  va- 
rious bodies  under  this  charter  will  be 
one  body  and  the  money  should  go  into 
the  treasury.  I don't  see  that  there 
is  any  difficulty  about  that.  And  there 
has  never  been,  that  I know  of,  Mr. 
Linehan. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  The  point  has  been 

raised,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  each  case  for 
the  library  board  and  the  school  board. 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  finance  com- 

mittee has  always  insisted  on  a di- 
vision of  that  money  in  accordance 
with  the  appropriation.  In  any  event, 
it  would  go  back  to  the  treasury  for 
reappropriation.  For  the  parks  and 
schools  the  casemay  be  identical.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  point. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  All  right. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  17. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  same 
as  it  at  present  stands,  I believe. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  102,  18, 

19,  20,  21,  22.  Page  103,  Article  XII, 
Revenue. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  a re- 

port here,  I believe,  on  Revenue. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I see 

that  Mr.  Ritter,  president  of  the  school 
board,  is  not  here.  We  will  have  to 
have  another  session,  that  is  certain.  It 
seems  to  me  that  in  an  important  mat- 
ter like  this  we  ought  to  have  such  sug- 
gestions as  he  might  wish  to  present, 
and  for  that  purpose  I will  move  that 
we  make  Sections  1 and  2 of  Article 
XTT  a special  order  for  the  opening  hour 
of  the  next  session  of  the  Convention. 


February  23 


1028 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  desire  to 

move  that  Sections  1 and  2 be  made  a 
special  order  for  the  next  meeting? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I haven’t  any  ob- 

jection to  that  motion  if  it  is  the  dis- 
position to  now  adjourn.  I simply  rise 
to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  Sec- 
tions 1 and  2,  as  printed  in  the  Pro- 
ceedings, are  offered  in  lieu  of  Sections 

1 and  2 as  printed  in  the  which 

have  already  been  adopted,  but  that  do 
not  appear  in  this  document. 

MR.  POST:  Where? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  In  the  last  Pro- 

ceedings, any  one  of  them. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  994. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Page  994.  If  the 

gentleman  will  bear  that  in  mind. 

MR.  POST:  It  is  not  the  intention 

of  mine,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  ad- 
journ now,  but  merely  that  we  pass 
those  two  sections. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That’s  all  right. 

MR.  POST:  And  go  on  with  the 

others. 

MR.  COLE:  I support  Mr.  Post,  if 

he  will  make  it  the  whole  section. 

MR.  POST:  I will  make  it  the  whole 
section,  as  suggested  by  Mr.  Cole. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  objection  to 
making  that  article  a special  order  at 
10  o’clock  Monday  morning? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  All  right. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Do  you  desire 

to  take  up  parts  of  it  now? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Article  13. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  107,  Ar- 
ticle XIII.  Indebtedness. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  finan- 

cial gentlemen  pay  attention,  please? 

THE  SECRETARY:  3,  4.  There  is 

an  error  there.  It  says  14;  it  should 
be  4. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

THE  SECRETARY:  5. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Under  4,  marked 

14  here.  I would  like  to  have  some  one 
state  the  reasons  for  not  issuing  serial 
bonds  instead  of  issuing  bonds  for  the 
full  term  of  twenty  years.  It  may  be 


wise  under  the  new  arrangements  for 
the  City  of  Chicago  not  to  use  serial 
bonds,  but  it  has  been  considered  by 
all  the  other  authorities  that  it  is  the 
best  procedure  to  follow.  Under  the 
great  latitude  $40,000,000  bonds  may  be 
issued,  it  may  be — they  might  be  is- 
sued— which  will  mature  each  year  to 
equalize  the  distribution,  and  the  same 
thing  accomplished  by  long  series. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Under  the  pro- 

posed constitutional  amendment  there 
can  be  no  refunding  of  bonds  except 
those  which  are  now  outstanding.  Ac- 
cordingly the  provision  of  the  law  and 
constitution  which  provides  for  an  an- 
nual tax  levy  to  meet  the  bonds  that 
matured  will  be  in  force,  so  that  all 
bonds  hereafter  issued  will  be  serial 
bonds,  or  bonds  for  the  payment  of 
which  a sinking  fund  will  be  created. 
The  modern  practice,  and  it  is  one 
which  we  follow  in  the  city  now,  is  to 
issue  serial  bonds.  I do  not  apprehend 
there  will  be  any  difficulty  on  the  point 
raised  by  Mr.  Shepard.  It  will  be  to 
the  interests  of  the  city  to  place  these 
serially  for  the  reason  that  we  will  be 
able  to  issue  new  bonds  in  their  place. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Is  it  provided  here 

that  shall  be  done? 

MR.  FISHER:  Don’t  you  issue  here 
serial  bonds  substantially  similar  to 
them? 

MR.  BENNETT:  By  the  constitution 
we  are  compelled  to  levy  an  annual 
fund.  The  courts  held  in  the  past 
where  that  fund  was  not  levied  under 
the  provisions  of  the  charter  we  might 
refund,  but  under  the  present  amend- 
ment we  are  prevented  from  issuing 
new  bonds. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  is  only  the  last 

thirty-two  years  the  council  is  au- 
thorized to  do  that.  Prior  to  that  time 
they  issued  bonds  payable  only  in 
twenty  years.  Under  the  constitutional 
law  they  levied  taxes  for  a sinking 
fund  to  meet  these  bonds,  the  result 
being  that  if  that  sinking  fund  was  not 


February  23 


1029 


1907 


sufficient  for  their  purposes  it  then 
drew  only  2 per  cent  or  1%  per  cent 
income,  while  the  bond  outstanding 
paid  about  4 per  cent. 

Now,  under  the  serial  issue,  you  take 
your  maturing  bonds  the  moment  the 
tax  is  collected,  each  year,  and  then 
reduce  the  finnaces  of  the  city  one- 
twentieth  of  the  bond  issue,  and  get  the 
full  benefit  of  the  income — the  earn- 
ing capacity  of  the  money,  i.  e.,  4 per 
cent,  the  interest  payable  on  the  bonds. 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  understand 

there  is  any  difference  as  to  the  policy, 
but  do  you  find  anything  in  this  sec- 
tion which  prohibits  that  policy? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  constitution 

requires  that  provision  shall  be  made 
to  retire  those  bonds  in  twenty  years. 
.Now,  it  is  the  judgment  of  all  finan- 
ciers that  the  serial  bond  is  the  best 
form.  Then  why  not  provide  for 
meeting  that  bond,  not  only  in  accord- 
ance with  the  letter  of  the  constitu- 
tion, but  in  accordance  with  the  spirit 
of  the  constitution  and  good  finances, 
and  issue  serial  bonds  only? 

Otherwise,  you  are  bound  to  run  into 
abuse.  You  either  do  not  carry  the 
full  amount  of  your  bonds  and  finally 
could  not  pay  the  amount  of  your  in- 
debtedness, with  no  means  of  getting 
the  new  bonds,  and  no  provision  for  re- 
tiring the  old  bonds. 

Whereas,  if  the  serial  bond  is  used 
you  will  constantly  decrease  the  indebt- 
edness of  the  city  and  at  the  same  time 
you  are  getting  the  best  use  of  the 
credit  of  the  city.  It  is  merely  a ques- 
tion of  finance,  and,  in  my  judgment, 
the  serial  bond  issue  should  be  pro- 
vided for  in  this  charter.  I move  that 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

amendment? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  the  bonds  be 
issued,  maturing  one-twentieth  each 
year. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Serial? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Yes. 


MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman: 

With  the  theory  that  we  are  to  have  the 
most  liberal  form  of  home  rule,  it  does 
seem  to  me  it  would  be  a great  mistake 
to  impose  any  such  restriction  upon 
ourselves. 

While  it  may  appear  that  in  your 
particular  case  the  serial  bond  is  the 
best,  and  it  may  be  so  in  many  cases, 
you  may  admit  that  on  other  occasions 
bonds  issued  in  some  other  form  could 
be  more  desirable,  and  the  city’s  hands 
are  tied. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  May  I interrupt 

with  a question? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Certainly. 

MR,  SHEPARD:  That  is  true,  if 

you  issue  forty-year  bonds;  but  we 
must  follow  the  constitution  on  the 
matter. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  And  you  must  not 

only  read  your  constitution,  but,  in  con- 
nection with  that  constitution,  apply 
those  matters. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  the  next  sec- 
tion it  says  that  the  city  council  shall, 
by  ordinance,  provide  for  a direct  tax 
sufficient  to  pay  the  interest  on  such 
bonds  as  they  fall  due,  and  also  to  pay 
and  discharge  the  principal  thereof  at 
the  time  that  such  principal  shall  fall 
due. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  is  the  trouble 

with  it.  Your  original  note  falls  due 
twenty  years  from  hence,  and  your 
sinking  fund  is  accumulating.  You  are 
paying  5 per  cent  interest  on  your  bonds 
and  earning  2 per  cent  on  your  sinking 
fund.  And  many  times  it  is  spent  and 
there  is  nothing  there  when  your  bonds 
are  due,  while  it  should  be  tied  up  in 
the  hands  of  the  city  as  a credit. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Your  motion 

says  credit 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Shepard’s  amendment,  that 
the  bonds  be  issued,  maturing  every 
twenty  years;  in  other  words,  serial 
bonds. 


February  23 


1030 


1907 


MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  a mis- 
take to  limit  it  in  that  way.  You 
might  want  to  issue  five-year  bonds 
and  not  want  serial  bonds.  I agree 
that  the  twenty-year  issue  seems  to  be 
the  best  policy,  but  I see  no  reason 
why  we  should  just  tie  our  hands  up  in 
that  way. 

If  you  think  better  to  make  a lesser 
issue,  it  could  not  be  more  than  twenty 
years.  We  have  been  acting  on  that 
theory,  and  probably  will  continue  un- 
less a good  reason  arises  to  change. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I realize  that  a 

short-term  bond  might  be  desirable.  I 
am  not  particular  about  the  first  one  or 
two  years,  but  inasmuch  as  Mr.  Ro- 
senthal questioned,  and  Mr.  Fisher,  on 
the  twenty-year  term  bond,  don’t  you 
see  that  you  must  levy  one-twentieth 
each  year? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Then  you  ought  to 

give  the  corresponding  power  and  im- 
pose a corresponding  duty  of  paying  off 
one-twentieth  a year. 

MR.  FISHER:  Isn’t  that  a matter 

of  policy,  to  be  decided  when  you  come 
to 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  can  the 

reporter  get  a duet? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  We  have  a right  to 
go  into  the  market  and  purchase  one- 
twentieth  each  year,  but  that  does  not 
take  care  of  the  finances.  You  pay  your 
market  price  on  the  bond,  without  re- 
quiring the  bondholder  to  sell. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  The  question  is 
on  Mr.  Shepard’s  amendment.  As  many 
as  are  in  favor  will  signify  by  saying 
aye ; contrary,  no.  The  amendment  is 
lost.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  109,  5. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wish  to  ask  Mr. 

Merriam,  as  I believe  he  is  entirely  fa- 
miliar with  this  section, — as  to  whether 
there  is  anything  in  the  wording  of  the 
section  at  any  place  that  sets  the  amount 
of  the  bonds,  or  whether  or  not  they 
may  be  submitted  to  popular  issue?  The 


matter  is  entirely  open,  as  I understand 
the  reading  of  it,  and  I want  to  know 
whether  that  is  his  opinion  of  it?  In 
other  words,  say  a small  issue  of  one 
hundred  dollars,  say.  Is  that  correct? 

MR.  FISHER:  It  is  not  left  to  in- 

ference. It  says,  any  such  denomina- 
tions, and  so  on,  as  the  council  may 
provide.  It  is  provided  expressly  in  the 
language  of  the  statute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Does  that  satisfy 

you,  Mr.  Robins? 

MR.  ROBINS:  I want  to  ask  wheth- 

er the  matter  is  clearly  understood  that 
the  city  council  has  power  to  submit 
bonds  to  popular  subscription,  under  this 
provision? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  That  is  left  to 

the  council. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I want  it  left  to  the 

council. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  6,  7,  8,  9;  page 

110,  10,  11. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Section  10.  It 

seems  to  me  that  the  warrant  may  be 
issued,  to  be  paid  in  the  succeeding  year. 
Then  the  provision  here  is  no  money 
shall  be  borrowed  on  warrants  in  any 
one  year,  unless  all  of  the  money  bor- 
rowed on  the  warrants  in  any  prior  year 
has  been  paid.  Now,  as  a matter  of 
fact,  those  warrants  are  issued, — they 
must  necessarily  be  issued  before  the 
prior  warrants  have  been  made, — as  I un- 
derstand it.  I do  not  think  the  section 
is  clear  on  that  point. 

MR.  BENNETT : As  I understand  it, 

this  provision  does  not  relate  to  tax  an- 
ticipation warrants. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  This  says,  moneys 

to  be  paid  not  later  than  the  succeeding 
year.  It  does  not  relate  to  tax  warrants. 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  does  not  relate 

to  tax  anticipation  warrants. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  11,  12,  13,  page 

HI. 

MR.  FISHER : Before  we  leave  that 

section  I want  to  call  attention  to  the 


February  23 


1031 


1907 


fact  that  the  point  raised  by  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal is  correct,  in  this  extent:  Appar- 

ently you  could  not  issue  any  of  these 
warrants  provided  for  in  section  10,  the 
second  year  after  you  had  started.  You 
have  got  to  get  ahead  of  your  series  be- 
fore you  can  do  anything.  The  first  year 
they  would  be  all  retired,  and  you  could 
not  go  beyond  that. 

MR.  BENNETT : I understood  it  was 

the  intention  to  restrict  the  issue  of 
general  warrants. 

MR.  MERRIAM : The  section  does 

not  say  so. 

MR.  BENNETT;  To  discourage  abuse 
of  the  buyer.  I think  the  section  is  all 
right. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  the  ques- 

tion. I did  not  know  whether  you  had 
any  special  point. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I now  move  that  the 

special  order  of  the  day,  for  the  next 
meeting,  be  the  consideration  of  the  nine- 
teenth section,  immediately  following  the 
section  on  revenue;  because  the  members 
of  the  board  and  Mr.  Ritter  will  be  here, 
and  that  question  of  education  is  more 
disputed  than  any  other  part  of  these. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

whether  the  convention  wants  to  make 
any  special  order  than  the  regular  order, 
— any  special  order  out  of  the  regular 


order.  Dr.  Taylor  moves  that  the  sec- 
tion on  education  be  taken  up  imme- 
diately after  the  revenue  section.  All 
those  in  favor  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  those  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 
It  is  so  ordered. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I now  move  that 
we  adjourn  to  Monday  at  2 o’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentleman 

is  out  of  order.  Mr.  Werno  has  the 
floor. 

MR.  WERNO:  I have  an  amend- 

ment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  is  an 

amendment  by  Mr.  Werno,  which  will  be 
printed.  We  will  now  adjourn  to  10 
o’clock  Monday  morning. 

MR.  BROWN : Are  you  aware  that 

there  is  a republican  primary  at  that 
date? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  does  not  take 

place  until  12  o’clock. 

And  convention  stood  adjourned  to 
meet  Monday,  February  25th,  1907,  at 
10  o’clock  a.  m. 


February  23 


1032 


1907 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention. 


BY.  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Resolved,  That  in  any  act  providing 
for  the  formation  and  disbursement  of 
the  police  pension  fund  the  following 
provision  be  incorporated: 

That  the  members  of  the  police  de- 
partment to  be  included  in  the  bene- 
fits of  such  pension  fund  shall  be  as 
follows: 

The  General  Superintendent  of  Po- 
lice, Assistant  General  Superintendent 
of  Police,  Inspectors,  Captains,  Lieu- 
tenants, Sergeants,  Patrolmen,  Patrol 
Drivers,  Superintendent  of  Horses,  Su- 
perintendent of  Construction,  Superin- 
tendent Bureau  of  Identification,  As- 
sistant Superintendent  Bureau  of  Iden- 
tification, Secretary  of  the  Police  De- 
partment, Private  Secretary.to  the  Gen- 
eral Superintendent  of  Police,  Police 
Custodian  Stolen  Property,  Chief  Clerk 
Secretary's  office,  Clerk  in  Secretary's 
office,  Chief  Clerk  in  Detective  Bu- 
reau, Chief  Operator,  Assistant  Chief 
Operator,  Operators,  Drillmaster,  Chief 
Matron,  Matrons,  Feed  Inspector,  De- 
partment Printer,  Vehicle  Inspectors, 
Photographer,  Assistant  Photographer, 
Stenographers,  Supply  Drivers,  Finger 
Print  Expert  a'nd  such  other  mem- 
bers as  may  hereafter  be  provided  for 
by  ordinance. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen's  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  BROWN: 

Permission  shall  not  be  given  to  any 
person  to  retail  any  goods,  fruit  or 
vegetables  from  a wagon  or  other  vehicle. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city"  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves." 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney's  fees  to. 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

RESOLVED:  That  the  City  of  Chi- 

cago be  given  power  in  condemnation 
proceedings  to  make  the  assessments 
for  benefits  payable  in  such  number  of 
annual  installments  as  the  City  Coun- 
cil shall  by  ordinance  determine,  not 
to  exceed  twenty  in  number,  and  to 
issue  bonds  for  the  anticipation  of  such 
assessments  payable  out  of  the  pro- 
ceeds of  the  collection  thereof,  and  to 
sell  such  bonds  at  not  less  than  par, 
for  the  creation  of  a special  fund  to 
be  used  in  the  payment  of  the  awards 
for  property  taken  or  damaged  through 
such  condemnation  proceedings. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  appropriate  and  set 
aside  out  of  the  moneys  received 
through  general  taxation  or  from  mis- 
cellaneous sources,  as  a special  fund 
to  be  used  only  for  the  repair  or  re- 
pavement of  such  streets  as  have  been 


February  23 


1033 


1907 


paved  by  special  assessment  since  July 
1,  1901,  and  such  streets  as  shall  here- 
after be  so  paved. 


BY  ME.  YOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  create  a special 
fund  to  be  used  for  the  purpose  of 
guaranteeing  the  prompt  payment  at 
maturity  of  all  special  assessment 
bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago  issued 
since  January  1,  1903. 


BY  MR.  VOPICKA: 

Resolved:  That  the  City  of  Chicago 
shall  have  power  to  levy  assessments 
for  improvements  according  to  the  pres- 
ent Special  Assessment  law  with  the 
lollowing  amendment: 

In  cases  where  the  amount  of  an 
assessment  for  widening  or  opening  of 
a street  or  streets  exceeds  the  sum  of 
$500,000,  then  the  assessment  is  to  be 
divided  in  the  following  manner: 

10  per  cent,  of  the  amount  to  be 
levied  on  the  property  facing  the 
streets  where  the  improvement  is  made 
and 

90  per  cent,  of  the  assessment  to  be 
levied  pro  rata  on  all  the  real  estate 
property  in  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  PENDARVIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  then  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Reconsider  the  vote  by  which  para- 
graph 3,  Section  II,  on  page  593,  pro- 
viding that  “members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  shall  serve  without  compen- 
sation” was  passed  for  the  purpose  of 
submitting  the  following  as  a substi- 
tute for  said  paragraph: 

Paragraph  3.  Section  II. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Educa- 
tion shall  be  paid  such  compensation 
as  the  City  Council  may  by  ordinance 
provide. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 
laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of  this 
Convention  that  the  present  pension  law 
providing  for  a pension  system  of  em- 
ployes of  the  Chicago  Public  Library  be 
included  in  the  proposed  charter  for  the 
City  of  Chicago. 


BY  MR.  McCORMICK: 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually,  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
city,  and  the  report  thereof,  together 
with  any  recommendation  of  such  ac- 
countants, as  to  change  in  the  business 
methods  of  the  city,  or  of  any  of  its  de- 
partments, officers,  or  employes,  shall 
be  made  to  the  mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, and  be  spread  upon  the  records  of 
the  latter.  The  expenses  of  such  audit 
shall  be  paid  by  the  city. 


Report  of  the  COMMITTEE  on  MU- 
NICIPAL ELECTIONS,  APPOINT- 
MENTS and  TENURE  of  OFFICE: 

Lessing  Rosenthal,  Chairman  Chicago 
Charter  Convention: 

Gentlemen — Your  Committee  on  Mu- 
nicipal Elections,  Appointments  and 
Tenure  of  Office,  to  which  was  referred 


February  23 


1034 


1907 


the  subject  of  Civil  Service,  begs  leave 
to  report: 

That  the  provisions  of  the  present 
Civil  Service  Act  shall  be  incorporated 
in  the  charter  with  the  following 
changes  or  additions: 

(1.)  That  the  term  of  office  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commissioners  shall  be 
six  (6)  years,  one  to  be  appointed 
every  two  (2)  years. 

(2.)  Section  —.—REMOVALS,  RE- 
DUCTIONS AND  SUSPENSIONS.  No 
person  shall  be  removed  from  the  classi- 
fied civil  service  nor  reduced  in  grade 
or  compensation,  except  as  hereinafter 
provided. 

Removals  from  the  classified  civil  ser- 
vice or  reduction  in  grade  or  compensa- 
tion, or  both,  may  be  made  in  any  de- 
partment of  such  service  by  the  appoint- 
ing power,  to  promote  the  efficiency  of 
the  service,  or  for  other  proper  cause,  in 
the  manner  following:  The  person 

sought  to  be  removed  shall  be  served 
with  a copy  of  the  order  of  removal  and 
notice  of  suspension  from  such  service 
and  also  written  specifications;  and 
such  person  shall  have  not  less  than 
three,  nor  more  than  seven  days,  to  an- 
swer the  same  in  writing.  A copy  of  the 
order,  specifications  and  answer,  if  any, 
shall  be  filed  with  the  Civil  Service  Com- 
mission, which  shall  approve  or  disap- 
prove of  such  order.  Said  commission 
may,  and  upon  the  written  request  of 
the  person  sought  to  be  removed,  shall 
investigate  any  removal  or  reduction,  or 
proposed  removal  or  reduction,  either  by 
or  before  itself,  or  by  or  before  some 
officer  or  board  appointed  by  said  com- 
mission, to  conduct  such  investigation. 
Such  suspension  shall  be  without  pay, 
provided,  however,  that  said  commission 
in  case  of  a disapproval  may  direct  that 
pay  shall  be  restored.  All  findings  and 
decisions  by  said  commission,  or  of  the 
investigating  officer,  or  board,  when  ap- 
proved by  said  commission,  shall  be 
final,  and  shall  be  certified  to  the  ap- 


pointing officer  and  shall  be  forthwith 
enforced  by  such  officer. 

Reductions  in  grade  or  compensation, 
or  both,  shall  be  made  in  the  like  man- 
ner, as  near  as  may  be,  but  without  sus- 
pension, pending  such  approval  or  dis- 
approval. A copy  of  said  papers  in  each 
case  shall  be  made  a part  of  the  record 
of  the  division  of  the  service  in  which 
the  removal  or  reduction  is  made. 
Nothing  in  this  act  shall  limit  the  pow- 
er of  any  officer  to  suspend  a subordi- 
nate without  pay  for  cause  assigned  in 
writing,  a copy  of  which  shall  be  de- 
livered to  such  subordinate.  Such  sus- 
pension shall  be  for  a reasonable  period 
not  exceeding  thirty  days,  and  any  sus- 
pension may  be  investigated  by  said 
Civil  Service  Commission.  In  the 
course  of  any  investigation  provided  for 
in  this  section,  each  member  of  the 
Civil  Service  Commission,  or  of  any 
board  so  appointed  by  it,  and  any  inves- 
tigating officer  so  appointed,  shall  have 
the  power  to  administer  oaths,  and  said 
commission  shall  have  the  power  to  se- 
cure by  its  subpoena  both  the  attend- 
ance and  testimony  of  witnesses,  and 
the  production  of  books  and  papers  rele- 
vent  to  such  investigation. 

Nothing  in  this  section  shall  be  con- 
strued to  require  charges  or  investiga- 
tions in  the  case  of  laborers. 

(3.)  Section— .—PROMOTIONS.  The 
commission  shall,  by  its  rules,  provide 
for  promotions  in  such  classified  service, 
and  shall  provide  that  vacancies  shall 
be  filled  by  promotion,  in  all  cases 
where,  in  the  judgment  of  the  commis- 
sion, it  shall  be  for  the  best  interests  of 
the  service  so  to  fill  such  vacancy.  If, 
in  the  judgment  of  the  commission,  it 
is  not  for  the  best  interests  of  the  ser- 
vice to  fill  such  vacancy  by  promotion, 
then  such  vacancy  shall  be  filled  by  an 
original  entrance  examination;  provi- 
ded, however,  that  the  commission  shall 
in  its  rules  fix  upon  a credit  based  upon 
seniority  and  ascertained  merit  in  ser- 
vice to  be  given  to  all  employes  in  the 


February  23 


1035 


1907 


classified  service  in  line  of  promotion 
who  submit  themselves  to  such  original 
examination.  All  promotional  examina- 
tions shall  be  limited  to  such  members 
of  the  next  lower  rank  or  grade  as  de- 
sire to  submit  themselves  to  such  exami- 
nation. The  method  of  examination 
and  the  rules  governing  the  same  and 
the  method  of  certifying  in  promotion 
shall  be  the  same  as  provided  for  appli- 
cants for  original  appointment. 

Section  — . — No  applicant  for  exami- 
nation for  any  office  or  place  of  employ- 
ment in  said  classified  service  shall  wil- 
fully or  corruptly,  by  himself  or  in  co- 
operation with  one  or  more  other  per- 
sons deceive  the  said  commission  with 
reference  to  his  identity,  or  wilfully  or 
corruptly  make  false  representations  in 
his  application  for  such  examination,  or 
commit  any  fraud  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
proving his  prospects  or  chances  in  such 
examination. 

Respectfully  submitted, 
LESSING  ROSENTHAL, 
Chairman. 


The  following  have  been  referred  to 
the  Law  Committee: 

XII.  REVENUE. 

BY  MR.  SHEPARD: 

12-1.  The  City  Council  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  shall  annually  in  the  first  quar- 
ter of  its  fiscal  year  by  ordinance  levy 
a general  tax  on  all  real  and  personal 
property  not  exempt  from  taxation  for 
all  corporate  purposes,  including  gen- 
eral city,  school,  park  and  library  pur- 
poses, not  exceeding  in  the  aggregate, 
exclusive  of  the  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  five  per 
centum  of  the  assessed  value  of  the  tax- 
able property  of  said  city  as  assessed 
and  equalized  according  to  law  for  cor- 
porate purposes.  The  said  City  Council 
in  its  said  annual  levy  shall  specify  the 
respective  amounts  levied  for  the  pay- 
ment of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  the 


amount  levied  for  general  city  purposes, 
the  amount  levied  for  educational  pur- 
poses, the  amount  levied  for  school 
building  purposes,  the  amount  levied  for 
park  purposes  and  the  amount  levied  for 
library  purposes.  A certified  copy  of 
such  ordinance  shall  be  filed  in  the 
county  clerk’s  office.  The  county  clerk 
shall  extend  upon  the  collector ’s  war- 
rant all  of  such  taxes,  subject  to  the 
limitation  herein  contained,  in  a single 
column  as  the  City  of  Chicago  tax.  In 
case  the  aggregate  amount  levied,  ex- 
clusive of  the  amounts  levied  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall 
exceed  five  per  centum  of  such  assessed 
value,  such  excess  shall  be  disregarded, 
and  the  residue  only  treated  as  certified 
for  extension.  In  such  case  all  items 
in  such  tax  levy,  except  those  for  the 
payment  of  bonded  indebtedness  and  the 
interest  on  bonded  indebtedness,  shall  be 
reduced  pro  rata.  The  tax  so  extended 
shall  be  collected  and  enforced  in  the 
same  manner  and  by  the  same  officers 
as  state  and  county  taxes,  and  shall  be 
paid  over  by  the  officers  collecting  the 
same  to  the  city  treasurer.  The  city 
treasurer  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall 
keep  separate  funds  in  conformity  to 
said  tax  levy,  which  funds  shall  be  paid 
out  by  him  upon  order  of  the  proper  au- 
thority for  the  purposes  only  for  which 
the  same  were  levied. 

12-2.  The  Board  of  Education,  the 
Board  of  Park  Commissions  and  the 
Board  of  Library  Directors,  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  respectively,  shall  each, 
yearly,  upon  the  request  of  the  City 
Council,  prepare  and  transmit  to  it  a 
statement  of  its  receipts  and  expenditures 
for  the  current  or  preceding  fiscal  year 
(as  the  case  may  be),  stating  therein  the 
sources  of  its  receipts  and  the  several 
objects  and  purposes  of  its  expenditures. 
It  shall  also,  upon  such  request,  prepare 
and  transmit  to  the  City  Council  an  esti- 
mate of  its  expenditures  for  the  ensuing 
fiscal  year,  stating  therein  the  several 


February  23 


1036 


1907 


objects  and  purposes  of  such  expendi- 
tures. 


BY  MR.  SHEPARD: 

Whereas,  the  charter  for  the  city  con- 
tains provisions  for  the  levy  and  exten- 
sion of  city,  school,  park  and  library 
taxes,  and  the  provisions  contained  in 
section  two  of  an  act  entitled  “An  act  | 
for  the  levy  and  extension  of  taxes,”  in 
force  July  1,  1905,  are  no  longer  neces- 
sary and  are  in  conflict  with  the  purposes 
of  the  charter  provisions  aforesaid, 
Therefore  be  it  Resolved  that  this  Con- 
vention recommend  to  the  General  As- 
sembly the  enactment  of  the  following 
bill  into  law: 

A BILL. 

For  an  act  to  repeal  Section  2 of  an 
act  entitled,  “An  act  concerning  the  levy 
and  extension  of  taxes,”  approved  May 
9,  1901,  in  force  July  1,  1901,  as  amend- 
ed by  an  act  approved  March  29,  1905, 
in  force  July  1,  1905. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted  by  the 
People  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  repre- 
sented in  the  General  Assembly,  that  Sec- 
tion two  of  an  act  entitled,  “An  act  con- 
cerning the  levy  and  extension  of  taxes,  ’ f 
approved  May  9,  1901,  in  force  July  1, 
1901,  as  amended  by  an  act  approved 


March  29,  1905,  in  force  July  1,  1905, 
be  and  the  same  hereby  is  repealed. 


BY  MR,  GREENACRE: 

Amend  Section  1 of  Article  12  (page 
104)  by  inserting  therein  immediately 
after  the  words  “levied  for  library  pur- 
poses” and  before  the  words  “certified 
copy  of  such  ordinance,”  the  following 
sentence : 

Said  City  Council  shall  have  power  to 
set  aside  from  any  such  specified  amount 
levied  for  any  of  said  purposes,  parts 
thereof,  together  not  exceeding  one  per 
cent  thereof,  and  contribute  the  same  to 
pension  funds  for  disabled,  retired  or 
superannuated  public  servants  of  any  de- 
partment toward  the  maintenance  of' 
which  such  specified  amount  levied  ap- 
plies. 


BY  MR.  WERNO: 

Amend  article  XXII,  section  5,  to  read 
as  follows: 

This  act,  together  with  the  two  sepa- 
rate acts  herewith  recommended,  rela- 
tive to  the  dispensing  of  intoxicating 
liquors  by  social  organizations  and  for 
the  observance  of  Sunday  in  the  City  of 
Chicago,  shall  upon  their  adoption  as 
hereinafter  provided,  constitute  the  char- 
ter of  the  City  of  Chicago. 


CORRECTIONS 


BY  MR.  SHANAHAN: 

Page  901,  strike  out  “that”  after 
“November”,  in  twentieth  line,  second 
column. 

BY  MR.  SHANAHAN: 

Page  928,  strike  out  “That  has  not 
been  voted  upon”,  first  column,  7th 
paragraph,  third  line. 

BY  MR.  SHANAHAN: 


Page  968,  first  column,  second  para- 
graph, fifth  line,  change  “debated”  to 
‘ ‘ adopted  * \ 

At  page  976,  first  column,  fifth  line, 
change  ‘ * Eaton  ” to  “ Ela  ’ ’. 

BY  MR.  ROSENTHAL: 

Page  989,  second  column,  fifth  para- 
graph, strike  out  word  ‘ * excepting f 1 in 
third  line  and  substitute  ‘ ‘ not  includ- 
ing, however  ’ \ 


February  23 


1037 


1907 


SPEDIAL  ORDERS 


Art.  12? — Revenue.  Page  103  of 
draft.  (Monday,  Feb.  25,  at  10  o’clock 
a.  m.) 

Art.  19 — Department  of  Education. 


Page  130  of  draft.  (To  be  taken  up 
immediately  after  disposition  of  the  sub- 
ject of  Revenue.) 


COMMUNICATION 


Milton  J.  Foreman,  Chairman  Chicago 
Charter  Convention,  Chicago,  111. : 

Dear  Sir: — I regret  that  absence  from 
the  city  will  prevent  my  attending  the 
sessions  of  the  charter  convention  Fri- 
day afternoon  and  Saturday  of  this 
week.  I should  like,  however,  to  embody 
in  the  record  my  objections  to  chapter 
3 of  the  proposed  charter,  relating  to 
primary  elections.  This  chapter  I find 
was  approved  at  the  end  of  a recent 
session,  practically  without  debate  and 
without  any  substantial  consideration  by 
the  convention. 

Chapter  3 is,  as  I understand,  prac- 
tically the  present  state  law  which  re- 
lates to  certain  state  officers,  adapted  so 
as  to  apply  to  city  officers,  with  a fur- 
ther provision  that  the  candidate  receiv- 
ing the  highest  number  of  votes,  provided 
the  number  is  in  excess  of  thirty-five 
per  cent  of  all  the  votes  cast  for  the 
office,  shall  be  declared  the  nominee. 

It  has  been  my  understanding  that 
the  state  primary  law,  after  which  chap- 
ter 3 is  modeled,  was  merely  the  first 
step  in  primary  reform  in  Illinois,  and 
that  further  amendments  would  be  made 
to  this  law,  as  defects  developed  in  prac- 
tical operation.  Inasmuch  as  we  have 
had  but  a partial  test  of  the  law,  we 
have  had  no  opportunity  as  yet  to  de- 
termine its  defects.  In  view  of  the  ex- 
perimental character  of  the  present  pri- 
mary law,  I am  opposed  to  locking  into 
the  charter  all  the  details  of  this  law. 


I believe  that  the  matter  of  arranging 
the  details  of  any  primary  election  law 
should  be  left  with  the  legislature.  The 
charter  might  contain  certain  limitations 
as  to  the  provisions  of  a primary  law, 
but  it  seems  to  me  unwise  to  put  into 
the  charter  the  many  details  as  to  th6 
conduct  of  the  primary  elections  which 
are  embodied  in  chapter  3.  The  charter 
might,  for  instance,  provide  that  an) 
primary  law  which  should  be  passed  ap- 
plicable to  Chicago  should  provide  for 
direct  plurality  nomination,  provided  the 
candidate  received  at  least  thirty-five  per 
cent  of  the  total  vote  cast  for  the  office. 
It  might  provide  that  no  primary  elec- 
tion law  should  be  passed,  nor  should 
any  such  law  be  amended,  which  un- 
dertook to  change  this  thirty-five  per  cent 
provision  or  which  undertook  to  change 
certain  other  provisions  which  might  be 
specified,  without  a referendum  to  the 
people  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

With  respect  to  the  details  of  the 
law,  as  set  forth  in  chapter  3,  I con- 
sider it  extremely  unwise  to  provide  for 
the  naming  of  delegates  by  primary  elec- 
tion,districts  in  the  nomination  of  mayor 
and  city  treasurer.  The  naming  of  del- 
egates by  primary  election  districts  is 
not,  in  my  opinion,  so  objectionable  in 
connection  with  the  nomination  of  aider- 
man.  The  tests  of  the  present  state  pri- 
mary law  as  applied  to  nominations  for 
members  of  the  state  legislature  and  to 
nominations  for  congress,  has  proved 


February  23 


1038 


1907 


fairly  satisfactory.  But  in  these  nomi- 
nations the  number  of  primary  election 
districts  is  comparatively  small,  so  that 
a candidate  can,  •without  excessive  labor, 
place  a delegate  ticket  in  each  of  the 
primary  districts. 

Inasmuch  as  the  number  of  primary 
election  districts  in  each  ward  will  not 
be  great,  it  would  not  be  a hardship  up- 
on a candidate  for  alderman  to  be  re- 
quired to  provide  a delegate  ticket  in 
each  of  the  primary  election  districts  in 
his  ward.  He  would  be  on  a parity  with 
the  members  of  the  legislature  and 
members  of  congress. 

With  respect,  however,  to  nominations 
for  mayor  and  city  treasurer,  who  must 
be  nominated  by  the  city  at  large,  the 
requirement  that  a delegate  ticket  must 
be  named  for  each  primary  election  dis- 
trict in  the  city,  imposes  such  a burden 
upon  a candidate  that  he  would  have 
no  chance  of  winning  the  nomination 
unless  he  had  back  of  him  the  political 
organization  of  the  party  or  of  a very 
substantial  faction  thereof.  With  sev- 
enty wards,  assuming,  for  illustration, 
that  the  seventy  wards  averaged  seven 
primary  election  districts  each,  there 
would  be  four  hundred  and  ninety  pri- 
mary districts  in  the  city;  in  each  of 
which  a candidate  would  be  required  to 
name  a delegate  ticket  in  order  to  pre- 
serve his  rights  in  the  convention,  should 
any  candidate  fail  to  secure  the  requisite 
thirty-five  per  cent  plurality.  This  bur- 


den of  naming  such  a large  number  of 
separate  delegate  tickets  would  deny  to 
many  candidates  the  right  to  a fair  op- 
portunity to  contest  for  the  nomination. 

If  the  details  of  a city  primary  law 
are  to  be  embodied  in  the  charter  at  all, 
I wish  to  submit  that  the  delegate  dis- 
trict in  nominations  for  mayor  and  city 
treasurer  should  be  the  ward  and  not  the 
primary  district.  A delegate  ticket 
should  be  named  for  each  ward.  If,  for 
instance,  each  ward  averaged  ten  dele- 
gates, it  would  thus  be  necessary  to  ar- 
range for  but  seventy  delegate  tickets, 
and  it  would  be  a comparatively  easy 
matter  for  any  candidate  to  find  ten 
men  in  each  ward  who  would  be  willing 
to  stand  as  delegates  in  his  behalf.  A 
candidate  under  this  plan  would  find  it 
necessary  to  arrange  for  but  seventy  del- 
egate tickets,  one  in  each  ward,  instead 
of  arranging  for  four  hundred  and  ninety 
delegate  tickets,  on  the  assumption  of  an 
average  of  seven  primary  districts  to 
each  ward.  The  delegate  ticket  receiv- 
ing the  plurality  of  the  votes  in  the 
ward  would  be  elected. 

My  suggestion,  therefore,  would  con- 
template the  making  of  the  primary  elec- 
tion district  the  unit  for  delegate  tickets 
in  the  nomination  of  aldermen,  and  the 
ward  the  unit  for  delegate  tickets  in 
the  nomination  of  mayor  and  city  treas- 
urer. Respectfully  submitted, 


W.  CLYDE  JONES. 


February  23 


1039 


1907 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  thei 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may| 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  mimicipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  tb 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special) ; and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursi diction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


February  23 


1040 


1907 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


(JNWERSITY  of  ILLINOIS 

PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 

MONDAY,  FEBRUARY  25,190T 


Glljtrago  GUjartrr  Ghmwtttixm 

Convened,  December  12, 1 900 

HEADQUARTERS 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  h.  Revell.  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamrerlin,  asst.  Sect 


February  25 


1043 


1907 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
Regular  Meeting,  Monday,  February  25,  1907 
10  O’clock  A.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  be  in  order  and  the  secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Burke,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon, 
T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Eidmann,  Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin, 
Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Lathrop,  Linehan, 
MacMillan,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Mer- 
riam,  Michaelis,  O’Donnell,  Owens, 
Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Rob- 
ins, Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shepard, 
Snow,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 43. 

Absent  — Baker,  Beilf uss,  Brosseau, 
Carey,  Church,  Clettenberg,  Crilly, 
Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Graham,  Haas, 
Harrison,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lundberg, 
McCormick,  Oehne,  Powers,  Rainey, 
Revell,  Rinaker,  Ritter,  Sethness,  Shedd, 


Smuslki,  Sunny,  Swift,  Thompson, 
Walker,  Werno,  Wilson — 31. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  lack  .three 

of  a quorum.  We  have  a communica- 
tion here  from  Senator  Jones,  which  is 
printed  in  the  proceedings,  which  he 
desires  to  have  called  to  the  attention 
of  the  convention,  and  which  the  secre- 
tary will  read. 

(The  secretary  then  read  Mr.  Jones’ 
communication,  as  contained  on  page 
1,037.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  chair  sug- 

gests that  we  are  within  two  of  a quo- 
rum now.  That  is  pretty  close  for  us 
to  get  within  an  hour  of  the  time  set. 

MR.  FISHER:  We  might  have  that 

read  over  again. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Either  that,  or 

Mr.  Fisher  might  make  a speech;  the 
chair  would  suggest  the  latter  as  a mat- 
ter of  novelty. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  We  want  a quorum, 
Mr.  President. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  I suggest  a 

speech  by  Mr.  Fisher. 


February  25 


1044 


1907 


MR.  FISHER:  If  it  would  save  any 

time,  we  might  get  up  a convention  to 
nominate  an  alderman  for  the  Third 
Ward. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Would  you  be 

eligible? 

MR.  FISHER:  No,  although  I 

might  be  able  to  keep  you  here  this 
evening. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  There  is  a quo- 

rum here  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Conventions  have 
been  taking  a good  deal  of  your  thought 
lately,  Mr.  Fisher.  We  can  take  up 
one  more  question  until  we  get  a quo- 
rum.. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Four  came  in 

since  you  said  you  lacked  three. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  McGoorty  and 

Senator  Dixon  and  one  other  have  ar- 
rived. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  makes  37. 

In  the  meantime  the  Secretary  will 
read  Article  XII.  There  seems  to  be 
no  reason  why  it  should  not  be  discussed 
by  the  Convention  pending  the  ‘time  a 
quorum  comes. 

MR.  HUNTER:  There  is  a quorum 

here  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proced,  Mr.  Sec- 

retary. I believe  Mr.  Shepard  proposed 
a substitute  for  the  first  two  para- 
graphs of  Section  12.  Am  I correct? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Where  is  that  pub- 

lished, Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Page  103,  Article 
XII. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Section  1 of  Article 
XII,  in  the  report  as  amended  by  the 
committee  on  procedure  and  plan,  and 
so  forth,  after  the  old  report  was  print- 
ed, and  one  or  two  other  amendments, 
one  of  which  struck  out  the  township 
petition,  and  the  other  petitions  in- 
serted in  the  blank,  5 per  cent,  after- 
wards adopted  by  the  Convention,  so 
that  the  draft  on  page  1035  of  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  last  Saturday  is  a redraft 
of  the  original  Section  1,  with  those  j 


provisions  in,  namely  the  redraft  com- 
plete of  Section  2,  on  the  same  page,  as 
a consolidation  of  Sections  2,  3 and  4 in 
the  printed  book,  which,  by  order  of  the 
committee  on  procedure  and  plan,  were 
consolidated  after  the  report  was  print- 
ed, so  they  appear  on  page  1035  of  the 
Proceedings  of  Saturday  in  one  section. 

You  will  notice  that  one  section  cov- 
ers the  same  provisions  provided  for  in 
the  three  sections,  except  that  they  con- 
solidate it,  providing  that  the  board 
of  education  and  board  of  park  com- 
missioners and  board  of  library  direct- 
ors shall  file  reports  instead  of  covering 
the  same  subject  in  three  sections. 

I don’t  know  whether  these  two  sec- 
tions were  adopted  the  other  day  or 
not.  If  there  is  any  doubt  about  that, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I move  you  that  Sections 
1 and  2,  on  page  1035,  be  adopted. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Ar  there  any  substi- 

tutions, Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  accept- 
ance of  this  draft? 

MR.  POST:  That  was  on  page  103. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  page  103. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  original  re- 

port; he  refers  to  the  proceedings  of 
the  meeting  of  last  Saturday. 

MR.  POST:  That  was  the  last  re 

port. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  printed  on 

page  1035  of  the  Proceedings  of  the 
23d  of  the  month. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I did  not 
know  that  they  were  printed  there,  and 
I do  not  know  that  any  changes  have 
been  made  whicfi  will  affect  the  motion 
I now  wish  to  make.  Mr.  President,  I 
asked  on  Friday  that  these  sections  go 
over,  and  either  the  two  sections  or  the 
whole  article  were  put  over  until  today, 
and  made  a special  order  for  this  morn- 
ing, in  order  that  Mr.  Ritter;  the  presi- 
dent of  the  school  board,  might  be  here. 
I find  on  communication  with  him  that 
he  would  be  here  if  it  were  at  all  pos- 
sible, but  he  has  demands  upon  him 


February  25 


1045 


1907 


which  might  make  it  impossible  for  him 
to  come  at  this  time.  I do  not  wish  to 
delay;  I am  not  prepared  to  make  the 
argument  that  he  would  make,  nor  am 
I sure  that  he  would  cover  the  ground 
that  I would  cover.  But  if  you  will 
allow  me  to  make  the  motion  from  the 
original  draft  on  page  103,  which  Mr. 
Shepard  tells  me  is  not  changed  in  the 
particulars  I wish  to  move — I will  move 
that  on  line  4,  on  page  104,  after  the 
words  ‘ 1 educational  purposes”  insert 

“which  shall  not  be  less  than  per 

cent  of  the  assessed  and  equalized  value 
taxed  for  the  property.” 

I think  that  will  put  it  in  proper 
form. 

Now,  in  the  next  line,  after  the 
words  “school  building  purposes,”  in- 
sert “which  shall  be  not  less  than 

certain  per  cent  of  the  equalized  value 
taxed  for  property.” 

Now,  I do  not  wish  to  take  up  the 
time  of  the  Convention  in  discussing 
that.  I will  merely  explain  that  ob- 
jections are  raised,  the  value  of  which 
I am  not  especially  advised  of,  affecting 
the  amount  to  be  appropriated  to  school 
purposes,  leaving  the  matter  entirely 
in  the  discretion  of  the  city  council,  of 
any  city  council  that  might  happen  to  be 
voted  into  office,  and  that  the  charter 
ought  to  provide,  as  I am  advised,  for  a 
minimum  percentage  of  the  taxes  to  be 
applied  for  school  purposes,  part  of  it 
to  building  purposes  and  part  of  it  to 
educational  purposes;  and  I now  make 
a motion  to  bring  that  matter  before 
the  house. 

I leave  the  percentage  blank;,  that 
can  be  filled  in,  if  we  adopt  this  mo- 
tion, and  if  it  is  not  adopted  it  will  not 
be  necessary  to  put  it  in. 

Unless  some  one  wishes  to  speak  on 
it,  Mr.  President,  I will  ask  for  a roll 
call  now  on  that  motion. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Tt  seems  to  me  this 

would  be  a step  backwards.  We  are 
attempting  to  consolidate  the  various 


bodies,  and  making  one  corporation,  as 
the  City  of  Chicago. 

Now,  so  far  as  the  amendment  relates 
to  the  question  of  school  buildings,  it 
should  not  go  in,  because  it  is  contem- 
plated under  this  charter  that  the  school 
buildings  will  be  constructed  out  of 
money  raised  on  bonds,  and  the  bond 
question  was  not  involved  in  this  sec- 
tion. 

Now,  as  to  fixing  the  minimum 
amount,  I would  say  that  if  anything 
was  to  be  done  that  there  should  be  a 
maximum  amount  fixed,  in  order  to  pre- 
vent the  general  fund  being  depleted 
for  the  sake  of  giving  the  schools  more 
money  than  they  may  require. 

The  tendency  always  is,  and  has 
been,  to  allow  the  board  of  education 
the  full  amount  of  its  necessities. 
There  is  a feeling  with  reference  to 
the  schools  on  the  part  of  every  citizen 
and  on  the  part  of  every  member  of 
the  city  council  with  whom  I have  come 
in  contact,  which  leads  to  the  most  lib- 
eral treatment  of  the  question.  The 
tendency  is  to  over-appropriate  for  the 
schools,  rather  than  to  under-appro- 
priate. 

Now,  if  we  attempt  to  divide  up  and 
say  that  the  school  shall  have  so  much 
and  the  library  so  much  and  the  parks 
so  much,  you  will  tie  the  hands  of  the 
council  at  various  times  when  this 
money  may  not  be  needed  for  those 
purposes,  and  will  prevent  such  a raise 
of  the  taxes  that  they  might  raise  un- 
der this  section. 

Under  the  proposed  plan,  5 per  cent 
by  comparison  with  our  present  con- 
dition, there  will  be  an  increase  in  the 
revenue  of  approximately  $6,000,000 
per  year.  This  amount  is  left  to  the 
council  to  appropriate,  and  will  enable 
it  to  meet  the  situation  as  it  may  arise 
with  reference  to  parks,  schools  or  li- 
brary, or  such  as  the  necessities  are 
each  year,  as  they  present  themselves. 
Not  to  adopt  this,  as  I said  at  the  out- 


February  25 


1046 


1907 


set,  would  be  a step  backward,  and  to 
bring  the  matter  before  the  convention, 
I move  that  that  section  be  adopted  as 
printed. 

MR.  POST:  I raise  a point  of  order. 

That  is  the  main  motion.  We  ought  not 
to  get  tangled  up  in  this  way;  it  cuts 
us  off  from  other  amendments.  The 
main  motion'  is  that,  as  printed,  it 
should  be  adopted. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  that 

that  question  ought  to  be  discussed  here, 
that  it  is  difficult  to  vote  intelligently 
upon  it  unless  some  suggestion  is  made 
with  regard  to  these  percentages.  I 
cannot  assume  that  the  point  of  order 
that  Mr.  Post  suggests  is  correct;  the 
test  of  the  question  is  largely  whether 
or  not  the  percentage  can  properly  be 
fixed,  and  if  so,  what  that  percentage 
would  be.  We  ought  to  have  some  basis 
of  estimate  on  this  thing  for  the 
schools,  for  instance. 

MR.  POST:  Will  the  gentleman  al- 

low an  interruption? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes. 

MR.  POST:  I suppose  some  of  the 

gentlemen  here  are  familiar  with  the 
finances  of  the  city,  and  can  very  well 
estimate  what  that  ought  to  be.  We 
are  now  expending  in  the  neighborhood 
of  eleven  millions,  all  told,  for  school 
purposes,  and  that  is  financial  starva- 
tion for  the  schools.  The  object  is  to  get 
the  minimum  amount  of  money  which 
shall  keep  our  schools  in  such  condition 
as  they  should  be.  Now,  what  that  will 
be  I cannot  say.  Probably  some  of  the 
gentlemen  here  can  tell  us. 

MR.  FISHER:  As  I said  before,  I 

do  not  care  to  argue  on  the  question  as 
raised  by  Mr.  Post;  I prefer  to  hear 
what  is  to  be  said  on  this  subject.  If 
it  is  suggested  that  the  schools  should 
get  a percentage  of  the  gross  amount, 
we  want  to  get  an  estimate  of  what 
the  percentage  will  be,  what  it  would 
be  necessary  to  have  for  that  purpose. 
I think  that  should  be  done.  If  there 


are  people  in  the  convention  that  can 
make  that  suggestion,  it  ought  to  be 
easy  enough.  Therefore,  I would  like 
to  know  what  the  percentages  amount 
to;  then  we  can  discuss  it. 

MR.  COLE:  Brushing  aside  the  mat- 
ter of  percentages,  as  I understand,  the 
question  is  simply  this:  It  takes  the 

school  board  and  the  library  board,  and 
all  those  other  boards,  and  puts  the 
whole  thing  in  the  hands  of  the  com- 
mon council  to  decide  what  shall  be 
done.  The  only  question  is  as  to 
whether  we  shall  tie  the  common  council 
up  by  this  charter.  I am  in  favor  of 
leaving  it  all  to  the  common  council. 

MR.  WHITE:  I am  personally  in 

favor  of  Mr.  Post’s  motion,  and  should 
have  made  a similar  one  if  he  had  not 
made  it. 

Speaking,  first,  as  to  what  this  min- 
imum ought  probably  to  be,  that,  of 
course,  is  a question  that  should  be  care- 
fully threshed  out  by  some  special  com- 
mittee, if  the  minimum  should  be  fixed. 
I would  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  schools  have  been  accustomed 
to  have  about  160  or  161,  which,  I 
think,  is  the  largest  amount  under  the 
Juul  law,  since  the  Juul  law  was  in  ex- 
istence. Possibly,  as  a tentative  propo- 
sition, 170  or  175,  or  even  something 
less,  as  a minimum  for  the  schools, 
would  be  a fair  proposition;  and  I 
don’t  think  it  would  be  proper  to  tie 
the  hands  of  the  city  council  any  more 
than  is  absolutely  necessary. 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  one  or 
two  things  in  connection  with  this  prop- 
osition in  the  bill,  as  drafted.  First, 
the  question  of  a sufficient  amount  of 
revenue  for  the  schools. 

It  is  asserted  here  that  five  or  six 
million  dollars  will  be  added  to  the  to- 
tal income  under  this  new  provision. 
That,  of  course,  is  assumptive,  and  is 
not  absolutely  settled;  but  the  point  is 
that  there  might  come  times  of  stress 
and  stringency  in  regard  to  matters 


February  25 


1047 


1907 


pertaining  to  the  city  streets — certain 
civic  improvements  that  might  indeed 
be  very  honest  and  very  worthy,  and 
which  a certain  city  council,  under  cer- 
tain conditions,  might  think  of  more 
importance  to  the  city,  especially  if 
certain  political  considerations  were  in- 
volved, and  other  things,  that  even  in 
the  city  council  would  be  considered  of 
more  importance  than  the  schools  them- 
selves, and  the  consequences  would  be 
such,  if  the  funds  are  not  practically 
fixed.  I mean  to  say  that  the  carrying 
charges  of  the  public  school  system  of 
Chicago  is  practically  fixed  from  year 
to  year  by  the  necessities  of  the  case. 
You  have  got  to  have  so  many  teach- 
ers; you  have  got  to  have  so  many  jan- 
itors; you  have  got  to  have  so  many 
people  employed;  you  have  got  to  buy 
so  many  books;  absolutely,  there  is  no 
chance  to  change  that  situation. 

Now,  I can  easily  see  where  the  city 
council,  from  no  ulterior  motive,  per- 
haps, but  feeling  the  emphasis  of  a cer- 
tain civic  demand,  might  easily  divert 
certain  funds,  if  there  is  no  limitation, 
into  the  current  expenses  of  the  city 
that  they  have  authority  to  spend 
money  for,  leaving  the  school  board  to 
struggle  with  the  deficit  as  best  they 
could.  There  would  be  no  legal  re- 
sponsibility for  the  situation.  The  city 
council  could  simply  divert  the  funds, 
and  the  school  board  would  be  left  help- 
less with  a tremendous  problem  on  its 
hands,  a perfectly  unfair  situation  both 
to  the  school  board  and  the  public 
schools  of  the  city  of  Chicago. 

You  have  established  by  this  char- 
ter a school  board,  and  you  have  vested 
it  with  certain  duties.  Those  duties 
and  responsibilities — the  performance 
of  those  duties  depends  absolutely  upon 
a sufficient  income  to  perform  them 
with.  Now,  then,  you  invest  the  school 
board  with  the  duties  and  responsibili- 
ties, and  then  you  place  the  control  of 
the  situation  and  the  control  of  the 


finances  absolutely  in  the  hands  of  the 
city  council,  that  has  no  specific  respon- 
sibility beyond  the  question  of  finances. 
I can  see  that  a time  might  come  when 
a deadlock  might  occur  between  the 
board  and  the  educational  committee  of 
the  city  council  in  regard  to  the  ex- 
penditure of  school  funds.  I can  see 
how  this  whole  thing  can  be  used  by 
the  city  council  to  take  the  school  board 
by  the  throat  and  say:  “You  do  so  and 
so,  or  we  will  not  give  you  funds  to  do 
anything  with,  and  you  are  helpless, 
and  the  public  is  helpless.  ” What  can 
you  do  about  it? 

Just  one  thing  more,  Mr.  Chairman — 
this  question  of  building  school  build- 
ings by  bond.  I think  this  Convention 
ought  to  consider  that  very  carefully. 
It  looks  to  me  like  a temporary  ex- 
pedient to  relieve  certain  real  estate 
interests  in  this  city,  and  that  we  are 
putting  ourselves  in  position  of  being 
perfectly  willing  to  mortgage  the  fu- 
ture and  future  financial  interests  of 
this  city  for  the  purpose  of  escaping 
some  immediate  increase  of  taxation. 
What  is  the  situation  in  regard  to  the 
schools?  It  is  a perfectly  fair  propo- 
sition to  issue  bonds;  for  instance,  for 
the  erection  of  a city  hall.  You  will 
only  erect  one  city  hall  in  75  to  100 
years,  and  it  is  perfectly  proper  that 
the  future  should  bear  some  measure  of 
that  expense;  but  the  question  of  the 
schools  is  entirely  different.  Each  year 
the  school  system  of  Chicago  has  its 
particular  burden  in  the  line  of  build- 
ings and  equipments  to  take  care  of, 
and  each  year  is  liable  to  be  increased 
over  the  other. 

I wonder  if  this  Convention  is  aware 
that  the  natural  school  increase  is  from 
six  to  seven  thousand  per  year.  That 
means  the  building  of  about  six  new 
school  buildings  each  year,  at  a cost 
of  not  less  than  $1,500,000.  Add  to  that 
the  necessary  increase  for  equipments 
and  repairs  to  buildings,  and  you  have 


February  25 


1048 


1907 


a charge  against  the  city  income  of 
about  $2,000,000  per  year  that  comes 
along  each  year.  Now,  it  strikes  me 
that  it  is  a perfect  piece  of  folly  to 
mortgage  the  future  in  order  to  take 
care  of  this  year’s  two  million  dollars, 
when  the  people  of  the  year  in  which 
those  bonds  mature  would  be  obliged 
not  only  to  meet  the  maturing  bonds, 
but  the  two  millions  that  are  assessed 
by  the  situation  against  the  city  for 
that  year  as  well.  And  if  you  estab- 
lish a sinking  fund,  this  annual  expendi- 
ture will  be  equal,  if  not  quite  equal, 
to  the  tax  that  would  give  you,  or  three 
million  dollars  that  you  require  for  your 
school  buildings. 

I expect  an  appeal  to  this  Conven- 
tion, either  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Post  or 
anyone  else,  is  futile.  I honestly  be- 
lieve, and  I have  the  greatest  respect 
for  the  members  of  the  real  estate 
board.  They  are  a fine  lot  of  fellows, 
but  I honestly  think  that  the  question 
before  this  Convention  today  is  whether 
the  interest  of  the  real  estate  board  of 
Chicago  should  be  conserved,  or 
whether  the  interest  of  the  public 
schools  of  Chicago  should  be  conserved. 

I am  not  so  impressed  with  the  sa- 
qredness  of  the  real  estate  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  that  I am  willing,  to  put  all 
the  future  in  jeopardy  in  this  city  in 
order  to  preserve  it  from  some  increase 
in  taxation.  If  I were  a member  of  the 
real  estate  board,  undoubtedly  I should 
be  on  that  side. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Your  time  is  up, 
Dr.  White. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I move  the  unani- 

mous consent  of  the  Convention  that 
Dr.  White  be  allowed  to  continue. 

(Cries  of  “Consent!  Consent!”) 

MR.  WHITE:  Well,  Mr.  Chairman, 

that  is  about  all  I have  to  say.  I am 
opposed  to  leaving  this  matter  of  the 
larger  taxation  in  the  hands  of  the  city 
council  first,  because  it  practically 
places  the  school  board,  in  which  you 


have  invested  all  the  duties  and  re- 
sponsibilities, in  the  hands  of  the  coun- 
cil, that  holds  the  bag. 

In  this  situation,  as  in  all  others,  the 
fellows  who  control  the  finances  con- 
trol every  other  matter  connected  with 
the  situation?  And,  secondly,  it  is  a 
great  danger  that  will  always  exist  that 
some  city  council,  under  some  kind  of 
pressure,  for  the  sake  of  something 
specific  and  more  important,  may  take 
advantage  of  their  power  and  deprive 
the  schools  of  their  necessary  funds  in 
order  to  meet  some  other  expense. 

Gentlemen,  it  is  a dangerous  proposi- 
tion. Your  streets  can  go  unpaved  for 
a time  if  need  be;  certain  public  im- 
provements we  can  get  along  without 
if  we  have  to;  but  the  schools  must  go 
on;  the  safety  and  sanctity  of  them  are 
the  life  of  our  homes;  the  annual  in- 
crease of  some  6,000  children  has  to  be 
taken  care  of  with  increased  teaching 
forces.  Now,  of  all  interests  in  this 
city,  our  very  life  demands  that  the 
schools,  of  all  other  interests,  shall  not 
be  placed  at  the  hazard  of  any  future 
city  council. 

Consequently,  I think  this  Convention 
ought  to  look  very  carefully  into  the 
school  buildings  by  a bonding  scheme. 
I believe  that  the  future  will  not  com- 
pliment you  for  that  action,  when  you 
got  each  year,  each  year’s  burden,  and 
you  have  got  to  take  care  of  that  bur- 
den each  year,  and  you  might  as  well 
do  it  now  by  taxation  as  to  evade  the 
payment  of  that  and  then  place  the  tax 
on  some  future  generation. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  No  one  has 

greater  respect  toward  Dr.  White  and 
his  associates  on  the  school  board,  and 
the  way  he  has  of  going  after  results, 
than  I have;  but  I must  disagree  with 
him  on  the  proposition  with  reference 
to  building  school  buildings  with  bonds. 
He  has  taken  it  for  granted  that  the 
growth  of  this  city  will  require  that 
each  succeeding  generation  will  have 


February  25 


1049 


1907 


to  build  as  many  seboolhouses  as  the 
present.  That  is  an  untenable  propo- 
sition to  my  mind.  The  city  will  build 
up  to  such  an  extent  that  the  popula- 
tion will  suffer;  manufactories  and 
things  of  that  kind  are  going  to  put  a 
limit  to  the  desirability  of  the  present 
limits  of  Chicago  for  residential  pur- 
poses. 

It  is  a fair  proposition  that  the  gen- 
eration of  today  should  contribute  its 
share  to  the  schoolhouses  of  today,  but 
it  is  not  fair  that  the  generation  of  to- 
day should  build  schoolhouses  for  their 
children’s  children  and  their  children’s 
children  for  generations  to  come. 

Now,  I am  not  connected  with  the 
real  estate  board,  nor  have  I any  real 
estate  that  is  interested.  I am  dis- 
cussing this  question  simply  on  its  mer- 
its as  a just  proposition,  and  it  seems 
to  me  to  be  absurd  that  we  should  build 
these  schoolhouses  when  there  are  so 
many  needed,  and  pay  cash  for  them, 
instead  of  building  them  with  bonds 
and  letting  the  people  of  the  future  pay 
their  share  for  them. 

Now,  these  schoolhouses  that  we  are 
building  today  are  good  for  at  least  a 
hundred  years  to  come,  some  say  two 
hundred  and  even  three  hundred  years. 

It  seems  to  me  that  Dr.  White  should 
have  looked  a little  farther  than  merely 
to  the  question  of  building.  I believe 
that  we  should  issue  bonds  for  the  pur- 
pose of  building  schoolhouses  for  a 
higher  reason  than  any  he  has  stated,  in 
the  interests  of  the  schools,  and  that  is, 
the  profession  of  teaching  should  be  dig- 
nified and  recognized  to  a greater  ex- 
tent than  it  is  now,  and  that  there 
should  be  more  money  to  pay  good 
teachers  and  to  encourage  good  teachers 
to  remain  in  the  profession,  more  than 
they  have  today. 

Now,  one  reason  that  we  have  not 
had  money  enough  to  pay  for  good 
teachers  here,  and  one  reason  why  we 
have  seen  young  teachers  with  brains 


arriving  at  the  point  where  they  con- 
clude that  there  is  no  future  for  them 
in  the  profession  of  teaching,  and  they 
leave  the  profession  aiyl  seek  some  other 
— that  of  law  or  business,  or  something 
which  offers  a remuneration  commensu- 
rate with  their  abilities. 

Now,  for  that  reason  I believe  that 
Dr.  White  is  making  a serious  mistake 
with  those  who  are  advocating  that  the 
schoolhouses  be  built  with  cash.  I think 
it  would  be  very  unwise  to  insert  this 
provision  that  Mr.  Post  has  proposed. 
It  seems  to  me  that  one  of  the  main, 
fundamental  ideas  actuating  the  people 
in  asking  home  rule  is  that  we  should 
have  home  rule,  and  we  are  in  favor  of 
representative  government,  and  there  is 
no  danger  that  the  representatives  of 
the  people  cannot  be  trusted  to  appro- 
priate handsomely  for  the  schools. 
There  never  has  been  a time  when  an 
appropriation  for  educational  purposes 
has  been  refused  by  the  city  council. 
I challenge  anyone  to  show  anything 
of  the  kind. 

These  appropriations  have  always 
been  treated  with  the  utmost  liberality, 
and  it  seems  to  be  a public  proposition, 
a fair  proposition,  that  the  council  may 
be  depended  on  in  the  future,  and  that 
it  would  be  unwise  to  make  a limit  of 
this  kind  as  proposed,  as  attempted  to- 
day, to  fix  an  inelastic  amount  which 
should  be  appropriated  for  school  pur- 
poses or  building  purposes,  and  which 
may  in  the  future  be  found  to  be  either 
inadequate  or  too  great. 

MR.  HOYNE:  I cannot  agree  with 

my  friend,  Dr.  White,  but  in  approach- 
ing this  question  he  always  seems  to 
have  an  idea  that  the  taxpayers  of 
Chicago  do  not  want  to  pay  their  taxes. 

I want  to  tell  you  that  the  450,000 
taxpayers  of  the  City  of  Chicago  are 
willing  to  pay  their  taxes,  provided  the 
taxes  are  honestly  expended. 

The  real  estate  board  has  been  re- 
ferred to,  and  you  will  find  that  in 


February  25 


1050 


1907 


every  instance  it  has  been  in  favor  of 
reform  of  taxation,  and  never  has  it 
gone  on  record  as  favoring  any  kind  of 
law  that  would  assist  any  citizen  to 
escape  taxation. 

The  doctor  does  not  stick  exactly  to 
the  issues  in  this  case.  He  says  it  is 
a question  of  speculation  whether  we 
receive  six  million  dollar?  more  under 
the  5 per  cent  rate.  It  is  no  question 
of  speculation;  $426,263,293  is  the  ac- 
tual assesed  value  of  1906,  and  a 5 per 
cent  rate  upon  that  amount  will  give 
$6,000,000  more  revenue.  A new  valua- 
tion is  to  be  made  for  the  year  1907, 
and  upon  the  1907  valuation  you  will 
get  at  least  an  increase  of  10  per  cent 
more. 

This  year,  1907,  the  board  of  asses- 
sors makes  a new  valuation  of  all  the 
property  in  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  it 
is  only  reasonable  to  suppose  that  in 
four  years  the  natural  increase  will 
give  an  increase  of  at  least  10  per  cent 
upon  these  figures. 

Furthermore,  this  question  has  been 
gone  over  by  the  special  committee  and 
been  considered  on  the  facts,  and  we 
have  dealt  with  facts  only,  not  with 
speculation,  but  in  facts.  Under  these 
figures  we  estimate  that  the  school  board 
would  receive  over  three  million  dollars 
increase.  It  is  not  a speculation,  gentle- 
men; but  if  you  take  the  figures  for 
1907,  I estimate  instead  of  six  million 
dollars  you  will  have  an  increase  of 
eight  million  dollars. 

Furthermore,  the  municipal  revenue 
conlmittee  discussed  this  matter  all  last 
summer  and  agreed  upon  a 4 y2  per  cent 
rate,  and  so  reported  to  this  Convention, 
and  after  that  the  special  committee 
took  this  matter  up,  and  in  order  to  be 
liberal  with  the  departments  of  city  gov- 
ernments, and  more  than  fair,  we  agreed 
to  increase  the  rate  one-half  of  1 per 
cent,  and  came  in  here  with  the  5 per 
cent  rate. 

Now,  you  come  here  and  say  you  want 


a special  sum  set  aside  for  the  school 
board.  Are  the  schools  more  important 
than  the  health  of  the  City  of  Chicago? 
There  may  be  a time  possibly  when  an 
epidemic  might  rage  through  the  city, 
when  the  interests  of  the  city  should 
demand  a larger  sum  to  be  devoted  to 
protecting  the  health  of  its  citizens, 
than  to  the  public  schools.  It  seems  to 
me,  Mr.  President,  that  this  is  impor- 
tant. There  should  not  be  any  amount 
set  aside  for  any  department.  We  have 
left  everything  else  to  the  city  council. 
We  believe  in  local  self-government; 
we  have  confidence  in  the  city  council 
to  leave  it  in  their  power  to  separate 
these  funds.  I think  that  is  the  only 
proper  and  businesslike  way  to  handle 
this  matter.  I am  opposed  to  setting 
aside  any  fixed  amounts. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Post’s  amendment. 

MR.  POST:  One  word  before  the  roll 
is  called.  I wish  to  direct  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Convention  to  the  fact  that 
the  school  expenditures  and  expendi- 
tures for  public  health  are  upon  very 
different  bases.  Extraordinary  expendi- 
tures will  be  necessitated — may  be 
necessitated  to  protect  public  health, 
and  cannot  be  so  well  fixed — the  amount 
cannot.  Now,  school  expenditures  have 
a normal  increase  and  can  be  very 
readily  estimated. 

What  I arose  for  more  particularly 
was  to  emphasize  one  point  made  by 
Dr.  White,  emphasize  one  sentence,  one 
remark  of  Mr.  Cole’s  and  Mr.  Bennett’s 
as  to  the  object  of  this  charter.  If 
the  object  of  this  charter  is  to  con- 
solidate the  different  boards  into  one, 
that  is  what  we  ought  to  know.  Well, 
then,  if  you  are  going  to  do  that  you 
will  have  to  change  the  educational 
chapter,  which  will  probably  come  up 
next,  change  it  very  materially.  Dr. 
White  referred  to  a section  to  which 
he  alluded  as  No.  22,  page  134,  which 
provides  that  “the  board  of  education 


February  25 


1051 


1907 


shall  exercise  general  supervision  and 
management  of  the  public  education 
and  the  public  school  system  of  the 
City  of  Chicago,  and  shall  have  the 
power  to  make  suitable  provisions  for 
the  establishment  and  maintenance 
throughout  the  year,  or  for  such  por- 
tion of  the  year  as  it  may  direct,  of 
schools  of  all  grades  and  kinds,  includ- 
ing normal  schools,  schools  for  de- 
fectives and  delinquents,  parental  or 
truant  schools,  schools  for  the  blind, 
the  deaf  and  the  crippled,  schools  or 
classes  in  manual  training,  construc- 
tional and  avocational  teaching,  domes- 
tic arts  and  physical  culture,  vacation 
and  extension  schools  and  lecture 
courses,  and  all  other  educational  insti- 
tutions and  facilities. 

Now,  that  was  considered  by  the 
committee,  and  if  it  is  to  be  argued 
here  that  because  that  was  considered 
by  the  committee,  and  carefully  con- 
sidered by  them,  that  we  should  adopt 
it,  why,  possibly  we  will  have  to  adopt 
it  when  we  reach  that  point.  But  if  you 
do  adopt  that  and  do  not  adopt  my 
amendment,  why,  you  will  lay  the  foun- 
dation, Mr.  President,  I think  I can  as- 
sure you,  of  introducing  into  the  school 
management  of  the  City  of  Chicago 
that  which  does  not  exist  in  it  now, 
and  that  which  so  many  people  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  are  protesting  that  they 
do  not  want  shall  exist  in  it,  namely, 
politics. 

If  you  are  going  to  have  responsibil- 
ity for  the  management  of  the  school 
system  placed  upon  a board,  and  then 
you  are  going  to  tie  up  the  purse 
strings  and  give  the  city  council  the 
absolute  power  over  the  purse  without 
any  limitation,  without  any  minimum 
limitation,  you  are  compelling  the 
school  board  to  come  to  this  council  and 
beg  of  it;  and  unless  the  school  board 
has  something  that  will  gain  it  recog- 
nition, some  political  consideration  or 
something  like  that,  it  will  be  a starved 


school  board  just  as  it  has  been  pre- 
viously. 

Let  me  say  for  the  benefit  of  Aider- 
man  Badenoch — I cannot  speak  from 
the  records;  I have  not  the  records 
here — but  I can  say  on  very  good  au- 
thority, which  can  be  proved  by  the  rec- 
ords— that  before  the  present  board 
came  in  the  old  board  made  a demand 
that  was  far  short  of  what  was  really 
needed  for  school  purposes,  and  the  city 
council  cut  that  down  very  consider- 
ably and  allowed  the  new  board  to 
come  in  facing  a deficit. 

Now,  let  me  say  in  conclusion,  that 
if  you  should  place  the  responsibility 
for  the  school  board  management  in 
the  hands  of  the  city  council,  if  you 
should  put  the  control  of  the  finances 
absolutely  in  the  hands  of  the  city  coun- 
cil, that  you  are  giving  the  council  un- 
limited control  of  the  finances,  give  it 
the  unlimited  control  of  the  school  sys- 
tem so  that  the  responsibility  shall  rest 
with  those  that  control  the  purse 
strings. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I would  like  to 

make  a brief  statement  in  answer  to  the 
last  speaker,  and  that  is  the  statement 
made  that  the  city  council  cut  down  the 
appropriation  of  the  last  school  board, 
so  that  a deficit  is  now  the  result  of 
the  action  of  the  city  council.  I want 
to  say  that  that  statement,  from  whom- 
soever it  may  have  come,  is  absolutely 
untrue.  I want  to  say,  under  the  pres- 
ent revenue  law  the  giving  to  the 
school  board  of  the  estimate  based  on 
the  past  has  affected  the  rate  of  in- 
come of  the  City  of  Chicago.  Notwith- 
standing that  fact,  the  city  council  has 
always  given  to  the  school  board  every 
dollar  it  could,  and  there  is  no  danger 
but  that  in  the  future  it  will  do  the 
same.  It  is  just  as  much  interested, 
the  city  council  has  just  as  much  inter- 
est in  this,  and  is  just  as  close  to  the 
people  and  the  scholars  and  families  of 
this  city  as  are  the  members  of  the 


February  25 


1052 


1907 


board  of  education.  I am  inclined  to 
think  a little  closer,  if  anything.  The 
council  has  shown  that  by  its  actions 
in  the  past.  They  have  at  heart  the  in- 
terests of  the  schools  just  as  much  as 
any  citizen  of  this  city,  and  this  mat- 
ter could  be  safely  rested  in  their 
hands,  and  the  schools  will  not  suffer, 
will  not  be  permitted  to  suffer  by  it. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  During  Mr.  White's 

remarks  he  alluded  to  a deadlock  be- 
tween the  city  council  and  the  school 
board.  This  perhaps  was  intended  for 
the  present  school  committee,  which  has 
refused  to  O.  K.  or  recommend  certain 
requests  from  the  school  board. 

I want  to  say,  however,  the  reason 
for  that  is  currently  reported  to  be  that 
the  school  board  has  appropriated  more 
of  its  building  fund  than  it  actually 
had  to  expend,  and  in  order  to  place  on 
the  school  committee  the  whole  respon- 
sibility, it  recommended  this  appropria- 
tion, in  order  to  have  it  before  the 
people — it  requested  from  the  board 
that  it  render  a financial  statement, 
showing  what  was  the  condition  of 
its  building  fund.  That  report  has 
been  requested  more  than  two  months 
ago  and  has  not  yet  reached  the  com- 
mittee, and  by  agreement  with  Mr.  Rit- 
ter, chairman  of  the  school  board,  we 
are  recommending  no  additional  appro- 
priations until  that  report  reaches  the 
committee. 

I want  to  say  that  the  school  commit- 
tee, of  which  I have  been  chairman  for 
two  years,  has  never  refused  any  re- 
quest of  the  school  board,  and  that  they 
have  allowed  every  request  that  has 
been  made;  and  that  the  city  council, 
as  Alderman  Bennett  has  just  said — I 
think  the  city  council — is  just  as  much 
interested  in  and  as  close  to  the  people 
and  as  anxious  to  see  that  the  members 
of  the  school  board  receive  the  funds 
necessary,  as  they  themselves  are;  and 
I am  of  the  opinion  that  the  funds  of 
the  schools  will  be  just  as  safe,  if  not 


safer,  in  the  hands  of  the  city  council 
as  in  the  hands  of  the  school  board. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

question,  if  I may  be  permitted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  ask  if 

this  is  not  a fact,  that  a large  appro- 
priation for  school  buildings  was  made 
more  than  a year  ago,  and  that  upon 
the  application  a year  ago  by  the  com- 
mitee,  if  the  council  did  not  cut  down 
the  application  for  funds? 

MR.  ZIMMER:  The  committee  on 

finance  agreed  with  the  president  and 
secretary  on  every  contention  on  the 
rate. 

MR.  POST:  A year  ago? 

MR.  ZIMMER.  A year  ago. 

MR.  POST:  But  it  was  a reduction 

of  the  rate  that  the  board  applied  for, 
was  it  not? 

MR.  ZIMMER:  No,  sir;  they  put  it 

in  just  as  we  agreed  upon. 

MR.  POST:  I have  not  been  in- 

formed so. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  Post's 
amendment,  which  provides  that  the 
amount  of  taxation  for  the  school 
should  not  fall  below  a specified  per- 
centage. 

Yeas — Greenacre,  Guerin,  MacMillan, 
Owens,  Post,  Robins,  Snow,  White,  Wil- 
kins, Young — 10. 

Nays  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett, 
Brown,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Fisher,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  McGoorty,  McKin- 
ley, Merriam,  Michaelis,  O'Donnell, 
Paullin,  PendarVis,  Raymer,  Rosenthal, 
Shanahan,  Shepard,  Taylor,  Yopicka, 
Zimmer — 30. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Post's 
motion  the  yeas  are  10  and  the  nays  are 
30.  The  motion  is  lost.  The  question 
now  reverts  upon  Mr.  Shepard's  motion 
to  adopt  Sections  1 and  2,  printed  on 


February  25 


1053 


1307 


page  1035  of  the  Proceedings  of  Febru- 
ary 23. 

ME.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I do  not  want  to  lose  the  right  to  in- 
terpolate between  Sections  1 and  2 a 
section  which  I have  prepared  here.  I 
do  not  want  to  be  precluded  from  inter- 
polating this  section  between  those  two. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  is  the  prop- 

er time  to  do  it. 

MR,  SHEPARD:  I wish  to  call  the 

attention  of  the  Chair  to  the  fact  that 
Mr.  Greenacre  refers  to  another  sub- 
ject. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  No;  it  relates 

to  the  distribution  of  revenue. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Is  this  offered  as 

an  amendment? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  It  offers  to 

amend  Article  I by  adding  a section, 
1-a. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr.  Green- 
acre: Amend  Article  XII  by  adding 

thereto  as  Section  1-a,  after  Section  1, 
the  following: 

“Interest  accruing  under  Section  16 
of  Article  XI  shall  be  distributed  pro- 
portionately between  and  credited  to 
the  separate  funds  above  provided  for. 

“The  proper  authority  may  set  aside 
all  or  any  part  of  the  interest  so  added 
to  such  separate  fund  and  contribute 
same  to  pension  funds  for  disabled,  re- 
tired or  superannuated  public  servants  of 
the  department  toward  the  maintenance 
of  which  department  such  separate  fund 
applies. 

“Provided,  however,  that  such  inter- 
est so  contributed  shall  not  in  any  year 
exceed  1 per  cent  of  the  principal  of 
such  separate  fund. 11 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  offer  this  as 
a substitute? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I offer  it  as  an 

amendment  to  the  article  to  be  inserted 
as  an  extra  section  in  there. 


MR.  SHEPARD:  I rise  to  a point 

of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Just  a minute. 

On  page  1036  of  the  Proceedings  of 
February  23d  there  is  an  amendment  to 
Article  XII  relating  to  the  same  sub- 
ject, is  there  not? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  No,  that  does 

not  relate  to  the  same  thing;  it  is  not 
the  same. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  another 

thing? 

MR.  GREENACRE:  It  is  another 

thing;  yes,  sir. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I rise  to  a point  of 
order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

point,  sir? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  This  is  not  an 

amendment  to  Section  1 or  Section  2 at 
all.  Mr.  Greenacre  does  not  contend 
that  it  is.  It  is  an  amendment,  how- 
ever, but  it  should  go  in  as  a section 
of  the  article,  and  I respectfully  sug- 
gest that,  it  not  being  germane  to  this 
section  and  not  being  offered  as  an 
amendment  to  this  section,  that  we 
should  properly  proceed  to  dispose  of 
Sections  1 and  2 and  then  consider  this 
afterwards  as  a section  of  Article  XII. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I don’t  care 

when  it  is  considered,  but  I did  not 
want  to  have  you  pass  No.  2 without 
bringing  this  up.  If  it  can  be  taken  up 
later  instead  of  now,  all  right;  but  you 
will  have  passed  the  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  rea- 

son why  Mr.  Greenacre ’s  motion  should 
not  be  taken  up  after  we  dispose  of  1 
and  2. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  That  is  all  I 

want;  if  I may  reserve  the  right,  that 
is  all  I want. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  “Question!  Question!”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

| vor  signify  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 


February  25 


1054 


1907 


posed,  no.  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion  is 
adopted. 

MR. ‘GREENACRE:  Now  I offer  that 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Now  Mr.  Green- 
acre’s  amendment  is  before  the  house 
for  discussion. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I would  like  to 

hear  that  amendment  again. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  the  section  once  more. 

(The  section  was  read  by  the  Secre- 
tary.) 

MR.  BENNETT:  I desire  to  make  a 
point  of  order,  Mr,  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

point  of  order? 

MR.  BENNETT:  This  resolution  is 

not  germane  to  the  subject  of  revenue; 
it  relates  to  another  section. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  The  only  thing 

on  pensions  in  this  charter  is  in  this 
article,  Section  12;  so  the  committee 
evidently  thought  it  was  germane  to 
this  article. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  When  should  it 

be  taken  up,  if  properly  taken  up  at 
all? 

MR.  BENNETT:  I think  if  it 

should  be  adopted  it  should  be  adopted 
when  we  get  to  the  subject  of  interest 
on  public  funds. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Section  12—8, 

at  the  bottom  of  the  next  page,  seems 
to  indicate  that  this  should  come  in 
here.  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I 
hope  we  will  get  through  today,  and  for 
that  reason  I will  take  as  little  time  as 
possible.  I do  not  think  this  amend- 
ment will  depend  upon  long  arguments 
or  short  arguments. 

I will  endeavor  to  explain  it  to  you 
as  well  as  I can,  and  I think  you  will 
then  be  able  to  vote  on  it  as  intelli- 
gently as  you  would  after  one  or  a dozen 
speeches.  Here  is  the  situation:  Ar- 

ticle I,  which  you  have  just  adopted, 
provides,  in  the  last  sentence,  that  the 
city  treasurer  of  the  City  of  Chicago 


shall  keep  certain  funds,  which  funds 
shall  be  paid  out  by  him  on  the  order 
of  proper  authorities,  for  the  purposes 
for  which  they  are  levied. 

Now,  I suppose  the  proper  authorities 
mean  the  school  board,  as  the  building 
funds  for  building  schoolhouses  and 
so  forth  are  concerned7  and  the  park 
board,  as  far  as  the  funds  for  the  park 
board  are  concerned,  and  so  on.  I take 
that  to  be  the  meaning;  and  that  the 
treasurer  shall  keep  such  funds  as  he 
has  under  the  old  law. 

Now,  in  Section  16,  of  Article  XI, 
which  you  have  already  adopted,  you 
provide  that  neither  the  treasurer  nor 
any  other  public  officer  having  the  cus- 
tody of  public  funds  shall  be  entitled  to 
any  interest,  but  that  it  shall  be  paid 
into  the  city  treasury.  There  is  a prac- 
tically new  source  of  revenue  other 
than  taxation. 

Now,  in  this  same  article  to  which  I 
seek  to  add  this  language,  refers  to  the 
pension  matter,  as  far  as  the  firemen 
are  concerned — and  there  are  disposed 
of  some  matters  other  than  taxation, 
for  insurance  matters.  Now,  I think 
this,  if  proper,  should  be  made  at  this 
point.  Now,  is  the  amendment  itself 
a proper  one?  To  that  I simply  wish 
to  add  this:  I am  not  going  to  argue 

in  support  of  pensions.  You  all  know 
from  your  experience  in  public  affairs 
whether  pensions  are  beneficial  to  pub- 
lic service  or  not  in  any  and  all  de- 
partments. I notice  that  pensions  are 
growing.  The  pension  law  was  passed 
a long  time  ago,  and  the  school  pension 
laws  were  passed  a short  time  ago;  in 
the  last  two  sessions  of  the  legislature 
two  pension  measures  were  passed,  one 
of  them  in  1904  and  the  other  in  1905. 

Now,  there  are  some  departments  in 
the  public  service  that  are  so  small  that 
they  will  not  organize  pension  funds 
of  their  own.  It  seems  to  me  there  is 
no  better  time  to  act  on  this  matter, 
in  consonance  with  legislative  trend, 


February  25 


1055 


1907 


than  the  present  moment;  it  seems  to 
be  a matter  of  public  opinion  that  the 
use  of  money  for  a pension — for  pen- 
sion purposes — is  not  the  use  of  money 
for  private  purposes.  It  helps  the  serv- 
ice and  tends  to  increase  length  of 
service,  and  keeps  experienced  people 
in  the  service.  Arguing  the  pensions 
no  further,  the  proposition  is  this:  I 

would  be  glad,  and  I suppose  you  would 
all  be  glad,  to  see  every  man  who 
spends  a lifetime  in  the  service  pen- 
sioned. Now,  heretofore  we  have  re- 
ceived no  revenues  from  interest.  I 
am  proud  of  this  moment  which  would 
give  me  the  opportunity  to  contribute. 

MB.  BADENOCH:  Could  not  your 

object  be  obtained  by  an  order  of  the 
council? 

MB.  GBEENACBE:  I am  in  favor  of 
limiting  it.  Now,  then,  I will  admit 
under  the  powers  given  by  this  charter 
to  the  council,  pensions  being  a public 
purpose,  the  council  could  curtail  it  if 
they  so  chose  under  public  pressure, 
public  service,  take  from  the  taxes  di- 
rect or  any  other  public  fund,  without 
regard  to  amounts,  whether  it  be  rea- 
sonable to  contribute  to  the  pension 
fund.  I am  in  favor  of  pension  funds, 
and  more  of  them.  I am  in  favor  of 
public  contributions,  but  I am  in  favor 
of  having  it  come  from  a source  other 
than  taxation,  and  I am  in  favor  of 
having  the  council  limited. 

Now,  the  explanation  of  this  is  sim- 
ply this:  If  this  section  is  passed,  then 

the  city  council  is  not  directed  to  pay 
a public  penny  to  the  public  pension 
fund,  but  is  given  the  power,  which  it 
already  has,  but  is  compelled  to  exer- 
cise it  in  this  way.  It  must  contribute 
it  from  the  interest — from  the  interest 
it  is  to  be  contributed,  and  only  from 
the  interest  of  a particular  fund  is  it 
to  contribute,  and  then  only  to  the  per- 
sons superannuated,  and  then  only  to 
the  extent  in  any  one  year  of  1 per  cent 
of  that  fund.  Tn  other  words,  if  the 


treasurer  gets  2 per  cent  from  the 
banks,  we  will  say,  he  may  have  at  the 
end  of  the  year  1 % or  1 y2  of  the  entire 
per  cent  of  the  fund,  and  turn  it  over 
to  the  city  council.  It  does  not  say 
that  the  council  shall  contribute  1 per 
cent.  They  could  contribute  any  sum 
from  that  interest  not  over  1 per  cent; 
and  I think  we  are  thereby  doing  a 
very  good  thing  for  the  public  service, 
and  at  the  same  time  adding  no  burden. 
We  are  simply  taking  it  from  a wealthy 
fund  and  giving  to  the  public  service, 
and  at  the  same  time  limiting  any  coun- 
cil, or  any  board  of  education,  or  any 
park  board,  or  any  other  board,  from 
exceeding  and  going  wild  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

THE  CHAIBMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MB.  GBEENACBE:  Boll  call. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  Do  you  want  a 

roll  call? 

MB.  BADENOCH:  I am  generally 

in  favor  of  the  proposition  of  pensions, 
but  I do  not  understand  the  question 
sufficiently,  so  I will  have  to  vote  no. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Burke,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Lin- 
ehan,  MacMillan,  McKinley,  O’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Bobins,  Taylor, 
Yopicka,  White,  Zimmer — 15. 

Nays  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett, 
Brown,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher, 
Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Lathrop,  McGoor- 
ty,  Merriam,  Michaelis,  Paullin,  Bay- 
mer,  Bosenthal,  Shanahan,  Shepard, 
Snow,  Wilkins,  -Young — 25. 

MB.  LINEHAN:  1 desire  to  change 

my  vote  and  vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  The  yeas  are  15 

and  the  nays  25,  and  the  motion  is  lost. 
The  Secretary  will  read  12 — 5. 

THE  SECBETABY : What  page  is 

that? 

THE  CHATBMAN:  Page  105. 


February  25 


1056 


1907 


THE  SECRETARY:  12—5,  12—6, 

12—7,  12—8. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  O’Donnell. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  12—6,  Streets 

and  Alleys  of  the  City.  Have  you  that 
amendment  there? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  say  that 

should  be  added? 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  That  should  be 

added,  yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  They  are  added 

in  my  book.  I think  it  was  done  by  the 
sub-committee,  Mr.  O ’Donnell.  Pro- 
ceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  12—7,  12—8, 

12 — 9.  Page  107,  Article  XIII.  In- 
debtedness. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  have  taken 

that  up  and  disposed  of  it. 

MR.  WHITE:  I understand  that 

12 — 6 has  been  adopted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  WHITE:  I want  to  get  some 

information,  Mr.  Chairman,  before  we 
pass  that  entirely.  I should  like  to 
know  if,  as  this  bill  now  stands,  Mr. 
Chairman,  there  is  any  provision  what- 
soever for  raising'' a special  fund  for 
buildings  outside  of  bonds. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  council  can 

appropriate  out  of  the  general  fund  for 
the  building  of  buildings,  and  if  it  has 
sufficient  income  to  do  so,  no  doubt  it 
will  do  so.  If  it  cannot,  it  will  not  do 
so.  Under  these  figures  we  have  about 
six  million.  Those  are  actual  figures. 
There  is  no  chance  of  getting  below 
that  amount,  so  that  if  we  have  a lee- 
way, the  city  may  use  discretion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  next  special 
order  was  the  subject  of  education. 
The  Chair  suggests  that  we  take  up 
these  two  short  questions  here  on 
streets  and  public  improvements. 

MR.  POST:  May  I ask  if,  under  the 
article  of  indebtedness,  the  subject  of 


school  building  bonds  is  provided  for, 
serially  or  otherwise. 

MR.  BENNETT:  We  have  the  power 
to  issue  bonds  either  serially  or  other- 
wise. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  After  revenue,  the 

special  order  is  Article  XIX,  on  the  de- 
partment of  education. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  to 
take  it  up  now? 

MR.  BROWN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Senator  Brown. 

MR.  BROWN:  I offered  a resolution 
some  time  ago.  It  is  on  page  32,  re- 
garding the  licensing  of  peddlers.  Would 
it  not  be  as  well  to  take  it  up  under 
this  section? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  that 

resolution? 

MR.  BROWN:  That  is  simply  to  rid 

the  streets  of  a public  nuisance,  and  I 
do  not  think  it  needs  any  comment  at 
all.  I think  every  man  in  this  room 
understands  that  they  are  a public 
nuisance  and  litter  our  streets.  I don’t 
believe  that  they  ought  to  have  a 
license.  If  we  do  not  grant  them  a 
license  there  will  be  no  peddling  of  any 
kind  on  the  streets. 

MR.  POST:  Is  it  to  prohibit  street 

peddling?  Is  that  it? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  ought  not 

to  go  into  our  charter.  That  is  simply 
a part  of  the  code,  and  ought  to  be  left 
to  the  regulation  of  the  city  council.  It 
may  be  that  peddling  is  a nuisance, 
but  that  is  a matter  for  the  city  council 
to  regulate,  and  not  for  this  Convention 
to  regulate. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion  of  Mr.  Brown.  As  many  as 
favor  it  signify  by  saying  aye;  op- 
posed, no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

lost.  Article  XIX,  Department  of  Edu- 
cation, special  order,  page  130. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I would  call  atten- 

tion, Mr.  Chairman,  to  some  things  that 
should  be  proposed  by  the  drafting  com- 


February  25 


1057 


1907 


mittee,  in  Section  2.  The  first  sentence 
says  that  the  board  of  education  should 
consist  of  thirteen  members,  and  then, 
a few  sentences  following,  indicating 
the  board  shall  consist  of  some  other 
members — some  other  member.  I sup- 
pose the  drafting  committee  is  ready 
for  some  correction  of  that  inconsist- 
ency. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  be  cor- 

rected. 

MR.  POST:  There  seems  to  be  an 

inconsistency  in  this  matter.  I think 
we  ought  to  know  before  sending  this 
to  the  drafting  committee  whether  the 
proposition  is  to  make  a complete  im- 
mediate change  in  the  board,  or  whether 
it  is  to  make  the  change  as  the  terms 
of  the  members  expire. 

Under  that  section,  as  drawn,  it  is 
impossible  to  tell,  except  that  the  prob- 
abilities are  that  a court  will  decide 
that  in  order  to  give  limitation  to  the 
fifteen  members  that  a change  must 
be  made  at  once,  although  it  would 
cause  a most  remarkable  system  of  ap- 
pointments. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  drafting 

committee  seems  to  be  under  the  im- 
pression that  the  board  should  go  out, 
and  there  should  be  a gradual  displace- 
ment as  provided,  but  they  found  some 
difficulty  in  having  it  mathematically 
figured  out. 

MR.  POST : That  is  the  intention,  is 

it,  Mr.  President? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  POST:  Then  I would  like  to 

ask,  and  this  is  not  a drafting  commit- 
tee question,  either.  Why,  if  the  in- 
tention is  to  change  the  number  from 
21  to  15,  why,  the  change  is  not  made 
directly  and  without  all  this  “now  you 
see  it  and  now  you  don't”  in  the  pro- 
vision. 

Why  not  substitute  four  for  those 
who  go  in  in  1908  and  four  who  go 
in  in  1909  and  four  for  those  who  go 
in  in  1910,  and  then  appoint  these  four 


for  four  years,  so  that  immediately  the 
board  is  changed  from  an  appointive 
board  of  seven  each  year  to  an  ap- 
pontive  board  of  four.  Why  should 
there  be  first  two  and  then  four,  and 
why  should  three  be  appointed,  and  four 
during  the  first  year,  so  as  to  get  seven 
appointees  during  the  first  changes? 

There  may  be  a variety  of  substantial 
reasoning  for  fhis  complication,  but  I 
have  not  been  able  to  figure  it  out. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I should  like  to 

hear  the  reason  from  Mr.  Fisher  as  to 
why  this  was  added  by  the  drafting 
committee? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  one  of  the 

members  of  the  drafting  committee 
answer  that? 

MR.  FISHER:  As  one  of  the  mem- 

bers of  the  drafting  committee,  I rise 
to  explain  that  it  was  done  this  way 
because  it  was  thought  that  would  be 
the  simplest  way  to  do  it. 

MR.  COLE:  Has  this  been  referred 

to  Mr.  Wilson? 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  Mr.  Wilson 

was  present  while  it  was  being  done, 
but  he  had  not  that  deep  interest  in  it 
that  he  has  in  another  subject. 

The  plan  I supposed  would  be  adopt- 
ed, in  accordance  with  the  suggestion 
made  by  Prof.  Taylor,  would  be  to  pro- 
vide to  go  on  with  these  changes  as 
provided  here,  and  then  strike  out  the 
first  sentence,  Section  2,  as  provided  at 
the  end,  that  thereafter — that  is  to  re- 
duce the  board  to  fifteen  and  that  there- 
after they  should  consist  of  fifteen 
members. 

MR.  POST:  May  I ask  a question? 

MR.  FISHER:  Certainly. 

MR.  POST:  As  at  present  appointed, 
there  will  be  three  appointed  for  one 
year  and  four  for  two  years.  Now,  why 
not  leave  out  the  three  and  appoint  the 
four  for  four  years  to  succeed  the  first 
seven  that  go  out,  and  the  next  four 
for  four  years,  instead  of  first  appoint- 


February  25 


1058 


1907 


ing  them  for  a year,  and  then  four  for 
a year,  and  then  four  for  two  years? 

MR.  FISHER:  You  want  to  get 

your  board  reduced  to  fifteen  as  soon  as 
you  can.  You  do  not  want  to  reduce  it 
to  twelve  and  then  again  raise  it  to 
fifteen.  The  idea  is  to  reduce  it  to 
fifteen  as  quickly  as  it  possibly  can 
be  done.  That  is  what  would  be  ac- 
complished by  this  draft*  in  here. 

MR.  POST:  I meant  five  instead  of 

four. 

MR.  FISHER:  Do  you  mean,  appoint 
after  that? 

MR.  POST:  Yes,  to  appoint  after 

that,  as  the  terms  of  these  seven  expire, 
when  you  appoint  five  for  four  years 
instead  of  appointing  three  for  one, 
and  four  for  two,  and  then  six  for  two, 
and  finally  the  four  for  four  years. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  term  of  office  of 

these  members  is  to  expire  at  different 
times,  and  I do  not  think  it  can  be  ac- 
complished by  any  other  plan. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I cannot 

understand  this.  I do  not  think  you  un- 
derstand me,  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER:  Possibly  not. 

MR.  POST:  In  1908  the  terms  of 

seven  members  will  expire.  Now,  you 
are  proposing  to  appoint  in  their  place 
three  for  one  year,  and  four  for  two 
years.  Why  not  appoint  five  for  four 
years?  That  will  reduce  your  board  to 
two,  and  the  next  year  the  same,  and 
the  next  the  same,  and  in  1910  you  will 
have  a board  of  fifteen  for  four  years — 
all  in.  Whereas,  under  the  present  sys- 
tem,  you  have  a board  of  twenty-one 
for  one  year,  eighteen  for  another  year 
and  fifteen  for  another. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I see  no  reason 

why  that  suggestion 

MR.  FISHER:  This  board  is  not  to 

consist  of  three  classes  of  five  each; 
it  is  to  consist  of  four,  of  four-year 
terms,  as  I understand  it.  It  is  to  con- 
sist of  four-year  terms.  The  result  of 
that  is,  you  cannot  divide  fifteen  into 


four.  If  you  want  to  change  it  so  as 
to  have  three-year  terms,  why,  that  is 
all  right.  This  is  a four-year  term. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Fisher  is  quite  right 

about  that,  and  that  will  be  so  if  there 
are  four-year  terms.  Now,  I would  like 
to  ask  why  we  should  have  four-year 
terms,  when  it  requires  such  a fantastic 
arrangement  to  establish  it.  Is  there 
anything  especially  about  a four-year 
term  in  this  connection?  I know  that 
is  not  a drafting  committee  problem, 
and  I do  not  ask  it  of  Mr.  Fisher  as  a 
member  of  the  drafting  committee,  but 
I ask  it  of  the  convention:  Why  is  it? 

MR.  FISHER:  I cannot  see  anything 
sacred  in  the  four-year  term  for  the 
members  of  the  board  of  education.  I 
personally  would  be  in  favor  of  three- 
year  terms,  but  I was  not  present  when 
the  article  was  adopted. 

MR.  B-.  A.  ECKHART:  The  drafting 

committee  offers  the  section  to  the  Con- 
vention in  that  manner.  If  the  Conven- 
tion desires  to  change  that,  it  can  be 
done. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  someone 

amend  to  make  it  three  years? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I move  the  adop- 

tion of  this  as  it  stands. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I move  that  it  shall 

be  three  years,  and  five  each  year. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion.  All  those  in  favor  signify 
by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  The  mo- 
tion was  carried. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I do  not  think 

that  the  Convention  knew  what  we  were 
voting  on. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

state  it,  then,  and  we  will  have  another 
vote. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I want  a roll 

call  on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  right. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I do  not  think 

we  ought  to  change  this  matter  in  such 
a precipitate  way. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  drafting 


February  25 


1059 


1907 


committee  sat  for  hours  trying  to  figure 
out  mathematically  how  the  board  could 
be  changed.  It  found  no  way  it  could 
be  practically  done,  because  of  the  four- 
year  term.  That  matter  is  now  before 
the  Convention.  If  some  member  will 
show  how  this  board  can  be  gradually 
changed  with  a four-year  term,  I have 
no  objection  to  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  The  drafting  com- 

mittee’s report  seems  to  me  to  be  right, 
and  I think  Mr.  Post  is  satisfied  as  to 
the  mathematics  of  it  now. 

The  only  question  is  whether  we  shall 
change  from  four-year  term.  You  will 
remember  we  debated  the  four-year 
term  for  the  office  of  mayor. 

There  is  a good  reason  for  it,  and, 
as  far  as  the  matter  of  mathematics  is 
concerned,  that  cuts  no  figure;  but 
there  are  cogent  reasons  why  a four- 
year  term  is  better  than  a three-year 
term,  and  I respectfully  suggest  that 
we  leave  it  just  as  it  is  now,  with 
the  arrangement  as  worked  out. 

MR.  POST:  That  is  satisfactory  to 

me,  provided  the  drafting  committee 
will  make  it  perfectly  clear  that  this 
is  to  be  a board  of  twenty-one  in  1908 
and  eighteen  in  1909,  and  fifteen  in 
1910,  and  thereafter. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  This  part  of  the 
discussion  does  not  touch  the  question 
which  I raised,  which  was  to  the  effect 
that  we  voted  upon  General  Young’s  mo- 
tion on  a vive  voce  vote,  without,  I be- 
lieve, the  Convention  really  understand- 
ing the  proposition.  I do  not  believe 
that  two-thirds  of  the  members  under- 
stand the  proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  vote  has 

been  expunged. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I would  suggest 

this:  Why  not  change  the  number  of 

the  board  of  education  to  sixteen,  and 
then  you  will  have  none  of  this  difficulty 
in  mathematics.  Then  you  will  have 
straight  four-year  terms  for  the  four 
classes  of  the  members  of  the  board  of 


education,  and  there  would  be  no  ques- 
tion whatever  as  to  this  extra  three,  or 
anything  of  the  kind.  That  will  meet 
all  the  objections  to  this  proposition, 
and  clear  away  any  objection. 

MR.  WHITE:  I rise  to  a point  of 

order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  your 

point  of  order? 

MR.  WHITE:  Did  we  not  vote  to 

change  the  term  from  four  years  to 
three? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  No,  sir. 

MR.  WHITE:  What  were  we  voting 

on? 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I don’t  think 

there  is  an  intelligent  member  who  did 
know  what  we  were  voting  on. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  vote  was 

expunged  because  Mr.  MacMillan  de- 
clared that  intelligent  members  did 
not  know  what  we  were  voting  on. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I move  you  that 
the  number  as  provided  in  the  first 
sentence  in  Section  2 be  changed  from 
“15”  to  “16.” 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I trust  Mr. 

MacMillan  will  not  press  that  motion. 
An  even  number  in  any  board,  in  my 
judgment,  would  not  work  well.  You 
might,  many  times,  have  a tie  in  your 
vote.  It  is  usual  to  have  an  uneven 
number  to  constitute  a board  of  this 
kind,  and  for  this  reason  I do  not  think 
it  would  work  as  satisfactorily.  I think 
on  reflection  Mr.  MacMillan  will  real- 
ize it. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I now  move,  as 

a substitute  for  Mr.  MacMillan’s  mo- 
tion, that  this  matter  be  re-referred  to 
the  drafting  committee,  to  draft  this 
section  according  to  the  present  lines. 

The  only  reason  I make  that  motion 
is  because  the  section  as  now  drafted  is, 
as  Mr.  Post  stated,  inconsistent  with  it- 
self. It  provided  for  fifteen  members, 
and  then,  in  the  next  section,  provides 
for  more  than  fifteen  members. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Will  Mr.  Ro- 


February  25 


1060 


1907 


senthal  permit  me  to  say  that  that  is  a 
little  inconsistency  that  can  be  easily 
corrected? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  And,  I think, 
it  is  the  intention  of  the  committee  to 
correct  it  in  that  respect,  so  that  it 
will  work  out. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  the 

sense  is  proper,  but  it  is  not  properly 
expressed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  it  be  satis- 

factory to  everybody  if  the  sense  is 
properly  expressed? 

MR.  POST : I think  I can  correct 

that,  Mr.  Chairman.  If,  instead  of  say- 
ing the  board  of  education  shall  con- 
sist of  fifteen  members,  we  insert  in 
there  twenty-one  members  for  the  year 
ending  July  7,  1908,  and  eighteen  mem- 
bers for  the  year  ending  July  7,  1909, 
and  fifteen  members  for  the  year  ending 
July  7,  1910,  and  thereafter.  I think 
that  will  cure  it  all.  If  these  mathemat- 
ics are  necessary,  I yield  to  the  higher 
mathematicians  in  that. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  that  we 
draft  it  in  accordance  with  that  sug- 
gestion. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  would  be  seventeen 
the  first  year.  We  will  have  to  get  the 
mathematics  correct. 

MR.  POST:  There  are  twenty-one 

now. 

MR.  FISHER:  There  are  twenty-one 

now,  yes,  and  if  four  go  out,  and  three, 
there  will  be  seventeen  left.  Now,  part 
of  the  year  there  will  be  seventeen  and 
part  of  the  year  there  will  be  twenty- 
one.  I do  not  think  we  can  redraft  that 
section  in  that  way. 

MR.  WHITE:  I move  you  that  the 

whole  matter  be  referred  to  the  mathe- 
matical department. 

MR.  POST:  I second  the  motion. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  Mr.  Young’s 

motion  is  the  correct  motion.  That  mo- 
tion would  simplify  this  whole  propo- 
sition, to  have  five  members  in  each 


class,  and  a three-year  term.  The  in- 
tention has  been  expressed  to  bring  it 
out  of  politics.  Now,  there  is  nothing 
in  the  fact  that  the  mayor  has  a four- 
year  term.  As  a matter  of  fact,  when 
you  give  the  power  to  the  mayor  to 
change  the  entire  personnel  every  four 
years  there  *is  no  difference.  I do  not 
see  why,  if  you  appoint  three  classes 
of  five  each,  one  class  every  year,  in 
that  way  you  will  simplify  the  whole 
situation.  I see  no  reason  why  that 
suggestion  does  not  simplify  the  whole 
thing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the  way 

it  appeared  to  the  Chairman  when  he 
was  overruled.  You  offer  that  in  the 
form  of  a motion? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes;  the  original  mo- 

tion is  before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

pending. 

MR.  PEND AR VIS:  I want  to  ask 

Mr.  Fisher  a question. 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  When  this  mat- 

ter was  under  discussion,  a suggestion 
was  made  if  you  had  a three-year  term 
of  mayor  under  certain  conditions, 
and  have  the  appointment  of  ten  of 
these 

MR.  FISHER:  He  will  appoint  just 

as  many  members  exactly.  The  next 
man  who  comes  along  will  appoint  the 
same.  He  will  reappoint  the  men  that 
are  on  there.  It  does  not  make  a par- 
ticle of  difference.  I do  not  see  that 
it  makes  a particle  of  difference.  There 
was  a question  addressed  to  me  as  to 
whether  I remember.  I do  not  remem- 
ber, because  I was  not  here;  but  this  is 
much  simpler.  One  year  you  are  ap- 
pointing four,  and  one  year  you  are  ap- 
pointing three,  and  you  get  into  compu- 
tations. I do  not  see  any  reason  why 
there  should  be  any  objection  to  this. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question  on  General  Young ’s  mo- 
tion to  amend  by  making  the  term  three 


February  25 


1061 


1907 


years  instead  of  four  years,  five  to  be 
appointed  each  time?  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question?  All  those  in  favor 
signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  The 
motion  is  carried. 

ME.  POST:  On  No.  3;  let  me  call 

this  matter  to  the  attention  of  the 
house,  before  we  pass  No.  3,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent. My  impression  is  that  no  action 
was  taken  on  the  elections  of  the  school 
board.  The  people  of  this  city  have 
voted  for  an  elective  school  board,  and 
before  we  pass  from  the  section  I wish 
that  the  selection  of  the  school  board  be 
changed  from  appointive  to  elective. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  de- 

sires to  say  that  that  question  was  thor- 
oughly threshed  out,  and  was  voted  on 
in  the  convention,  as  to  whether  it 
should  be  an  elective  or  an  appointive 
school  board,  and  the  records  will  so 
show  it. 

MR.  POST:  Well,  I would  like  to 

ask  for  a vote  on  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  moved 

that  the  board  be  an  elective  instead  of 
an  appointive  board,  and  requests  a roll 
call. 

MR.  POST:  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor will  signify  by  saying  aye;  op- 
posed, no.  The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  POST:  I want  to  be  recorded 

aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Anybody  who 

voted  aye  can  record  his  name  with  the 
Secretary,  and  it  will  be  so  recorded 
of  record. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  be  recorded  as 

voting  aye. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wish  to  be  recorded 
as  voting  aye. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  My  vote  was 

aye. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I desire  to  be 

recorded  as  voting  aye. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I voted  aye. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  My  vote  was  aye. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I now  offer  a substi- 


tute for  the  section  reading  “ Members 
of  the  board  of  education  shall  serve 
without  compensation,”  the  following 
section:  “The  members  of  the  board 

of  education  shall  be  paid  such  compen- 
sation as  the  city  council  may  by  ordi- 
nance provide.”  I move  that  the  reso- 
lution be  not  concurred  in. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  move  that 

the  motion  stand  as  it  is? 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Yes. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Second. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no  use 

in  bringing  it  up,  then. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I want  to  bring  up 

that  amendment  as  offered  by  Mr. 
Werno  and  just  read  by  Mr.  Taylor,  and 
I would  like  to  say  a word  in  favor  of 
it,  but  I would  like  to  know  in  what 
shape  the  motion  will  go  before  the 
house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  was  no 

amendment  before  the  house,  and  Dr. 
Taylor  moves  that  matters  stand  as  they 
were.  Consequently  there  is  no  motion 
before  the  house. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Then  I have  the 

right  of  way? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  Mr.  Linehan 
with  his ' amendment  has  the  right  of 
way. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I move  the  substi- 

tution of  the  amendment  by  Mr.  Werno; 
that  is  on  page  1033,  the  right  and 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Linehan ’s 

motion,  on  page  1033,  in  the  upper  right- 
hand  corner — Mr.  Linehan  moves  that 
the  board  of  education  shall  be  paid 
such  compensation  as  the  city  council 
may  by  ordinance  provide.  Is  that  your 
amendment? 

MR.  LINEHAN : That  is  my  substi- 
tute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  For  No.  3? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  For  No.  3;  and  I 

would  like  to  say  a word  on  that.  I 
would  like  to  call  attention  to  the  fact 
that  under  the  present  arrangement  it 
practically  disfranchises  a man  that  is 


February  25 


1062 


1907 


poor  and  honest;  most  everybody  else 
is  eligible  to  go  on  that  board.  The 
member  that  is  poor  and  honest  cannot 
go  on  that  board;  the  man  that  is  poor 
and  willing  to  be  dishonest  might  have 
a chance. 

Now,  let  me  also  call  your  attention 
to  this  fact,  that  at  the  present  time, 
if  a wage  earner  would  come  on  that 
board  he  must  vote  by  the  organization 
that  he  may  be  connected  with.  Now, 
I do  not  think  that  is  fair. 

I think  the  man  who  works  for  wages 
ought  to  be  just  as  eligible  on  the 
school  board  as  the  officer  of  the  organi- 
zation that  he  is  paid  by,  and  the  only 
way  that  that  can  be  brought  about  is 
by  the  city  paying  all  those  people,  and 
not  any  special  interest  paying  any  of 
them. 

For  instance,  suppose  a man  is  on 
that  school  board,  and  he  is  a member 
of  the  carpenters’  organization,  and  he 
is  being  paid  as  the  officers  of  the  car- 
penters ’ organization,  the  tendency  is 
that  he  will  look  more  after  the  inter- 
ests of  the  carpenters  ’ organization 
than  he  will  after  the  interests  of  the 
children  of  the  whole  city. 

Now,  the  same  is  true  of  any  interest 
that  may  be  represented  there.  If  a 
young  man  is  working  for  a business 
house  here  and  is  paid  for  the  time  that 
he  is  on  the  board  of  education,  paid 
by  the  business  house,  the  tendency 
then  will  be  that  he  will  work  for  the 
business  house,  no  matter  how  honest 
he  may  be.  It  will  be  the  natural 
tendency. 

Therefore,  I think  there  is  no  way 
by  which  the  matter  may  be  put  right 
before  the  people,  except  to  leave  it  in 
the  hands  of  the  common  council  to  pay 
the  members  of  the  school  board  what 
they  desire.  It  may  not  be  necessary 
to  pay  them  all,  but  it  may  be  neces- 
sary to  pay  some  of  them,  or  it  might 
even  be  necessary  to  pay  them  all. 
However,  I am  willing  to  leave  it  to  the 


judgment  of  the  common  council,  and  I 
think  it  is  proper  to  have  it. 

MR.  FISHER:  I wish  to  record  my 

adherence  to  the  general  proposition 
which  Mr.  Linehan  has  laid  down. 

I do  not  believe  in  public  service 
of  anybody  without  compensation.  I 
think  that  any  public  officer,  and  I do 
not  care  whether  it  is  the  park  commis- 
sioner or  the  school  board  member,  or 
a member  of  the  library  board,  or  what- 
ever position,  ought  to  carry  with  it  a 
sufficient  compensation  so  that  a man 
who  is  absolutely  dependent  on  his  own 
earnings  for  a livelihood  can  afford  to 
take  the  job  if  he  is  otherwise  qualified 
for  it. 

I believe  there  should  be  a limit  to 
the  amount  of  compensation  paid,  and  I 
think  the  compensation  for  positions  of 
this  sort  should  be  made  high  enough 
so  that  such  a man  could  afford  to  take 
the  position  without  jeopardizing  his 
financial  interests. 

I should  think  that  $2,400  a year,  or 
even  the  compensation  that  has  been 
paid  heretofore  to  the  aldermen,  or  even 
as  low  as  $1,200  a year,  would  take 
care  of  the  matter,  so  as  to  get  that 
point;  but  I do  believe  it  is  proper  that 
compensation  should  be  paid  for  all 
these  officers  to  enable  a man  to  take  it 
who  is  absolutely  dependent  on  his 
daily  labors  for  the  support  of  his  fam- 
ily* 

I should  like  to  see  some  limit  put 
to  this  resolution,  and  then  I would  be 
in  favor  of  it. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Doesn’t  this  apply 

with  equal  force  to  park  commissioners? 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  it  does. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Experience  in  the 

past  has  shown  that  the  men  who  have 
been  most  valuable  on  the  park  boards 
are  men  who  would  not  have  accepted 
those  positions  if  there  had  been  a sal- 
ary attached  to  them.  We  cannot  put 
such  a salary  on  those  positions  which 
will  secure  the  services  of  men  of  large 


February  25 


1063 


1907 


positions,  and  men  of  influence,  men 
such  as  you  want,  and  I think  they  will 
believe  you  are  belittling  the  position 
of  a member  of  the  board  of  education 
or  a member  of  the  park  board  to  attach 
to  either  of  these  places  a small  sal- 
ary. It  would  certainly  debar  many  men 
now  on  the  park  boards  from  going  on 
them. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I hope  the  resolu- 

tion of  Mr.  Linehan  will  prevail;  that 
is,  in  such  proper  form  as  to  limitation 
of  salary  that  will  meet  the  judgment 
of  this  Charter  Convention  as  to  what 
is  right.  When  I went  with  the  board 
of  education  I thought  I had  a different 
judgment  about  it,  very  much  the  atti- 
tude suggested  by  the  last  speaker.  Now, 
my  position  on  the  board  has  shown 
me  that  it  is  an  unwise  policy;  and  that 
it  is  unwise  in  the  interests  of  the  whole 
people. 

I wish  to  submit  to  this  Charter  Con- 
vention the  actual  expense  of  being  a 
member  of  the  board  of  education;  the 
actual  amount  of  money  that  a member 
will  pay  out,  which  is  something  like 
a thousand  dollars.  A member  cannot 
carry  on  the  necessary  engagements  with- 
out suffering  that  much  actual  pecuniary 
cost. 

Now,  further  than  that,  the  policy  of 
not  paying  them  gives  a member  of  the 
board  a sort  of  feeling  that  he  should 
be  excused  from  attending  meetings  that 
interfere  with  his  business  enterprises. 

Time  and  time  again  important  mat- 
ters have  failed  of  being  considered,  and 
the  member  who  was  responsible  for  the 
failure  gave  the  excuse,  “Well,  of  course, 
I have  to  make  a living.”  Now,  no 
board  should  be  in  that  position  if  you 
expect  to  get  service  from  it.  I wish 
to  say  to  you  gentlemen  of  this  Con- 
vention that  in  the  last  year  we  all  have 
been  instructed  as  to  the  cost  of  public 
and  private  enterprises  by  the  failure  of 
the  directors  to  direct,  leaving  it  to  them 
to  use  all  responsibility.  It  does  not  mat- 
ter how  deep  a man ’s  interest  may  be. 


As  a matter  of  fact,  all  the  brains  were 
never  yet  under  one  hat  and  you  cannot 
get  all  the  brains  under  one  hat,  and 
all  that  you  can  do  will  not  save  the 
responsibility,  by  trying  to  get  all  the 
interest  and  responsibility  in  this  one 
man. 

You  want  fifteen  directors  of  your 
school  and  you  want  them  to  give  their 
time  to  school  matters  and  to  the  proper 
administration  of  the  schools,  and  if  they 
do  not  administer  them  properly,  then 
you  should  put  in  men  who  will  do  so. 
But  do  not  let  them  be  excused  on  the 
ground  “I  could  not  attend  that  meet- 
ing”, or  “I  could  not  attend  that  meet- 
ing on  account  of  business  interests  ’ ’ — 
and  things  of  that  kind. 

There  are  people  in  this  community 
who  are  not  able  to  uold  honorary  po- 
sitions. There  are  men  who  have  ideas  on 
the  subject  of  education  who  are  entitled 
to  be  heard.  It  is  a matter  of  the  edu- 
cation for  the  whole  people  and  not  a 
portion  of  the  people;  and  it  ought  to 
be  entirely  possible  for  a man  who  is 
a member  of  his  union  or  represents  the 
labor  interests  in  this  city  to  be  a mem- 
ber of  the  board  of  education  without 
feeling  that  it  was  a charge  upon  him, 
without  feeling  that  for  him  to  accept  it 
was  a sort  of  warning  to  the  public  that 
he  went  in  to  get  some  profit  or  gain 
of  some  kind. 

I have  heard  gentlemen  spoken  of  many 
times  as  members  of  the  board  of  edu- 
cation ; until  I was  appointed,  I was 
never  spoken  of  as  a member.  My  ap- 
pointment was  a surprise  to  myself,  and 
others,  possibly.  Now,  certain  gentlemen 
have  refused  the  appointment  on  the 
ground  that  it  was  not  possible  for  them 
to  accept.  I cannot  help  but  think  that 
it  might  have  been  better,  that  they 
would  have  made  better  directors  than 
myself ; they  certainly  could  not  have 
been  censured  more  than  1 have  been.  I 
feel  that  this  is  really  an  important  mat- 
ter, and  certainly  the  charter  of  ths 


February  25 


1064 


1907 


City  of  Chicago  should  not  preclude  com- 
pensation for  the  service. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I trust  the 

motion  will  not  prevail.  I believe  there 
should  be  a few  appointive  offices,  at 
least,  that  should  be  considered  honorary 
positions,  and  that  may  be  filled  because 
of  the  fitness  of  the  respective  men  to 
do  the  work  of  that  particular  office. 

So  far  as  the  statement  made  by  the 
gentleman  who  has  just  spoken,  it  seems 
to  me  that  there  will  always  be  found 
men  competent  to  discharge  their  official 
duties  without  pay  or  compensation  in 
matters  of  this  kind.  I have  been  a 
member  of  a board  for  ten  or  eleven 
years,  without  compensation,  and  there 
were  some  men  on  that  board  who  rarely 
ever  were  at  a meeting — a committee 
meeting — that  for  six  or  seven  months 
at  a time  performed  no  work  whatever. 
I have  also  served  on  a board  where 
no  compensation  or  pay  was  given  to 
the  members  of  the  board,  and  I must 
confess  that  each  member  attended  the 
committee  meetings  of  the  board  very 
regularly,  and  performed  their  duties  ef- 
ficiently. It  seems  to  me  that  honorary 
positions  are  easily  filled  by  men  who 
are  willing  to  do  something  for  their 
fellow-men  without  compensation.  I 
hope  that  the  members  of  the  park  board 
and  the  other  officers  mentioned  will  not 
be  paid  a compensation.  I believe  that 
the  mayor  of  the  city  can  find  men  who 
have  special  adaptation  for  that  work, 
and  who  will  do  it.  I have  yet  to  learn 
of  a man  who  has  refused  to  serve  in 
any  position  of  that  kind  because  no 
compensation  attached  to  the  office  which 
he  occupied. 

MR.  ROBINS:  You  have  heard  it  to- 

day. I made  the  statement  of  two  gen- 
tlemen who  had  refused  to  go  on  the 
board  of  education  who  wrere  poor  men. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : I didn ’t  hear 

you  make  that  statement.  I have  not 
heard  of  any  man  refusing  to  accept  an 
honorary  appointment  where  it  involved 
a special  honor  to  fill  the  office  and 


refuse  it  because  there  was  no  salary 
attached  to  it.  There  may  be  an  ex- 
ception to  that  rule. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to  ask 

a question:  Would  it  be  possible  for  me 
to  take  an  appointment  on  the  school 
board  without  stamping  myself  before 
the  people  with  the  idea  that  I must 
get  my  money  somewhere  else. 

MR.  HILL:  I had  firmly  made  up 

my  mind  that  I would  not  get  on  my 
feet  again  during  this  convention,  but 
this  is  a matter  in  which  I have  quite 
a pronounced  view  which  I would  like 
to  get  the  sense  of  this  meeting  upon. 
It  seems  to  me  that  there  is  a clean-cut 
distinction  between  the  park  board  and 
the  board  of  education.  I think  it  is 
wrell  understood  by  everybody  that  per- 
haps our  teachers,  as  a rule,  are  about 
the  poorest  paid  class  throughout  the 
United  States  that  we  have  at  the  present 
time.  Now,  the  park  board  is  a board 
of  organization  along  business  lines;  but 
the  board  of  education  is  something 
more.  We  must  also  have  men  on  that 
board  wrho  have  a technical  knowledge 
of  the  details  of  education — up-to-date 
knowledge  upon  that  subject.  Now,  it 
does  not  seem  to  me  that  that  class  of 
men  should  be  put  in  such  position  that 
they  are  barred  from  serving  without 
great  personal  sacrifice.  I do  not  think 
the  salary  should  be  high,  but  I think 
that  the  actual  outlay  is  somewhere  in 
the  neighborhood  of  a thousand  dollars 
in  the  course  of  the  service.  And  I think, 
myself,  that  we  ought  to  leave  this  open, 
so  that  the  council  could  settle  the 
matter. 

I appreciate  all  that  has  been  said  by 
those  men  who  have  served  so  success- 
fully upon  the  park  board,  but  it  seems 
to  me  that  there  is  a distinction  between 
the  duty  of  the  board  of  education  and 
the  duties  of  the  members  of  the  park 
board.  One  is  business  and  the  other 
is  technical  knowledge  and  business,  and 
the  men  that  have  that  technical  knowl- 
edge are  n^t  highly  paid  men,  and  it  is 


February  25 


1065 


1907 


a sacrifice  to  some  of  them  to  keep  up 
their  interest  and  sacrifice  their  money 
to  serve  this  great  city  of  two  million 
people,  which  is  willing  to  pay  a salary 
of  a thousand  or  two  thousand  a year 
without  any  trouble. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I would  like  to 

offer  the  following  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY;  “By  Mr.  Mc- 
Goorty:  Amend  article  19  by  striking 

out  paragraph  19-3,  and  insert  in  lieu 
thereof  the  following : ‘ The  members 

of  the  board  of  education  shall  be  paid 
such  compensation  as  the  city  council 
may  by  ordinance  provide,  not  to  exceed 
$2,000.00  a year.’  ” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  YOUNG:  It  seems  to  me  when 

we  are  putting  a salary  on  the  school 
board  in  the  nature  of  a compensation, 
we  are  taking  a most  dangerous  step. 
We  must  taxe  into  consideration  human 
nature.  I have  never  knowm  a salaried 
office  that  did  not  become  a political  of- 
fice. After  all  the  talk  we  have  heard 
about  keeping  politics  out  of  the  school 
board,  you  are  going  to  plunge  it  abso- 
lutely into  politics ; you  can ’t  help  it. 
The  experience  of  the  past  has  shown 
that  we  can  get  competent  members  of 
this  school  board  without  compensation. 
It  is  not  absolutely  necessary  that  cer- 
tain men  shall  be  on  the  school  board. 
Of  that  class  of  men  there  are  always 
men  who  are  willing  to  serve  on  the 
school  board  without  compensation,  and 
I hope  sincerely  that  no  such  resolution 
as  this  shall  prevail.  I believe  that 
there  are  enough  men,  poor  and  rich, 
who  will  take  patriotic  interest  in  this 
matter  sufficient  to  serve  on  this  board, 
and  I believe  there  will  be  no  difficulty 
in  finding  them. 

MR.  RAYMER : I am  thoroughly  in 

favor  of  the  resolution  as  presented  by 
Mr.  McGoorty.  I think  that  the  provis- 
ion of  the  limitation  of  the  salary  is 
a wise  one. 


Now,  the  question  of  placing  the  school 
board  in  politics:  it  is  my  impression 
that  the  school  board  is  about  as  far 
in  polities  today  as  you  could  get  it; 
and  I don’t  believe  that  the  placing  of 
the  salary  for  this  provision  is  going 
to  get  it  any  deeper  into  politics,  or 
take  it  any  further  out  of  the  game  than 
it  is  at  present.  I believe  that  the  res- 
olution should  be  adopted. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I hope  the  resolution 

will  not  pass.  I do  think  that  if  the 
school  board  should  be  paid,  the  people 
should  put  into  nomination  the  men  who 
are  to  receive  their  salary,  and  not  make 
it  a question  of  plums  to  be  sought  by 
mediocre  men  at  the  hands  of  the  ap- 
pointing officer. 

MR.  POST : I think  we  should  thor- 

oughly realize  just  exactly  that  the  issue 
before  us  now  is  a public  school  ques- 
tion. The  issue  is  this:  Shall  we  have 

school  boards  composed  exclusively,  aside 
from  politicians,  of  the  wealthy  class, 
who  can  afford  to  devote  their  time  to 
school  board  purposes?  Shall  we  ex- 
clude from  the  government  of  the  school 
— from  the  board  that  governs  the  school 
— the  men  who  come  from  the  class  that 
supplies  the  schools  with  their  pupils? 

As  has  been  said  on  this  floor,  a work- 
ing man  cannot  afford  to  go  on  this 
board.  As  has  been  indicated  on  this 
floor,  an  educator,  no  matter  how  able 
he  may  be,  unless  he  happens  to  have 
an  independent  income,  cannot  afford  to 
go  on  this  board,  unless  he  makes  him- 
self the  educational  tool  of  the  rich 
class  in  this  community.  Now7,  Mr. 
Chairman,  I have  a great  deal  of  hesita- 
tion in  voting  for  this,  because  I happen 
to  be  on  the  board,  but  I think  I can 
make  the  matter  wholly  impersonal;  I 
agree  with  Mr.  Robins  that  if  we  are 
to  have  good  school  boards  we  have  got 
to  have  them  composed  of  men  from 
all  classes  of  the  community  who  are 
competent  and  interested  in  the  subject 
of  education.  The  present  school  board, 
we  are  told,  is  full  of  politics.  I wish 


February  25 


1066 


1907 


to  tell  you  that  the  existing  school  board 
is  the  first  non-partisan  board  that  has 
ever  sat  in  this  city;  and  when  I say 
non-partisan,  I mean  what  I say.  You 
gentlemen  often  mix  up  non-partisan  with 
by -partisan.  You  put  so  many  republi- 
cans and  so  many  democrats  on  a board, 
and  you  call  it  non-partisan.  That  is  a 
by-partisan  board,  and  they  are  generally 
the  most  corrupt  boards.  They  simply 
offer  opportunities  for  the  two  parties 
to  swap  back  and  forth.  We  have  got 
a board  now,  the  majority  of  which  I 
defy  you  to  tell  the  politics  of  any  one 
of  them.  We  have  got  a board  today,  I 
defy  you  to  tell  how  they  vote,  because 
they  are  men  and  women  who  are  de- 
voted to  the  schools  and  neither  the  pol- 
itics of  the  city  nor  the  business  in- 
terests of  the  city.  You  have  had  men 
sitting  on  that  board  who  are  business 
men,  who  could  afford  to  sit  on  the 
board.  We  did  no.t  pay  any  compensa- 
tion— who  could  afford  to  take  the  places 
of  the  men  that  Mr.  Linehan  refers  to. 
I can  recall  to  your  memory  of  mid- 
night sessions  of  that  board  when  pub- 
lic property  was  voted  away  to  the  value 
of  millions  of  dollars,  affecting  the  in- 
terests of  children  yet  unborn,  and  we, 
gentlemen,  are  hoping  to  get  back  a 
lot  of  that  plunder  that  the  business 
men,  who  could  afford  to  sit  on  boards, 
were  paid  to  take  away  from  the  school 
children  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 

Mr.  Fisher  was  perfectly  right — that 
any  man  who  performed  a public  function 
should  be  paid  for  it;  and  don’t  imagine 
that  the  non-paying  places  are  free  from 
graft.  If  I were  disposed  to  go  on  a 
grafting  expedition,  I have  seen  enough 
of  the  school  board  and  the  school  busi- 
ness, and  come  sufficiently  in  contact  with 
the  business  interests  of  this  city,  to 
know  that  I would  not  need  any  salary 
on  the  school  board,  and  that  I would 
be  much  more  respectable  in  the  public 
press  besides. 

I could  go  grafting,  and  go  grafting 
to  the  greatest  advantage,  and  when  my 


name  did  appear  in  the  headlines  of 
your  especially  respected  newspapers,  it 
would  appear  in  such  way  as  to  make 
you  who  do  not  know  me  respect  me. 

Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  but  one  ques- 
tion about  this,  and  that  is  whether  we 
shall  have  the  schools  managed  by  men 
who  are  humanely  selected  for  their  abil- 
ity to  do  that  work  and  for  their  char- 
acter, or  whether  we  shall  turn  the  whole 
school  system  over  to  the  class  of  men 
who  hold  their  school  board  meetings  in 
the  back  rooms  of  the  Union  League 
Club  instead  of  in  the  committee  rooms 
of  the  board  of  education. 

There  is  a meeting  once  in  two  weeks, 
commencing  at  7 o’clock,  and  that  lasts 
anywhere  from  10  o ’clock  to  4 o ’clock  in 
the  morning.  A working  man  might  at- 
tend to  that  and  only  lose  a day,  but 
through  the  week  there  is  the  school 
management  committee.  There  are  many 
details  that  must  be  attended  to,  and 
no  man  can  afford  to  do  that  work  for 
a very  long  time  unless  he  has  a salary. 
Business  men  can  afford  it  without  a 
salary,  and  sometimes  a politician  can 
afford  it,  but  no  man  who  has  general 
interest  in  the  subject  of  education  can 
afford  it  very  long  without  a salary,  and 
we  ought  to  make  the  office  one  that 
would  be  open  for  all. 

MR.  VOPICKA;  I am  very  much  in- 
terested in  this  subject  of  the  school 
board  being  paid.  If  this  Charter  Con- 
vention should  decide  that  a certain  sal- 
ary should  be  attached  to  the  office  of 
trustee,  then  I think  we  should  have 
rules  and  regulations  drawn,  and  that 
the  duties  should  be  prescribed  which  the 
members  of  the  board  have  to  fulfill.  I 
do  not  believe  that  it  is  sufficient  for  a 
member  simply  to  attend  a meeting  occa- 
sionally and  get  paid  for  that — get 
money  for  that ; he  should  visit  the 
schools,  and  do  more  than  attend  the 
meetings;  and  I hope  before  an  affirm- 
ative vote  is  taken  on  this  question  that 
we  may  have  rules  and  regulations 
drawn  showing  what  the  duties  of  the 


February  25 


1067 


1J07 


members  of  the  board  will  be,  and  what 
may  be  expected  of  them  for  the  salary 
that  is  attached  to  the  office. 

MR.  COLE:  As  an  old  member  of 

the  Union  League  Club,  and  as  one  who 
believes  in  giving  every  one  a fair  chance, 
I wish  to  state  it  as  my  opinion  that 
the  meetings  should  be  held  in  public 
places  and  not  in  the  back  room  of  the 
Union  League  Club,  or  any  other  club.  I 
favor  Mr.  McGoorty ’s  motion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I don’t  believe 

we  are  committing  ourselves  on  any  mat- 
ter here  at  all,  but  are  simply  leaving 
this  matter  to  the  city  council.  If  the 
city  council  should  decide,  that  certainly 
is  a fair  body  and  it  is  able  to  decide — 
if  it  should  decide  that  the  members 
of  the  board  of  education  should  not 
receive  any  compensation,  it  can  be  left 
in  the  form  as  at  present,  left  in  the 
present  form.  I think  the  words  1 1 if 
any  ’ ’ should  be  attached  to  the  reso- 
lution, to  the  amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary call  the  roll  upon  Mr.  McGoorty ’s 
motion  ? 

MR.  WHITE : Is  this  mandatory  up- 

on the  council,  or  permissive? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  permissive; 

the  city  council  may  do  it. 

MR.  WHITE:  I think,  Mr.  Chairman, 

you  have  placed  the  school  board  suffi- 
ciently at  the  mercy  of  the  Chicago  city 
council  by  your  financial  enactments 
here,  and  to  tie  them  up  by  a possible 
salary  that  is  to  be  voted,  that  is  per- 
missible, by  the  city  council,  is  to  give 
the  city  council  one  more  clutch  at  the 
throat  of  the  ones  that  are  very  anxious 
to  get  a salary.  I would  either  make  it 
mandatory  or  not  have  it  at  all.  I am 
opposed  to  it  as  a permissive  proposition. 
They  may  give  the  school  board  if  they 
feel  like  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas  — Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett, 
Brown,  Burke,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Hill,  Hoyne, 


Hunter,  Linehan,  McGoorty,  McKinley, 
Michaelis,  Owens,  Post,  Raymer,  Robins, 
Rosenthal,  Shepard,  Snow,  Yopicka,  Wil- 
kins, Zimmer — 28. 

Nays— Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Eidmann,  Lathrop,  MacMillan,  O ’Don- 
nell, Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Taylor,  White, 
Young — 11. 

MR.  HOYNE : I move  we  now  ad- 

journ to  2 o’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Upon  Mr.  Mc- 

Goorty’s  motion  the  yeas  are  28  and  the 
nays  11.  Carried.  The  motion  now  be- 
fore the  house  is  Mr.  Hoyne ’s  motion 
to  adjourn.  The  Chair  would  like  to 
make  it  2:30,  because  Mr.  Rosenthal  is 
very  anxious  to  be  here. 

MR.  ROBINS:  A good  many  of  us 

were  thinking  there  would  not  be  a 
meeting  this  afternoon,  owing  to  the  re- 
publican primaries;  some  of  us  have 
made  arrangements  different  on  account 
of  that.  It  would  be  pretty  hard  for  us 
to  change  our  arrangements. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  the  republi- 
cans can  do  it  Mr.  Robins  ought  to  be 
able  to  do-  it. 

MR.  ROBINS:  It  will  be  hard  to  get 
a quorum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  house  can 

decide  when  it  wants  to  meet.  It  is 
manifestly  impossible  to  complete  this 
charter  unless  we  continue  to  work  upon 
it.  The  members  of  the  general  assem- 
bly go  back  tonight.  Now,  if  we  come 
back  here  this  afternoon,  we  can  probably 
complete  our  labors  so  that  it  can  go 
down  to  the  general  assembly. 

MR.  POST:  Before  we  adjourn — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 
favor — 

MR.  POST : Before  you  adjourn,  Mr. 

Chairman— I was  here  at  10  o’clock  this 
morning  and  waited  until  11  to  begin 
business;  it  is  proposed  to  adjourn  to 
half-past  two.  Now,  I have  made  ar- 
rangements for  tonight,  which  I want 
to  keep.  If  we  are  coming  back,  let  us 
adjourn  for  a reasonable  time  for  lunch, 


February  25 


1068 


1907 


and  come  back  here  at  half-past  one — 
that  we  adjourn  to  half-past  one. 

ME.  FISHEB  : Make  it  2 o ’clock. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Gentlemen,  what 

is  your  understanding  of  the  time? 

ME.  FISHEE;  I move  you  that  the 
Secretary  be  instructed  to  call  the  roll 
to  ascertain  how  many  members  of  this 
Convention  will  sit  this  afternoon  and 
this  evening,  if  necessary? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  motion  be- 


fore the  house  is  the  motion  to  ad- 
journ. What  time  do  you  want  to  ad- 
journ to? 

(Cries  of  11 2 o’clock”  and  “two- 
thirty”.) 

THE  CHAIEMAN : As  many  as  fa- 

vor adjourning  to  2 o ’clock  signify  by 
saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no. 

The  Convention  stands  adjourned  to 
2:30  o’clock  this  afternoon.  Will  the 
members  be  here  promptly  at  that  time? 


AFTERNOON  SESSION  2:30  O’CLOCK  P.  M. 


THE  CHAIEMAN:  The  convention 

will  come  to  order  pursuant  to  recess. 
Proceed  wTith  the  consideration  of  article 
19.,  on  pages  131,  No.  4. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Cole,  Dever,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann, 
Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harrison, 
Hoyne,  Hunter,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  Mac- 
Millan, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
Michaelis,  Owens,  Paullin,  Pendarvis, 
Post,  Eaymer,  Einaker,  Eobins,  Bosen- 
thal,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow, 
Taylor,  Thompson,  Yopicka,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 43. 

Absent  — Baker,  Beilf  uuss,  Brown, 
Carey,  Church,  Clettenberg,  Crilly,  Dixon, 
T.  J.,  Erickson,  Gansbergen,  Graham, 
Haas,  Hill,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lundberg, 
McCormick,  O ’Donnell,  Oehne,  Powers, 
Eainey,  Bevell,  Bitter,  Sethness,  Shedd, 
Sunny,  Swift,  Walker,  Werno,  White, 
Wilkins— 31. 

ME.  POST:  I would  like  to  ask  if 

there  is  any  special  reason  why  that  a'ge 
should  be  made  30  instead  of,  say,  25? 
Is  there  any  necessity  for  outlawing  for 
appointment  on  the  school  board  a man 
who  is  competent  to  be  a member  of 
congress  in  the  lower  house?  On  that 
point  I observe  that  one  of  the  present 
members  of  the  school  board,  whom  I 
think  everybody  will  concede  is  one  of 


the  best  members  of  it,  one  of  the  most 
efficient  and  honest  of  all  men,  would  not 
be  competent  for  appointment  under  this 
provision.  I move  that  that  be  changed 
to  25  years. 

THE  CHAIEMAN":  Are  there  any  ob- 
jections to  this  change? 

ME.  SHEPAED:  What  change  is 

that? 

THE  SECBETABY : 131. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr  Post  moves 

to  change  the  age  of  eligibility  to  25 
years  instead  of  30. 

ME.  TAYLOB;  This  was  carefully 
considered  in  the  meeting  of  the  educa- 
tion committee  and  we  thought  30  years 
was  a fair  limit  for  the  maturity  re- 
quired on  the  school  board.  I am  very 
sure  the  education  committee  would  not 
favor  this  change.  Thirty  years  is  old 
enough. 

MB.  POST:  I think,  Mr.  Chairman, 

that  the  committee  ot™-  this  Conven- 
tion to  givq  an  intelligent  reason  and 
not  come  here  in  a dictatorial  manner 
to  tell  us  what  they  consider.  I think 
we  are  entitled  to  a reason  why  a mem- 
ber who  is  old  enough  to  be  a member  of 
the  lower  house  should  not  be  entitled 
to  be  a member  of  the  school  board  of 
Chicago. 

ME.  TAYLOE:  We  felt  it  was  a 

question  of  maturity;  that  30  years  was 
old  enough. 


February  25 


1069 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Do  you  make  that 
in  the  form  of  a motion  ? 

MR.  POST : I move  it  be  changed 

from  30  to  25. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  moves 

that  the  age  be  changed  from  30  to  25. 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no. 
It  is  carried.  I want  to  let  myself  in. 
No.  5. 

THE  SECRETARY:  No.  5. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

on  No.  5:  I think  this  would  be  in- 

valid in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  writ- 
ten here.  We  haven’t  power  under  the 
act  to  do  this.  There  is  nothing  special 
in  the  act  which  warrants  it,  and  it  seems 
to  me  it  is  unnecessary  to  declare  for 
this  radical  change.  I therefore  move  to 
eliminate:  “But  by  accepting  appoint- 
ment while  holding  any  state  or  local 
office,  shall  be  deemed  to  have  vacated 
such  office,  and  by  accepting  any  such 
federal,  state  or  local  office  while  mem- 
bers of  the  board  of  education  ’ ’,  and 
so  forth. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  move  to 

strike  that  out? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  to  strike 

that  out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  move  to 

strike  that  out? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  to  strike 

that  out,  yes. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : Strikg  what  out? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  “But  by  accept- 
ing appointment  while  holding  any  state 
or  local  office  shall  be  deemed  to  have 
vacated  such  office’’;  now,  that  should  be, 
“But  by  accepting  appointment  while 
holding  any  state  or  local  office’’ — 1 
should  say,  ‘ 1 by  accepting  any  such  fed- 
eral, state  or  local  office  while  a member 
of  the  board  of  education,  or  by  not  re- 
signing any  federal  office  held  at  the 
time  of  being  appointed  to  the  board 
of  education  within  thirty  days  after 
such  appointment,  shall  be  deemed  to 


have  vacated  their  membership  in  such 
board.  ’ ’ 

MR.  FISHER : Should  not  the  words, 

“state  or  local  office’’  be  in  under  the 
resignation  as  well? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  I think  the 

whole  section  should  be  redrafted. 

MR.  FISHER : I second  the  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Do  you  make  that 
in  the  form  of  a motion,  Mr.  Rosenthal? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I do. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  to  strike  out  the  words  1 1 But  by 
accepting  appointment  while  holding  any 
state  or  local  office,  shall  be  deemed  to 
have  vacated  such  office  ’ ’. 

MR.  YOUNG:  It  seems  to  me  that 

what  we  are  trying  to  get  at  is  that  a 
man  should  not  be  eligible  to  a position 
on  the  board  of  education  if  he  is  hold- 
ing some  other  office.  Now,  we  cannot 
make  a charter  provision  to  vacate  the 
other  office,  but  we  can  make  a charter 
provision  that  wdll  force  him  to  vacate 
the  board.  I think  that  is  a mere  ques- 
tion of  drafting  it  properly.  I there- 
fore suggest,  with  your  permission,  that 
it  be  referred  back  to  the  drafting  com- 
mittee to  carry  out  that  idea. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  provided 

“By  accepting  any  such  office”,  and  so 
forth,  “it  is  provided  that  such  ap- 
pointment shall  have  the  effect  of  vacat- 
ing the  membership  on  the  board.” 

MR.  YOUNG:  Before  that  you  might 

assume  that  he  vacated  his  other  office, 
the  federal  or  the  state  office. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Your  motion, 

then,  is  that  it  should  be  drafted  in 
conformity  with  the  motion  of  Mr.  Ros- 
enthal? 

MR.  YOUNG:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 

vor of  the  motion  signify  by  saying  aye; 
those  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  After  the  word 

“state”,  I think  it  would  be  better  to 
include  the  word  “county”;  1 think  it 
would  be  better  to  include  the  word 
‘ 1 county  ’ ’. 


February  25 


1070 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN;  If  there  is  no 
objection,  the  word  “ county’ ’ will  be  in- 
serted. Six. 

THE  SECRETARY:  6,  7,  page  132; 

89. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Provision  9 brings  up 

a question  that,  it  seems  to  me,  we  should 
consider  very  carefully  in  relation  to 
some  other  provisions  of  this  portion  of 
the  charter,  that  is,  the  control  of  the 
board  of  education  by  a one-third  vote. 
It  is  a matter  of  common  knowledge,  of 
course,  to  any  one  familiar  with  the  op- 
eration of  such  a rule,  that  it  does  not 
provide  for  a two-thirds  control;  it  pro- 
vides for  one-third  control.  It  provides 
that  one-third  can  block  or  hold  any  ac- 
tions whatever. 

It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  this 
section  and  the  other  sections,  the  pro- 
vision should  be  changed  so  as  to  em- 
power the  election  of  its  president  by  a 
majority  vote,  and  all  of  its  officers  by 
a majority  vote;  that  is  fundamentally 
necessary  for  intelligent  and  effective  ac- 
tion. Any  other  rule  gives  to  one-third 
of  the  body  practical  control  of  that 
body,  as  long  as  they  can  be  held  to- 
gether, and  the  entire  control  by  one- 
third  is  contrary  to  good  policy. 

This  has  been  demonstrated  in  public 
bodies  of  any  character  as  far  as  I know, 
that  are  engaged  in  the  administration 
of  public  affairs.  I move  you,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  the  words  ‘ 1 two-thirds  ’ ’ be 
stricken  out  and  the  word  1 1 majority  ’ ’ be 
inserted, — or  “ a majority  of  all  the 
members  ’ ’,  in  place  of  the  words  ‘ 1 two- 
thirds  of  all  the  members  ’ ’,  in  section 
9 of  this  provision. 

MR.  TAYLOR : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

might  inform  the  house  that  the  report 
as  it  came  from  the  committee,  and  as 
far  as  I know  was  in  accordance  with 
Mr.  Robins’  statement,  as  far  as  the  ap- 
pointment was  concerned.  The  original 
draft  of  the  report  was  for  an  appoint- 
ment by  the  majority,  but  for  a re- 
moval by  a two-thirds  vote. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr.  Robins  that 
the  two-thirds  be  changed  to  a majority 
wherever  it  appears. 

MR.  YOUNG:  That  is  not  the  mo- 

tion. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I object  to  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  the  first  par- 

agraph, you  mean? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Yes,  sir,  in  the  first 

paragraph,  section  No.  9. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Simply  the  first 

paragraph  of  section  9.  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question?  All  those  in  favor 
will  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no. 
The  motion  is  carried. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Now,  as  to  the 

office  of  superintendent  and  business 
manager,  who  shall  be  appointed  for  a 
term  of  not  less  than  four  years;  I no- 
tice here  that  no  limit  is  mentioned.  I 
would  like  to  ask  Mr.  Taylor  whether 
you  have  placed  any  limit  on  that?  Un- 
der that  section  a man  might  be  appoint- 
ed for  twenty  years. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  The  intention  was 

four  years.  He  can  be  dismissed  after 
this,  but  engaged  for  not  less  than  four 
years. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I now  move  you  that  after  the  words 
“four  years”  be  inserted  “not  more 
than  six  years  ’ ’. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Where  is  that? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  on  the 

fourth  line  of  the  second  paragraph  of 
section  9. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Mr.  Chairman:  It  was 

originally,  and  according  to  the  vote  that 
was  passed  at  this  convention,  it  was 
the  intention  of  the  committee  to  make 
the  term  of  office  be  four  years — to  make 
it  correspond  practically  with  the  general 
outlines  of  the  wTork  in  the  other  depart- 
ments. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  better 
to  say  four  years  and  not  make  it  more 
or  less,  but  to  make  it  four  years. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  the 

point. 


February  25 


1071 


1907 


MR.  MERRIAM:  The  suggestion 

was  this:  There  was  some  argument  in 

favor  of  the  indeterminate  tenure,  but 

I think  the  term  was  fixed  at  four  years, 

and  I think  some  of  us  talked  in  favor 
of  not  fixing  the  term  that  will  be 
making  it  indefinite,  and  as  a compro- 
mise they  put  in  this:  Not  less  than 

four  years.  It  does  not  appeal  to  me 
at  all.  The  term  ought  not  to  be  lim- 
ited at  all.  It  should  be  a limited  term 
of  not  less  than  four  years, — that  is,  a 
minimum  of  four  years,  and  above  that 
as  long  as  they  wanted  to  make  it. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I respectfully  sug- 

gest that  the  words  be  stricken  out  en- 
tirely. That  means  that  the  board  of 
education  may  employ  a man  for  a term 
and  you  have  protected  him  in  his  em- 
ployment, as  far  as  his  removal  is  con- 
cerned. 

I now  move  as  a substitute,  the  words 

I I not  less  than  four  years  ’ 1 be  stricken 
out. 

MR.  RAYMER : One  of  the  incentives 

that  was  used  to  get  the  right  sort  of 
man  for  this  position  wras  that  he  should 
have  a fair  term  of  .office,  that  was  the 
argument  used  on  the  floor  of  this  con- 
vention. 

Now,  I don ’t  think  it  would  be  good 
judgment  to  strike  that  out  at  this  time. 
The  chances  are  that  the  board  of  ed- 
ucation would  not  engage  a man  unless 
they  were  satisfied  he  was  the  right  sort 
of  a man  for  the  position,  and  if  he 
was  the  right  sort  of  man  for  the  posi- 
tion, they  were  able  to  make  it  perma- 
nent, extending  for  a period  of  years. 
I think  that  the  provision  as  it  is  at 
present  is  correct.  I believe  it  should 
remain  as  it  is. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems 

to  me  that  is  the  proper  motion,  if  you 
are  to  have  a limited  term  on  those  mat- 
ters, so  that  it  shall  not  be  left  to  the 
board  that  a man  shall  be  removed  at 
any  time,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
there  is  all  this  edging  into  the  board  so 
as  to  keep  in  office  some  man  an- 


other board  might  not  want  to  keep  in, 
that  the  proper  motion,  it  seems  to  me, 
is  to  strike  out  ‘ ‘ less  * and  put  in 
‘ 1 more 1 \ So  that  no  board  shall  have 
power  of  foisting  upon  a subsequent 
board  a superintendent  who  may  be  ob- 
jectionable to  the  subsequent  board.  If 
a man  has  been  in  four  years,  and  is 
really  worthy,  there  will  be  no  objection 
to  having  him  remain,  but  there  is  so 
much  edging  in  this  w'ay,  so  that  a term 
may  be  upheld  for  twenty  or  thirty  years, 
and  that  is  objectionable,  because  under 
that  arrangement  a board  could  not  re- 
move an  officer  unless  it  proved  charges 
against  him.  I move  to  strike  out  ‘ 1 less , ’ 
and  insert  the  word  1 ‘ more  ’ \ 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I beg  leave  to 

suggest,  and  call  attention  to  the  first 
two  lines,  in  the  second  paragraph, 
which,  I think,  cover  the  amendment. 
The  wording  reads  as  follows : ‘ 1 The 

board  shall,  subject  to  the  provisions  of 
this  charter,  prescribe  the  duties,  com- 
pensation and  terms  of  office  of  all  offi- 
cers. ’ * And  that  then,  striking  out  the 
entire  phrase  and  making  it  appear  right 
after  that,  1 1 And  the  salary  of  no  offi- 
cer shalKbe  lowered  during  his  term  of 
office  ’ ’,  and  as  a substitute  for  the  en- 
tire set  of  amendments,  I move  to  strike 
out  the  two  lines,  four  and  five,  up  to 
the  word  “andM,  in  the  fifth  line,  strik- 
ing out  1 1 But  the  term  of  office  of  the 
superintendent  of  education  and  of  the 
business  manager  shall  not  be  less  than 
four  years  ’ \ Because,  obviously,  we 
have  just  set  forth  that  the  board  shall 
determine  the  term  of  office  of  all  the 
officers;  and  it  is  not,  if  I may  be  per- 
mitted to  suggest  to  Dr.  Taylor,  it  is 
not  good  phrasing.  You  have  set  forth 
that  the  board  shall  determine  the  term 
of  office,  and  then  go  on  and  state  what 
the  term  shall  be. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Only  in  two  cases. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  What  is  the  ne- 

cessity of  it? 

MR.  VOPICKA;  I wish  to  explain 
that  the  necessity  is  this:  if  a man  is 


February  25 


1072 


1907 


elected  for  four  years  he  knows  he  will 
stay  four  years,  and  he  will  be  a better 
man.  But  if  there  is  no  time  stated,  it 
will  be  hard  to  get  a good  man. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : As  Professor 

Merriam  said  at  the  time  this  matter 
was  under  discussion  before,  every  educa- 
tor selected  by  any  board  of  trustees 
of  any  university  or  college,  when  he 
takes  his  place  and  assumes  his  duties — 
the  duties  of  his  'office — it  is  certainly 
under  some  general  provision  for  his  re- 
maining. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  But  this  is-  some- 

what of  a political  office,  and  in  that 
sense  it  is  different. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : We  are  trying  to 

take  it  out  of  politics;  perhaps  w7e  can- 
not, though ; I thought  wTe  were  trying 
to. 

MR.  YOUNG:  It  seems  to  me  the 

discussion  has  proven  one  thing  here,  and 
that  is  that  the  drafting  committee  got 
more  nearly  to  the  general  sentiment  of 
this  thing  than  we  are  doing  here  now. 
I therefore  move  as  a substitute — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  are  four 

substitutes  here  now. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I thought  the  original 

motion  was  there. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

try  to  find  where  the  motions  are. 

MR.  POST : I would  like  to  ask  Mr. 

MacMillan  if  this  amendment  would  not 
empower  the  board  to  make  a life  con- 
tract, and  if  it  did  empower  them  so, 
w'hether  it  could  be  abrogated  in  any 
other  way  than  upon  a trial  and  re- 
moval for  cause? 

MR.  MacMILLAN : In  answrer  to  that 

I would  say,  wouldn ’t  it,  anywrny,  raise 
the  same  question,  if  this  first  clause 
is  retained  as  it  is,  wouldn  ’t  it  be  the 
same? 

MR.  POST:  No,  I think  not. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Yes,  I think  it 

would,  Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST : It  should  not  be  less 

than  four  years.  If  they  retain  the 
amendment — the  amendment  provides  in 


that  clause  that  the  board  may  make 
a contract  with  any  one  of  its  officers 
for  forty  years,  if  it  wants  to. 

MR.  HUNTER:  No,  not  more  than 

four  years.  The  word  “more”  instead 
of  ‘ ‘ less  ’ ’. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : In  that  case, 

could  the  superintendent  be  re-employed 
at  the  end  of  four  years? 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Certainly  he  could. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  That  is  what  we 

want  to  find  out. 

„MR.  VOPICKA:  The  contract  could 

not  be  good  for  longer  than  four  years. 

MR.  YOUNG:  The  term  of  the  mayor 

is  four  years,  and  there  is  no  trouble 
about  his  being  re-elected  if  he  gets 
enough  votes.  A man  that  is  employed 
for  four  years  by  the  board  can  be  re- 
employed by  them  later,  at  the  end  of  the 
four  years.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
whole  thing  is  settled  if  we  fix  the  term 
for  four  years,  according  to  my  original 
motion ; make  it  four  years,  make  the 
term  four  years,  and  the  whole  thing 
is  settled.  You  don ’t  need  to  say  ‘ ‘ less  ’ ’, 
you  don’t  need  to  say  “more”. 

MR.  FISHER;  Mr.  Chairman— 

MR.  COLE:  I merely  want  to  say  a 

word,  I don’t  take  as  long  as  you  do, 
Fisher,  you  know — 

MR.  FISHER : That  all  depends. 

MR.  COLE:  I merely  want  to  say 

that  the  whole  thing  is,  when  you  brush 
aside  all  the  “isms”,  that  it  resolves 
itself  into  a clear-cut  proposition  as  be- 
tween an  indeterminate  term  and  a four- 
year  term.  It  seems  to  me  we  can  get 
at  this  very  quickly  by  voting  on  the 
indeterminate  term  proposition,  and  if 
that  is  voted  down,  we  can  take  up  the 
four-year  term  proposition. 

MR.  FISHER:  If  you  are  going  to 

change  to  four  years,  you  should  specify 
it,  and  if  you  want  it  different,  you 
should  also  specify  it.  Air.  Post  has  sug- 
gested that  not  to  make  it  four  years 
puts  limitations  on  the  board  with  re- 
gard to  those  two  offices,  and  none  with 
regard  to  all  the  rest.  By  construction 


February  25 


1073 


1907 


of  that,  you  can  make  a fifty-year  con- 
tract with  anybody  else,  but  not  with 
the  superintendent  or  the  business  man- 
ager; you  make  particular  provision  for 
his  term  of  office,  but  not  for  all  the 
rest.  Now,  you  can  make  a provision 
that  might  be  of  a very  serious  disad- 
vantage. I think  the  indeterminate  plan 
is,  of  all  kinds  of  plans,  the  best.  . The 
superintendent  of  parks  is  an  expert  offi- 
cer, a man  who  is  supposed  to  have  some 
technical  knowledge;  he  is  employed  by 
the  present  system,  Mr.  Lathrop  tells 
me  that  the  Lincoln  Park  board  employ 
their  superintendent  for  an  indeterminate 
term;  they  don’t  make  any  term  contract 
with  him.  The  whole  framework  of  this 
educational  section  here,  it  seems  to  me, 
is  swinging  the  pendulum  of  the  clock 
around  on  the  top  of  the  clock.  You 
are  trying  to  get  what  some  people  call 
an  evil  in  the  existing  system  remedied 
by  creating  something  which  may  give 
worse  abuse  than  what  you  already  have. 
If  you  fix  the  position  of  superintendent 
for  a four-year  term  and  do  not  fix  the 
other  offices  for  a definite  term,  then  the 
matter  of  the  superintendent’s  office  all 
the  while  is  different  from  the  rest,  and 
that  ought  not  to  be  desirable.  It  seems 
to  me  it  spells  inefficiency,  and  that  the 
proper  way  to  do  is  to  create  a board 
of  education  and  allow  the  board  of  ed- 
ucation to  run  that  feature  of  it;  if  you 
create  a board  of  education,  you  should 
give  it  the  power  to  run  those  things, 
and  let  a majority  of  the  board  run  the 
school,  and  hold  the  majority  responsible 
for  running  the  school,  and  not  create 
a body  of  that  sort  without  giving  them 
the  power  to  run  it  in  the  proper  way. 

It  seems  to  me,  in  order  to  carry  this 
out  successfully,  that  a majority  of  the 
board  should  have  the  power  of  appoint- 
ment and  removal  at  all  times,  and  not 
hold  them  to  any  restrictions  which  will 
tend  to  reduce  the  efficiency  of  the  board. 

MB.  TAYLOR:  We  have  heard  some 

talk  on  the  question  of  taking  the  school 
board  out  of  politics,  but  the  appoint- 


ment of  a school  superintendent,  or  a 
superintendent  of  education,  is  a quasi- 
political appointment.  It  has  no  parallel 
to  the  appointment  of  a board  of  direc- 
tors of  a university  or  technical  school. 
A man  who  is  in  the  presidential  office, 
in  one  of  those  privately  managed  insti- 
tutions, is  not  in  fear  of  being  dismissed 
at  any  meeting  of  a board  by  one  vote 
against  him.  Those  things  do  not  trans- 
pire in  those  privately  managed  institu- 
tions, and  the  purpose  of  these  restric- 
tions is  simply  to  secure  men  of  effi- 
ciency, of  high  efficiency,  by  giving  them 
some  assurance  of  permanency  in  their 
positions,  of  the  permanency  of  things, 
and  long  enough,  at  least,  to  carry  out 
the  policy  until  it  can  be  shown  whether 
it  is  successful  or  not.  It  does  not  seem 
to  me,  under  the  prevailing  situation  in 
our  own  great  city,  that  this  pendulum 
— that  this  swings  the  pendulum  on  top 
of  the  clock  at  all ; it  keeps  the  clock 
on  top  of  the  pendulum. 

It  seems  to  me  you  would  have  better 
assurance  of  the  efficiency  of  the  man- 
agement of  the  tremendous  business  and 
educational  enterprise  of  ours,  by  making 
either  the  business  superintendent,  or  the 
superintendent  of  education,  not  subject 
to  the  whim  of  a single  voter  at  any 
meeting  of  the  board  of  education. 

It  seems  to  me  if  these  details  were 
left  in  the  hands  of  an  efficient  expert, 
that  the  reasons  which  we  have  had  so 
eloquently  placed  before  us  this  morn- 
ing for  paying  the  board,  would  not  ex- 
ist. These  things  can  be  better  done, 
most  of  them,  by  one  efficient  man  en- 
tirely under  the  control  of  the  board, 
than  by  all  the  members  of  the.  board 
working  twenty-four  hours  a day.  It 
seems  to  me  we  are  right  up  against  the 
proposition  now  between  the  question  of 
efficiency  and  administration  and  the  sen- 
timental democracy  in  the  control  of  the 
school  by  a majority  of  the  board  of 
education. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  strikes  me  that 
this  particular  section  is  really  the  most 


February  25 


1074 


1907 


important  section  in  this  whole  article, 
and  if  you  leave  the  term  of  office  en- 
tirely indeterminate,  you  would  be  mak- 
ing a great  mistake.  When  this  subject 
was  up  before  this  Convention  before, 
there  was  a great  deal  of  debate  on  it, 
which  it  is  not  necessary  to  review  at 
the  present  time,  and  it  was  then  de- 
cided that  it  would  be  a great  mistake 
to  leave  the  term  absolutely  indetermi- 
nate, for  this  particular  reason,  as  the 
argument  at  that  time  tended  to  show 
that  you  cannot  get  the  right  sort  of  men 
to  fill  this  office  on  those  conditions,  that 
it  will  always  remain  a quasi -political 
office,  and  that  you  cannot  get  the  right 
sort  of  men  to  take  the  office  unless  you 
can  secure  him  in  the  tenure  to  a certain 
extent. 

Now,  that  man  knows  that  if  he  satis- 
fies he  will  have  a majority  of  the  board 
of  education  under  ordinary  circum- 
stances. Under  ordinary  circumstances 
you  cannot  get  an  educator  of  distinc- 
tion to  take  that  position  unless  you 
secure  him  in  that  position,  and  under 
those  circumstances  we  ought  not  to 
make  that  term  less  than  four  years.  In 
order  that  the  board  of  education,  when 
it  fills  the  place,  will  look  around  for 
the  right  sort  of  man,  who  will  do  the 
experimenting,  who  will  attempt  any- 
thing as  a responsible  educator,  he  must 
have  a certain  tenure  of  office  under 
which  he  knows  that,  provided  he  is  on 
good  behavior,  he  can  hold  that  office 
and  control  that  office  for  a period  of 
four  years  and  carry  on  his  policy;  be- 
cause in  less  time  than  that  the  average 
educator  cannot  carry  out  his  particular 
policy.'  I do  not  think  there  is  a para- 
graph in  the  whole  program  that  is  of 
more  importance  than  this  in  regard  to 
the  elimination  of  this  four-year  tenure 
of  office. 

ME.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  there 

is  no  more  important  provision  in  this 
charter  in  regard  to  education  under  the 
control  of  the  board  of  education  than 
the  one  under  consideration.  The  argu- 


ment that  has  been  made  by  Mr.  Fisher 
seems  to  me  to  cover  this  thing  in  the 
main.  I submit  to  this  Charter  Conven- 
tion that  all  boards  of  directors — we  are 
told  to  work  a good  deal  on  the  lines 
of  business  administration — there  is  not 
a board  of  directors  in  this  country  that 
will  engage  a superintendent  for  four 
years  that  I know  anything  about.  They 
engage  them  for  a year,  or  for  a time, 
but  they  can  be  dismissed  by  a majority 
at  any  time.  He  is  not  appointed  for 
a long  term  of  office,  and  why  should 
you  adopt  any  other  method  in  regard 
to  the  board  of  education?  Instead  of 
it  being  a rule  that  we  should  have  a 
definite  term,  the  rule  is  altogether 
against  a definite  term.  No  president  of 
any  university  is  elected  for  a definite 
term.  A man  comes  across  the  continent 
to  take  a position  and  know  s that  so  long 
as  the  board  of  trustees  wish  him  to 
hold  the  office  he  can  hold,  it,  and  no 
longer.  The  present  board  of  education 
has  secured  the  services  of  the  present 
superintendent  on  precisely  this  term. 
Has  it  made  him  humble  to  the  majority 
of  the  board  of  education?  We  would 
not  think  so.  We  believe  that  the  super- 
intendent is  absolutely  independent;  and 
we  believe  that  any  superintendent  worth 
having  there  would  be  of  that  character. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  if  you 
want  to  make  the  superintendent  a poli- 
tician, if  you  want  to  make  him  the 
chief  wire-puller,  there  is  not  a shrewder 
scheme  calculated  to  do  that  than  of 
making  him  and  a third  control  the  board 
of  education.  It  is  a poor  superinten- 
dent who  has  a certain  number  of  years 
who  cannot  get  one-third  of  the  board 
to  back  him  up  on  almost  any  proposi- 
tion. There  are  sufficient  favors  to  be 
disbursed,  there  are  sufficient  advantages 
to  be  used,  and  you  are  absolutely  put- 
ting tremendous  power  in  the  hands  of 
your  educator  of  a political  character 
rather  than  of  an  educational  character 
by  giving  him  a four-year  term  of  office. 
Now,  I don ’t  know  many  heads  of  de- 


February  25 


1075 


1907 


partments,  but  I know  a few.  I don’t 
know  any  head  of  a department  any- 
where who  is  a professional  man  that 
would  want  to  hold  that  position  and 
just  simply  to  hold  it.  Now,  let  me  con- 
sider the  situation. 

The  board  of  education  on  all  other 
matters  than  this  particular  matter  of 
those  two  officers  by  a majority  vote  can 
control  all  the  policies,  and  the  uses  of 
money,  and  all  the  arrangements  of  the 
board  in  any  way  are  in  the  control  of 
the  majority?  But  these  particular  of- 
fices are  not  in  the  control  of  the  ma- 
jority. 

Now,  suppose  that  the  majority  of  the 
board  and  the  superintendent  should  be 
in  opposition.  The  superintendent  could 
to  a degree  circumvent  the  board;  and 
the  board  could  to  an  absolute  degree 
circumvent  the  superintendent.  There 
you  have  got  the  most  absurd  and  fool- 
ish outlook  imaginable. 

Let  me  say,  gentlemen,  admitting  for 
the  purpose  of  this  discussion  that  the 
present  board  of  education  is  a foolish 
board.  Admitting  that  they  have  had 
the  power  of  appointment,  it  will  ap- 
point a bad  superintendent.  Could  you 
get  at  the  real  character  of  that  board 
better  than  to  give  it  the  power  to  exer- 
cise for  the  time,  and  then  when  it  is 
through  you  have  those  bad  actions 
to  use  and  show  the  board  has  exercised 
and  misused  them,  and  then  you  will  be 
able  to  put  it  out  of  existence. 

Now,  there  is  a grade,  in  our  munici- 
pal administration,  we  have  a grade  be- 
tween responsibility  and  power.  You 
want  to  have  responsibility  and  power 
in  the  board.  Here  is  your  board  and 
a nominal  responsibility  is  actually  in 
the  hands  of  a third  of  its  members  and 
the  superintendent,  for  the  most  im- 
portant parts  of  its  administration,  so 
far  as  resources  are  concerned.  It  con- 
trols them,  so  far  as  the  direction  of  its 
resources  are  controlled.  Then  they  put 
in  office  a superintendent.  Now,  I am 
safe  to  claim  that  there  is  nowhere  a 


greater  fallacy,  candidly,  more  calculated 
not  to  do  the  thing  that  I believe  the 
members  of  the  committee  on  education 
sought  to  do,  and  that  was,  to  give  a 
harmonious  situation.  Now,  if  you  are 
going  to  have  a board  of  education  at 
all,  you  have  got  to  trust  your  board 
of  education.  Yes,  seriously,  you  have 
got  to  trust  that  board  just  as  you  trust 
your  council;  just  as  you  trust  your 
mayor;  just  as  you  must  try  to  make  his 
office  so  important  and  responsible  that 
the  people  will  see  it  is  filled  with  a 
skilled  and  responsible  individual,  and 
see  that  the  right  men  are  in  those 
positions.  Then,  if  you  get  the  wrong 
man  in,  you  can  fasten  the  responsibility 
for  the  wrong  administration  upon  the 
individual  or  the  individuals  concerned. 
As  I said  before,  there  is  no  excuse  in 
this  administration  because,  with  our 
great  corporations  and  with  our  great 
universities,  it  is  the  other  way. 

Now,  in  municipal  administration  of 
course  the  whole  effort  after  municipal 
reform  has  been  to  put  the  reform  in 
such  a way,  and  logically  so  clear  that 
the  people  would  know  who  was  respon- 
sible. 

Now,  imagine  a superintendent;  he  has 
got  six  votes.  There  are  nine  votes 
against  him,  or  in  our  present  situation 
he  has  got  eleven  votes  and  there  are  ten 
votes  against  him — seven  votes — eight 
votes.  Those  eight  votes  control  the 
board  of  education  in  all  administrative 
affairs.  The  eleven  votes  control  in  all 
matters  of  administration,  and  the  man- 
ner and  means.  Now  what  have  you  got? 

It  is  the  most  foolish  and  absurd 
situation  possible.  If  the  board  of  educa- 
tion is  in  opposition  to  the  superintendent 
and  declared  opposition  to  him,  rather 
than  to  certain  different  policies  of  his, 
then  that  superintendent  should  tender 
his  resignation,  and  any  able,  capable 
man  will  do  that  at  once.  He  does  not 
want  to  be  put  in  any  such  false  position 
and  he  won’t  stand  for  it. 

Now,  suppose  he  has  a contract;  what 


February  25 


1076 


1907 


then?  He  will  stick  to  his  position  and 
keep  that  position  from  year  to  year, 
let  it  cost  what  it  may  to  the  educational 
interests  of  the  city.  Now,  from  the  time 
that  I have  been  on  the  board  this  seems 
to  me  to  be  an  important  thing,  that  you 
lodge  responsibility  and  power,  and  that 
you  hold  those  members  of  the  board  ab- 
solutely responsible  for  the  administra- 
tion and  put  them  where  they  cannot 
escape  the  just  criticism  of  the  people 
if  they  administrate  badly. 

I want  these  salaries  for  these  mem- 
bers of  the  board,  because  I don’t  want 
them  to  have  the  opportunity  to  offer 
the  excuse  that  they  cannot  take  care 
of  it  when  their  business  interests  in- 
terfere. 

Now,  I want  this  two-thirds  vote 
stricken  out  for  the  same  reason;  be- 
cause I want  a strong,  able,  responsible 
and  powerful  board  of  education,  where 
you  can  look  and  know  at  once  that  those 
persons  are  responsible,  and  where  you 
cannot  hide  behind  the  skirts  of  a third 
of  the  board  and  say  “we  want  to  do 
it  but  we  cannot.” 

It  is  an  absurd  and  foolish  proposi- 
tion, it  seems  to  me,  with  all  due  respect 
for  the  gentlemen  -who  have  prepared  it. 
They  have  sought  to  overcome  a bad 
position,  doubtless,  in  their  minds,  but 
they  have  overcome  a bad  condition  in  a 
way  that  will  make  that  bad  condition 
worse. 

Now,  I hope  that  this  Charter  Conven- 
tion is  going  to  give-  the  matter  the 
thought  that  its  importance  deserves  and 
demands,  because  I say  to  you,  when  you 
have  got  such  a business  manager  and 
such  a superintendent  fixed  for  four  years 
I do  not  believe  that  any  good  men  would 
wish  to  be  on  that  board.  He  would 
recognize  his  powerlessness. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I want  to  say  to  you 
that  all  wisdom  is  not  lodged  in  any  one 
place ; you  cannot  provide  for  proper 
administration  by  such  devices  as  these; 
it  is  other  devices  that  are  necessary. 
Not  by  giving  two  men  in  the  great  sys- 


tem great  power  and  putting  them  be- 
yond the  reach  of  the  majority  of  the 
people  that  are  supposed  to  control  the 
educational  force  of  the  city. 

ME.  YOUNG:  I have  not  very  much 

to  say,  only  it  does  occur  to  me  that  it 
is  going  quite  a little  bit  too  far  for 
one  member  of  this  Convention  to  criti- 
cise in  the  manner  in  which  this  gentle- 
man has  just  done,  a committee  ap- 
pointed by  this  Convention. 

We  may  have  been  foolish  and  we  may 
have  been  absurd,  but  that  occurs  to  me 
rather  as  a matter  generally  of  the  Con- 
vention, perhaps,  than  of  any  individual 
in  the  Convention  to  call  attention  to. 

I realize  that  it  is  not  possible  to 
lodge  all  wisdom  or  all  logic  under  one 
hat,  and  I desire  this  discussion  along 
that  line,  assuming  that  is  not  the  case. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  we  are  doing 
nothing  at  all  new  in  putting  in  these 
two  officers  with  a certain  definite  tenure 
of  office.  It  is  not  the  only  instance  in 
which  we  have  officers  with  a certain 
definite  tenure.  I see  no  particular  rea- 
son of  lodging  absolute  power  in  the 
hands  of  members  of  the  board  of  edu- 
cation. We  do  not  lodge  absolute  power 
anywhere  else,  speaking  of  the  city  coun- 
cil; we  do  not  place  absolute  power  in 
the  hands  of  the  city  council  or  we  would 
not  have  a charter.  All  we  would  have 
to  do  would  be  to  say  we  will  have  a 
city  council  that  will  have  absolute 
power.  Why  should  we  give  absolute 
power  to  this  subordinate  board?  It 
seems  to  me  it  is  only  fair  and  just,  and 
nothing  foolish  or  absurd  about  it  in 
saying  that  the  two  offices,  such  as  the 
superintendent  of  the  public  schools  and 
the  business  manager,  should  stand  with- 
out some  definite  tenure  of  office  for 
which  they  were  to  serve. 

On  the  other  hand,  taking  the  reverse 
side  of  the  picture,  the  interjection  by 
Mr.  Post  indicates  what  may  be  done 
in  the  other  direction.  You  might  em- 
ploy a man  for  life,  if  you  please,  and 
make  his  tenure  of  office  ten  years,  fifteen 


February  25 


1077 


1907 


years  or  twenty  years  and  thereby  cre- 
ate a contract  with  him  that  you  would 
have  to  show  good  cause  for  violating. 
It  seems  to  me  if  we  get  down  to  the 
question  of  making  these  offices  that 
are  technical  and  require  such  ability  as 
we  should  have  there,  that  they  should 
be  for  a term  of  years.  That  would  be 
the  best  way. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is  to 

strike  out  the  limitation  on  the  term  of 
the  superintendent  of  education  and  the 
business  manager,  the  term  of  office  of 
the  superintendent  and  business  man- 
ager not  to  be  less  than  four  years.  That 
is  Mr.  MacMillan’s  motion,  I think. 

MR.  YOUNG:  That  is  Mr.  MacMil- 

lan’s motion  as  you  have  just  read  it. 

MR.  YOPICKA:  And  Mr.  Post’s  mo- 
tion was  a substitute — not  less  than 
four  years. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  MacMillan  offered 
as  a substitute,  as  a substitute,  that 
the  words  after  “the  business  manager” 
should  be  stricken  out,  down  to  the 
word  “and.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  just  as 

I have  read  it. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

that  is  now  the  motion  before  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is,  Mr.  Mac- 
Millan’s motion  as  a substitute  for 
everything?  - 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : On  that  motion 

the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Burke,  Dever, 
Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Hoyne,  Line- 
han,  MacMillan,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
Owens,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Shepard, 
Thompson,  Zimmer — 18. 

Nays — Bennett,  Brosseau,  Cole,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Eidman,  Harrison,  Hunter,  Lathrop, 
Michaelis,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Ray- 
mer,  Rosenthal,  Snow,  Taylor,  Vopicka, 
Wilkins,  Young — 21. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BEEBE : I have  not  quite  got 

onto  what  Mr.  MacMillan’s  motion  w’as. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  was 

to  strike  out  page  132  in  the  second  par- 
agraph from  section  9,  the  words,  “but 
the  term  of  office  of  the  superintendent 
of  education  and  of  the  business  manager 
shall  not  be  less  than  four  years.  ’ ’ 

MR.  FISHER:  I wish  to  explain  my 

vote.  As  I understand  the  motion,  as  it 
is  now  pending,  it  will  give  the  board 
the  power  to  fix  any  term  of  office  that 
it  sees  fit  and  that,  without  being  sub- 
ject to  removal.  Therefore,  I vote  no. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish 

to  explain  my  vote.  Until  I can  get 
some  advice  as  to  the  legal  effect  of  this 
motion  I cannot  vote  intelligently.  Now, 
this  would  leave  it  to  the  board,  as  it 
seems  on  the  face,  to  fix  among  other 
things  the  term  of  office  of  the  superin- 
tendent and  of  the  business  manager. 
Now,  if  that  means  that  the  board  can 
fix  the  contract  for  fifty  years  or  for 
life,  and  that  the  appointee  cannot  be 
removed  except  by  two-thirds  vote  of 
the  board,  and  then  only  for  cause,  which 
could  be  brought  before  the  courts — 
why,  I vote  No.  If  it  means  that  the 
board  may  keep  the  control  of  these  of- 
ficers at  all  times,  I should  vote  Aye. 
Now,  I would  like  to  ask  what  would  be 
the  legal  effect  of  an  Aye  vote  on  this? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not answ7er  what  the  legal  effect  would 
be.  The  Chair  has  stated  the  question. 
The  question  is  to  strike  these  words 
out. 

MR.  POST:  There  are  lawyers  here; 

perhaps  some  of  them  will  inform  us 
what  the  legal  effect  will  be. 

MR.  FISHER:  As  I understand  the 

purpose  of  the  mover  of  the  motion,  it 
wdll  be 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I respectfully  sug- 

gest that  it  is  beyond  the  powrer  of  any 
one  human  being  in  this  convention  to 
construe  this  matter  for  all  of  us.  You 
will  have  to  take  your  chances. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher  lias 

the  floor. 

MR.  FISHER:  1 am  not  going 


February  25 


1078 


1907 


to  undertake  to  construe  it  for  Mr.  Shep- 
ard. This,  as  I understand  the  mover  of 
the  motion,  is  that  the  legal  effect  would 
be  the  same  as  reading  it,  subject  to 
removal  as  hereinafter  provided.  That 
is,  that  the  words  “subject”  and  “pro- 
vision to  this  charter  ’ ’ are  intended  to 
have  that  effect.  If  that  is  so  it  is 
one  thing ; if  it  not  so  it  is  another  thing. 
The  language  could  be  changed  so  there 
would  be  no  question  about  it. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : I submit  the  mat- 

ter with  respect  to  removal  comes  in  the 
succeeding  section.  If  the  Convention, 
by  its  vote  in  the  succeeding  section, 
shall  provide  that  the  business  manager  * 
or  the  superintendent  can  be  removed  by 
a two-thirds  vote,  then  that  matter 
stands,  but  I believe  that  matter  is  to 
be  taken  up  on  the  next  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Precisely. 

MR.  MacMILLAN : We  take  our 

chances  on  that. 

MR.  POST:  If  you  should  adopt  this 

amendment,  and  also  adopt  section  10  as 
it  appears,  the  board  would  have  the 
power  to  make  a lifelong  contract.  I, 
therefore,  vote  No. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed  with  the 

roll  call. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I would  like  to  know 

what  the  effect  of  this  is?  I want  a 
term  just  as  we  usually  have  for  the 
heads  of  departments,  and  if  the  effect 
of  this  vote  is  to  allow  a term  as  indi- 
cated by  Mr.  Fisher,  then  I want  to 
vote  No.  If  it  is  as  intended  by  other 
gentlemen  I want  to  vote  Aye.  There- 
fore I pass  the  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Proceed. 

MR.  SMULSKI:  I feel  that  I am 

exactly  in  the  same  position  as  Mr. 
Robins  on  this  question.  If  you  will 
note  this  sentence,  you  will  see  it  will  give 
the  board  of  education  the  right  to 
appoint  a man  for  25,  30  or  50  years,  if 
you  like.  If  you  leave  this  sentence 
in  there  it  leaves  them  the  same  power 
with  only  this  restriction,  that  they 
shall  not  make  it  for  less  than  four 


years,  while  if  they  strike  it  out  they 
may  make  it  one  year.  I do  not  see 
where  the  benefit  of  this  clause  comes 
in.  I think  the  section  is  wrong  and 
should  be  changed,  but  not  the  way  you 
are  doing  it  now.  I cannot  vote  intel- 
ligently on  it.  I am  against  it  as  it 
stands,  and  I would  be  against  it  as 
it  would  be  amended.  Therefore,  I vote 
No. 

MR.  FISHER : Before  the  vote  is 

announced  I desire  to  say,  I do  not  want 
to  get  mixed  up  here  on  parliamentary 
proceeding.  Of  course  I can  see  that 
we  can,  by  taking  the  next  section  and 
amending  that,  make  this  thing  different. 
I will  change  my  vote  to  Aye  on  that 
understanding,  that  we  are  going  to 
change  the  question  on  the  next  section. 

MR.  POST;  May  I ask  for  an  ex- 
planation? Has  one  been  made? 

MR.  HOYNE:  I want  to  change  my 

vote  to  Aye. 

MR.  YOUNG:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  roll  call  is 

being  called. 

MR.  ROBINS:  How  am  I recorded? 

As  passing? 

THE  SECRETARY : Robins,  not  re- 

corded. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  strike  out  the  Ayes  are  18  and  the 
Nays  are  21.  The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I believe  my  amend- 

ment will  come  next  then,  to  make  it  four 
years;  the  term  of  office  four  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : To  fix  the  term 

of  office  four  years? 

MR.  YOUNG:  To  fix  the  term  of 

office  four  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  And  it  shall  not 

be  less  than  or  more  than  four  years. 

MR.  POST:  My  motion,  I think,  pre- 

cedes that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What? 

MR.  POST:  My  motion,  I think,  pre- 

cedes that,  in  the  order  in  which  the 
motions  were  made. 


February  25 


1079 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN : This  is  the  same, 

Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST : No ; mine  was  to  put 

more  instead  of  less. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Not  more. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Not  more,  but  it ' 

may  be  less.  The  next  is  on  Mr.  Post’s 
motion,  that  the  word  ‘Mess”  shall  be 
changed  to  read  ‘ 1 more.  ’ ’ 

MR.  HUNTER : Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  All  those  in  favor 
will  signify  by  saying  Aye.  Those'  op- 
posed, No.  The  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll.  The  Chair  cannot  decide. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Burke,  Dever, 
Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin.  Hunter,  Line- 
han,  MacMillan,  McKinley,  Owens,  Pen- 
darvis,  Post,  Rinaker,  Robins,  Shepard, 
Smulski,  Thompson,  Yopicka,  Zimmer. — 
21. 

Nays — Bennett,  Brosseau,  Cole,  Dix- 
on, G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J. 
W.,  Eidmann,  Harrison,  Hoyne,  Lathrop, 
Merriam,  Michaelis,  Paullin,  Raymer, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Snow,  Taylor,  Wil- 
kins, Young. — 20. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  FISHER;  Is  this  to  substitute 
the  words  ‘ ‘ not  more  ’ ’ for  the  words 
“not  less”? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  FISHER : I vote  Aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Post’s 

motion  to  change  the  word  1 1 less  ’ ’ to 
“more,”  the  yeas  are  21,  and  the  nays 
20,  and  the  motion  is  carried. 

MR.  YOUNG:  May  I have  a state- 

ment of  what  that  motion  is,  Mr. 
Chairman  ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  strikes  out  the 
word  “less”  in  the  fourth  line  of  the 
second  paragraph,  section  9,  and  puts  in 
the  word  ‘ 1 more,  ’ ’ so  that  it  reads : 
“But  the  term  of  office  of  the  superin- 
tendent of  education  and  of  the  business 
manager  shall  not  be  more  than  four 
years.  ’ ’ 

MR.  RINAKER:  Mr.  Chairman,  be- 

fore we  leave  this  particular  paragraph, 


I would  like  to  offer  as  an  amendment 
that,  after  the  word  ‘ ‘ officers  ’ ’ in  the 
second  line  of  this  same  paragraph,  I 
move  you  that  we  add  this  provision : 

‘ ‘ Provided  that  the  term  of  office  of  no 
such  officer  shall  exceed  four  years.  ’ ’ 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Gentlemen,  you 
have  heard  the  amendment  of  Judge 
jRinaker  that  the  term  of  office  of  all 
officers  shall  be  limited  to  four  years. 

MR.  RINAKER;  Not  to  exceed  four 
years. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Not  to  exceed 

four. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Not  to  exceed  four 
years.  Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  ROBINS : Mr.  Chairman,  I just 

wanted  to  suggest  to  some  of  our  friends 
here  who  may  not  be  wholly  familiar 
with  the  method  adopted  in  the  adminis- 
tration that  the  board  re-elects  all  its 
officers,  the  superintendent  and  the  busi- 
ness manager,  and  the  architect — except 
the  architect,  who  is  under  civil  service 
— all  heads  of  departments  every  year. 
Then  you  have  a homogeneous  adminis- 
tration. You  don’t  wyant  to  have  a head 
of  a department  with  officers  under  him 
who  are  administrative  officers  who  hold 
their  office  for  four  years,  that  he  cannot 
change ; you  want  a system  as  homo- 
geneous and  harmonious  as  possible  to 
make  it  a good  administration.  Any  of- 
ficers who  have  had  good  character,  those 
officers  have  been  re-elected  each  year  for 
the  educational  year,  to  run  for  a year 
only,  and  then  the  next  year  you  re-elect 
them,  and  so  on.  That  practice  goes  on 
i year  by  year,  and  that  is,  I think,  the 
best  way  in  which  you  can  secure  the 
best  administration. 

MR.  RINAKER:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

reserves  that  identical  power  to  the  board 
under  this  amendment.  This  is  not  a 
fixed  term  of  office  for  four  years,  but 
not  to  exceed  four  years. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I am  corrected.  I 

thank  you,  Mr.  Chairman ; I beg  par- 
don. 


February  25 


1080 


1907 


MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to  ask 

you  what  other  officers  are  referred  to? 

MR.  RINAKER:  Whom  they  may 

appoint  ? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Those  officers  are 

under  the  civil  service,  are  they  not? 

M.  MacMILLAN : I would  like  to  ask 
Professor  Merriam  if  the  attorney  is 
under  civil  service? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  No. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Then  you  exclude 

the  attorney? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  1 ‘ Question. ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Judge  Rin- 

aker’s  motion.  All  those  in  favor  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  Car- 
ried. Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  10-11. 

MR.  POST:  One  moment,  please.  I 

move  to  strike  out  1 1 attorney  ’ ’ from 
10.  It  seems  to  me  to  make  the  at- 
torney subject  to 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Shall  not  be  sub- 

ject. 

MR.  POST : four  years.  That  he 

should  be  removable  only  for  cause  by 
a vote  of  not  less  than  two-thirds.  If 
you  allow  the  superintendent  and  the 
business  manager  to  have  this  advantage 
with  the  board,  the  attorney  should  not 
be  so  elected.  I believe  that  every  board 
should  have  full  power  to  select  its  own 
attorney. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  if 

Mr.  Post  will  yield  to  me  and  renew  his 
motion  later,  I would  like  to  move  to 
strike  out  1 1 two-thirds,  ’ ’ and  substitute 
“a  majority’ ’ for  that,  in  line  5 of  that 
section,  19-10.  To  strike  out  ‘ 1 two-thirds  ’ ’ 
and  substitute  for  that  "a  majority.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  one 

motion  before  the  house : that  is  Mr. 
Post’s  motion. 

MR.  POST:  I will  suspend  my  mo- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  withdraw 

your  motion? 


MR.  POST:  Yes,  until  Mr.  Merriam 

moves  his. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Professor  Mer- 

riam moves  to  change  “two-thirds”  to 
“a  majority”  in  section  10.  Are  you 
ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  it  seems 

to  me  that  we  are  going  right  along  on 
the  same  line,  and  that  we  are  placing 
certain  officers  subject  to  the  whim  of 
members  of  the  board  where  we  have 
tried  to  protect  the  lowest  and  poorest 
clerk,  as  we  should,  in  every  other  de- 
partment. Here  are  certain  officers  who 
are  very  important  and  with  very  con- 
siderable influence,  for  whom  we  are  not 
requiring  any  special  attention  whatever. 
We  are  going  to  be  able  to  remove  those 
just  as  we  please  by  a majority,  if  that 
motion  should  prevail.  It  does  seem  to 
me  that  when  we  have  got  a superinten- 
dent of  schools  he  ought  to  be  supported, 
and  it  does  seem  to  me  that  he  should 
require  cause  to  be  removed,  and  that 
cause  should  be  strong  enough  and  de- 
cisive enough  and  plain  enough  to  re- 
quire support  by  two-thirds  of  the 
board  to  discharge  him  before  he  is 
discharged.  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
vote  should  be  made  strong  enough  to 
secure  him  in  some  stability.  To  strike 
out  the  two-thirds  and  leave  him  to  the 
pleasure  of  the  mere  majority  would  be 
no  protection.  I think  the  cause  should 
be  sufficient  and  important  enough  to 
secure  the  co-operation  of  two-thirds  of 
the  members. 

MR.  MERRIAM : It  seems  to  me 

that  as  a practical  proposition  that  we 
have  a situation  here  that  may  give  us 
a good  deal  of  trouble;  we  have  a board 
of  education  composed  of  fifteen  mem- 
bers, and  if  eight  of  those  members  are 
responsible  to  the  superintendent,  it 
does  not  seem  to  me  that  he  should  have 
the  power  to  hold  himself  in  office  by 
the  support  of  the  majority  with  whom 
he  may  have  favor.  Certainly  a major- 
ity may  so  cripple  him,  hamper  him,  or 
embarass  him  by  refusing  to  counsel 


February  25 


1081 


1907 


with  him  or  co-operate  in  his  policies, 
and  refuse  to  give  him  financial  support, 
loan  him  their  sympathy  that  they  might 
give  him,  possibly  that  would  enable  a 
minority  to  hold  the  superintendent  in 
power,  but  that  is  simply  inviting  ma- 
terial for  very  certain  trouble. 

I don’t  see  why  one-third  should  be 
enabled  to  rule  a majority;. it  is  certainly 
very  essential  in  a working  body  of  this 
sort  that  it  should  be  harmonious,  and 
if  you  provide  that  a minority  can  hold 
up  a school  system  against  the  will  of 
the  majority,  it  is  absolute  material  for 
disagreement;  I don’t  see  how  you  can 
avoid  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  seems  to  me 

we  are  drifting  backwards  here.  We 
have  now  a provision  in  this  charter  by 
which  the  superintendent  of  education 
can  be  appointed  for  one  year,  or  he  can 
be  appointed  for  half  a year  or  for  two 
months.  In  this  case,  he  can  be  ap- 
pointed for  a very  short  tenure  of  office, 
and  whatever  tenure  of  office  you  may 
give  him  he  will  be  there  for  that  time; 
he  cannot  be  removed  excepting  for  cause. 
If  the  cause  is  a good  one,  it  will  cer- 
tainly appeal  to  two-thirds  of  the  mem- 
bers. It  is  not  a question  of  holding 
the  majority  or  minority  in  a report,  but 
it  is  a question  of  holding  the  whole 
board  of  education  responsible. 

The  terms  of  the  members  of  the  board 
of  education  are  for  three  years;  the 
whole  board  cannot  be  changed  inside  of 
a period  of  two  years,  so,  after  all,  the 
responsibility  will  certainly  lodge  where 
it  should.  Now,  the  mayor  and  the  city 
council  are  to  approve  the  appointments, 
so  that  will  make  our  superintendent  of 
education  tolerably  safe  in  this  matter, 
and  we  should  provide,  unless  two-thirds 
of  the  board  of  education  feel  that  there 
is  cause  for  discharging  that  man,  that 
he  should  remain  in  office,  so  that  he 
can  proceed  as  an  independent  person, 
not  merely  proceed  in  order  to  satisfy 


some  whim  or  caprice  of  a majority  of 
the  board.  That  is  what  that  means. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I wish  to  say  a 

word 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher  has 

the  floor. 

MR.  FISHER:  I am  willing  to  yield, 

if  you  wish. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  No;  go  ahead. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  the  difficulty 

of  this  whole  matter  is  this:  There 

are  certain  members  of  this  convention, 
as  I said  once  before,  who  see  things  un- 
der what  they  think  is  the  existing  situa- 
tion, and  who  think  they  will  always 
remain  so.  From  my  own  personal  ex- 
perience with  the  board  of  education  I 
know  that  the  situation  has  arisen  when 
a small  minority  alone  were  suspicioned 
by  certain  people  who  did  not  have  con- 
fidence in  their  motives  on  many  oc- 
casions. Now,  there  are  times  when  a 
situation  like  that  is  very  embarrassing, 
and  it  might  be  that  a portion  of  that 
board  might  be  mistaken  in  certain  mat- 
ters, and  what  we  want  to  do  under  this 
charter  is  to  provide  for  such  a con- 
tingency. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Chair  and  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion to  a number  of  these  provisions;  if 
you  will  take  section  22,  the  board  of 
education  is  given  general  supervision 
of  the  management  of  the  public  school 
system,  power  of  maintenance,  and  so 
forth,  of  the  schools;  then  you  have  sec- 
tion 23,  which  shows  the  powers,  and  so 
forth,  in  regard  to  the  management  of 
the  schools,  that  is  all  given  to  a ma- 
jority vote  of  the  board.  The  board 
of  education  then  may  fix  all  these  mat- 
ters, may  prescribe  these  rules ; they 
may  be  at  variance  with  the  views  of 
the  superintendent,  and  yet,  if  he  can 
control  six  out  of  the  fifteen  voters,  he 
can  block  anything  being  done,  and  I 
think  that  is  a wrong  system  fundamen- 
tally. I think  you  are  just  as  likely  to 
have  that  condition  of  affairs  as  a con- 
dition of  affairs  where  you  have  to  pro- 


February  25 


1082 


1907 


teet  the  majority.  That  won ’t  do,  from 
my  point  of  view.  We  would  all  object 
to  having  that  condition  of  affairs.  Un- 
der the  conditions  as  we  have  them  now 
the  superintendent  can  be  employed  for 
four  years;  under  Judge  Rinaker’s 
amendment  you  can  make  a contract 
with  him  not  to  exceed  four  years,  and 
yet  you  eannot  remove  him  if  the  ma- 
jority of  the  board  should  at  any  time 
become  cris-cross  to  his  policy.  Now,  I 
believe  that  would  be  wrong.  If  you 
leave  in  the  provision  that  he  can  only 
be  removed  for  cause,  and  upon  written 
charges,  then  you  have  all  the  safeguards 
that  he — many  more  safeguards  than  is 
given  to  the  president  of  any  college  at 
the  head  of  almost  any  educational  in- 
stitution of  which  I know,  and  it  seems 
to  ine  that  a majority  vote  should  be 
sufficient,  if  it  is  to  be  taken  upon  cause 
and  written  charges  thereof. 

Now,  he  said  if  there  is  good  cause 
that  two-thirds  will  be  in  favor  of  that. 
Well,  that  does  not  follow.  There  can 
be  a situation,  there  can  easily  arise  .a 
situation  where  a majority  of  the  voters, 
it  may  be  nine  out  of  fifteen,  will  be 
absolutely  at  variance  with  the  others 
in  regard  to  the  superintendent.  Well, 
then,  if  that  -is  so,  perhaps  there  is  no 
need  of  worrying  about  that;  but  sup- 
pose, for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
for  some  reason  those  six  men  should  not 
vote  to  remove  him,  why,  the  nine  men 
could  not  remove  him  under  those  con- 
ditions; they  would  have  to  get  another 
vote.  They  would  have  to  get  ten.  It 
seems  to  me  it  is  wrong  to  have  it  that 
way;  we  ought  to  have  it  so  that  the 
majority  may  have  the  right  of  re- 
moval. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  RINAKER:  May  I ask  Mr. 

Fisher  a question? 

MR.  FISHER:  Certainly. 

MR.  RINAKER : In  what  way  can 

the  superintendent  of  schools  block  the 


general  policy  of  the  board  under  the 
provisions  of  this  charter? 

MR.  FISHER:  Why,  he  could  in  all 

sorts  of  ways;  he  could  keep  them  from 
carrying  out  a good  many  of  their  plans. 
Supposing  the  board  was  divided  so  that 
six  of  the  members  of  the  board  were  in 
favor  of  a certain  policy  of  the  superin- 
tendent, and  nine  of  the  members  were 
against  that  policy;  under  that  situation 
the  superintendent  and  six  men  would 
run  the  school. 

MR.  RINAKER : Is  it  not  true  that 

by  a majority  vote  of  the  board  it  may 
designate  its  policy. 

MR.  FISHER:  Certainly. 

MR.  RINAKER:  Is  it  not  also  true 

that  in  27  of  19,  that  the  superintendent 
of  education  shall  have  general  super- 
vision, subject  to  the  board? 

MR.  FISHER : Certainly. 

MR.  RINAKER:  Which  is  a ma- 

jority vote. 

MR.  FISHER : Certainly,  but  the 

situation  may  easily  arise,  I repeat,  may 
easily  arise — it  has  arisen  in  other  boards 
— where  the  executive  officer  is  out  of 
harmony  with  a majority  of  the  board, 
and  knowing  he  is  there  where  they  can- 
not remove  him  without  a two-thirds 
vote,  he  can  successfully  defy  the  board; 
he  can  do  practically  anything  he  wants 
to,  and  he  is  perfectly  safe. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  the  motion  to  change  from  two- 
thirds  to  a majority. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Just  a word.  You 

must  remember  that  in  the  appointment 
of  a superintendent  of  education,  he  is 
an  officer  charged  with  initiative ; you 
must  remember  that  responsibility  under 
the  board  rests  more  upon  him  than  upon 
any  single  man  connected  with  the  public 
schools.  If  the  tenure  of  his  office  is 
made  to  depend  upon  the  turn  of  one 
vote  at  any  meeting  of  a board,  I sub- 
mit that  a large  proportion  of  his  time, 
if  he  wants  to  hold  onto  his  office,  will 
be  taken  up  in  merely  building  his 
fences  and  keeping  them  strong.  What 


February  25 


1083 


1907 


we  want  is  a man  who  will  be  so  secure 
in  his  position  as  to  be  enabled  to  carry 
on  and  out  some  reasonable  policy. 

Another  matter  has  been  overlooked. 
The  mayor  can  appoint;  thus  the  num- 
ber of  members  of  the  board  at  the 
next  appointment  may  entirely  tip  the 
beam  and  come  to  the  support  of  the 
administration.  All  this  long  time  block- 
ing of  the  board  is  imaginary.  What 
we  want  is  to  secure  men  that  will  give 
some  attention  to  the  question  of  effi- 
ciency of  the  administration,  an  admin- 
istration that  has  to  do  with  some  6,000 
teachers  and  nearly  300,000  scholars,  and 
$11,000,000  in  money,  and  $60,000,000 
invested  in  buildings. 

Now,  no  matter  what  we  say  about 
the  board,  it  is  a changing  body,  coming 
and  going  all  the  time,  and  here  is  the 
one  officer  who  can  give  continuity  and 
progress,  and  something  else,  and  look 
to  the  initiative  of  the  whole  thing,  and 
here  we  are  seeking  to  make  him  subject 
to  the  whim  of  one  person,  who  may 
overthrow  entirely  the  whole  policy  before 
it  has  had  any  chance  to  justify  itself. 

I submit  that,  in  doing  this,  we  are 
stultifying  ourselves,  and  that  we  are 
eliminating  efficiency. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  secre- 

tary call  the  roll? 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I just  want 

to  say  one  word.  A few  moments  ago 
a motion  was  passed,  providing  that  you 
should  not  make  a contract  with  the 
superintendent  for  more  than  four  years. 
Now,  by  implication,  that  would  mean 
that  you  have  a right  to  make  a contract 
for  a term  of  four  years.  If  this  mo- 
tion now  pending  prevails,  of  substitut- 
ing a majority  for  a two-thirds  vote,  the 
board  of  education  can  remove  the  super- 
intendent one  month,  or  two  months,  or 
three  months,  after  the  contract  is  made. 
In  that  case  your  contract  does  not 
amount  to  anything. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I am  profoundly  con- 

cerned in  this  provision  because,  from 
what  I have  been  able  to  see,  the  ad- 


ministration of  the  schools  demands  it, 
I know.  The  present  business  manager, 
Mr.  John  Guilford,  has  been  re-elected 
every  year;  he  has  stayed  in  office  thirty- 
eight  years;  he  has  the  entire  business 
administration  of  the  schools.  He  has 
administered  them  so  honestly  that  no 
one  has  ever  questioned  his  integrity  in 
all  that  time.  There  may  have  been  some 
talk  as  to  more  efficiency  in  some  of  the 
departments,  but  none  in  regard  to  the 
matter  of  integrity.  Now,  he  could  have 
been  displaced  at  any  time  at  any  of  the 
annual  meetings  during  those  thirty-eight 
years  that  he  has  remained  in  office — a 
most  important  and  responsible  position. 

The  present  superintendent  has  been  in 
office  about  six  years,  under  precisely  the 
same  conditions.  The  things  that  are 
thrown  out  as  being  an  evil  and  a menace, 
the  remark  by  Mr.  Eckhart  who  just  had 
the  floor  a few  minutes  ago,  show  how 
unnecessary  this  is.  I imagine,  in  the 
minds  of  some  people,  the  present  board 
is  a most  obnoxious  one,  the  most  obnox- 
ious in  certain  ways  that  will  ever  exist 
in  the  history  of  the  city;  and  yet  this 
gentleman  is  in  full  control  and  will  be 
in  full  control  until  the  term  of  his  office 
expires,  and  maybe  a good  deal  longer. 

Now,  I submit  that  the  difficulties  of 
the  situation  do  not  come  from  this  end 
of  it,  but  you  are  offering  a condition 
that  would  make  you  substantial  difficul- 
ties, and  have  been  witnessed  by  the  ex- 
perience of  other  bodies  in  the  past. 

Discipline,  says  Doctor  Taylor.  Now, 
Doctor  Taylor  merely  discloses  in  that 
statement  that  he  does  not  know  how  the 
discipline  is  obtained  in  the  board  of 
education.  The  discipline  over  every- 
body in  the  board  of  education  is  in  the 
hands  of  a school  management  commit 
tee,  and  is  acted  upon  by  that  committee 
in  every  instance,  and  the  super- 
intendent simply  exercises  no  dis- 
cipline— exerts  no  discipline  except 
such  as  is  authorized  by  the  school 
management  committee.  The  business 
manager  takes  no  action  in  regard  to 


February  25 


1084 


1907 


one  penny  of  these  many  millions  of 
dollars,  except  as  authorized  by  the 
committee,  the  building  and  grounds 
committee;  and,  gentlemen,  if  you  want 
responsibility  in  the  board  of  education, 
you  want  to  keep  the  power  of  respon- 
sibility there. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary call  the  roll? 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I believe  this  is  a 

question  which  should  be  divided;  I 
think  we  should  first  take  up  the  super- 
intendent and  decide  whether  he  should 
be  appointed  and  removed  by  a two- 
thirds  vote  or  not,  and  then  we  should 
take  up  the  office  of  business  manager 
in  turn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  It  is  not  a divis- 
ible question,  Mr.  Yopicka.  Let  the 
Secretary  call  the  roll.  The  question  is 
to  change  the  power  of  removal  from 
two-thirds  to  a majority. 

MR.  LINEHAN : I would  like  to  say 

a very  few  words.  I believe  that  some 
controversy  had  existed  for  the  past  year 
in  this  city  in  regard  to  the  school  board, 
and  if  some  questions  had  not  arisen  there 
would  be  no  necessity  for  a proposition 
of  this  kind  at  all.  Let  me  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention  to  the  fact  that 
you  do  no  propose  to  make  any  such 
rule  in  regard  to  the  park  board,  you 
do  not  propose  to  make  any  such  rule 
in  regard  to  the  library  board,  because 
no  difference  of  opinion  has  arisen,  no 
difference  of  opinion  exists  there.  Now, 
why  should  you  propose  to  make  a rule 
at  the  present  time  like  this,  when  per- 
haps inside  of  a year  or  two  the  whole 
complexion  of  this  board  will  be  changed, 
and  the  rule  you  make  to-day  will  become 
a hardship  instead  of  a benefit?  It  may 
not  be  the  same  board,  and  in  my  mind 
the  only  way  is  to  legislate  by  the  major- 
ity, and  that  is  the  straight  out  way, 
irrespective  of  who  are  the  members  or 
who  may  be  the  superintendent  of 
schools. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  secretary 

call  the  roll. 


Yeas — Beilfuss,  Burke,  Fisher,  Green- 
acre,  Guerin,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Mc- 
Goorty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  Owens,  Post, 
Robins,  Shepard,  Snow,  Thompson,  Yo- 
picka, Zimmer. — 18. 

Nays — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A., 
Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Harrison, 
Hoyne,  Hunter,  Lathropf,  Michaelis, 
Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Rinaker, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Smulski,  Taylor, 
Wilkins,  Young. — 23. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  YOPICKA:  I am  in  favor  of 

making  the  appointment  and  removal  of 
the  superintendent  by  a two-thirds  of  the 
majority;  therefore  I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 

to  change  from  two-thirds  to  a majority, 
the  yeas  are  18,  and  the  nays  23,  and 
the  motion  is  lost.  The  Secretary  will 
read  No.  11. 

THE  SECRETARY:  No.  11,  page 

132. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wonder  if  that  was 

not  a mis-print,  where  you  find,  in  No. 
10,  “but  pending  the  hearing  of  such 
charges  the  officer  charged  may,  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  be  suspended  by  the 
board.  ’ ’ I should  imagine  if  a majority 
were  to  vote  against  the  officer  they 
would  not  want  to  hold  him  in  office 
pending  the  hearing,  unless  you  get  a 
two-thirds  vote  to  suspend  him.  I 
move,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  two-thirds 
in  that  instance  be  changed  to  a major- 
ity. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  “But  pending 

the  hearing  of  such  charges,  the  officer 
charged  may,  by  a two-thirds  vote,  be 
suspended  by  the  board.  ’ ’ Mr.  Robins 
moves  to  change  that  to  “a  majority.’’ 
Are  you  ready  for  the  question?  All 
those  in  favor  signify  by  saying  aye; 
contrary,  no.  The  motion  is  lost. 

THE  SECRETARY:  133,  13,  14,  15. 

MR.  COLE:  I would  like  to  insist 

upon  a roll  call  on  that  majority  ques- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  I think  you  are 


1085 


1907 


February  25 

too  late  to  call  "for  a roll  call  now,  Mr. 
Cole. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  section  13  the 

word  ‘ ‘ headquarters  ’ ’ should  be  changed 
to  1 ‘offices.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  are  no 

objections  it  will  be  changed  to  “of- 
fices. ’ ’ 

THE  SECRETARY : 14  and  15. 

MR.  POST:  In  15,  I move  to  strike 

out  all  after  the  word  * 1 leaseholds,  ’ ’ in 
the  second  line.  I do  not  care  to  dis- 
cuss the  question,  and  I do  not  even  care 
to  ask  for  a roll  call.  I discussed  the 
matter  once  before  and  a roll  call  was 
had  upon  it.  I now  move  to  strike  it 
out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  moves 

to  strike  out  everything  in  section  15, 
after  the  first  sentence,  “The  board  of 
education  shall  have  the  power  to  let 
school  property  on  leasehold” ; all  those 
who  favor  striking  out  all  the  succeed- 
ing part  of  that  paragraph  will  signify 
by  saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no.  The 
motion  is  lost. 

THE  SECRETARY:  16  and  17 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  On  the  top  of 

page  134,  where  the  words  “personal 
property”  are  shown,  I think  we  ought 
to  substitute  the  words,  1 1 goods,  chat- 
tels and  fixtures,  ’ ’ because  leases  are 
personal  property. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  that  the  words,  “goods,  chattels 
and  fixtures,”  shall  be  used  instead  of 
the  words  “personal  property.”  If 
there  are  no  objections  that  change  will 
be  made;  proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  18,  19,  20,  21, 

22,  23,  24,  25,  26,  27. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  27.  I move  to 

strike  out  the  sentence,  “text  books  or 
apparatus  once  adopted  shall  not  be 
changed  within  four  years  thereafter.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  Mr.  Mcrriam 
moves  to  strike  out  the  last  two  lines  in 
the  second  paragraph  in  section  27, 
“Text  books  or  apparatus  once  adopted 


shall  not  be  changed  within  four  years 
thereafter.  ’ ’ 

MR.  TAYLOR : Mr.  Chairman,  I would 
like  to  explain  why  that  was  put  in.  It 
was  thought  to  be  an  unnecessary  hard- 
ship upon  the  parents  who  have  to  buy 
these  text  books  to  have  them  changed 
much  oftener  than  once  in  four  years. 
There  was  this  also  that  if  the  text 
books  should  be  retained  for  four  years, 
more  care  might  be  taken  in  selection. 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  first  reason  is 
quite  obvious. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  there  any — 

MR.  MERRIAM:  What  I would  like 

to  say  to  that  is,  you  never  know  what 
sort  of  text  books  may  be  written  in 
four  years,  and  particularly  you  never 
know  what  sort  of  apparatus  may  be  in- 
vented in  a period  of  four  years.  There 
may  be  an  important  improvement  made 
in  apparatus  six  months  after  a par- 
ticular kind  has  been  adopted,  and  then 
you  would  be  tied  up  to  use  the  old  ap- 
paratus for  three  years  and  six  months, 
and  that  would  be  a hardship. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  MERRIAM.  No;  I am  not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Pardon  me. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I don’t  know  how 

it  is  with  the  board  of  education,  but  if 
you  want  to  bind  yourselves  to  use  par- 
ticular text  books  for  a period  of  four 
years,  I can  imagine  that  it  can  be  much 
better  to  change  them  in  six  weeks.  I 
don’t  know  why  the  board  of  education 
should  be  tied  up  for  four  years.  As  a 
matter  of  policy  you  don’t  want  to 
change  books  for  any  light  and  transient 
cause.  If  the  change  is  made  and  it 
should  not  be  wise,  it  would  be  unfortu- 
nate to  tie  the  hands  of  the  board  of 
education  on  it,  and  it  seems  preposter- 
ous to  me. 

MR.  GUERIN:  I agree  with  Prof. 

Mcrriam,  especially  in  regard  to  books 
on  natural  science,  and  also  for  appara- 
tus. But  I agree  with  the  main  proposi- 
tion and  the  fact  that  we  should  not 


February  25 


1086 


1907 


change  text  books,  except  such  books  as 
may  be  changed  on  account  of  advancing 
science,  and  I would  suggest  that  a sub- 
stitute for  the  motion — that  to  Prof. 
Merriam’s  motion  we  add  to  that  section 
the  following:  “Unless  by  request  of 

the  school  superintendent  and  by  a vote 
of  a majority  of  the  school  board.’’ 
Simply  add  that  to  it.  Then  I think  that 
will  cover  the  ground  of  cases  where 
there  are  necessities  that  books  should 
be  changed.  If  there  was  such  a neces- 
sity it  would  be  disappointing,  you  know. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Dr.  Guerin  moves 

to  amend  as  a substitute  for  Prof.  Mer- 
riam ’s  motion  that  for  the  words  in  the 
last  section  there  should  be  added,  “un- 
less by  the  request  of  the  superintendent 
of  schools  and  the  concurrence  of  the 
majority  of  the  board  of  education.” 

MR.  THOMPSON : It  seems  to  me 

that  is  striking  out  this  line  anyway,  ex- 
cept by  consent  of  the  superintendent. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  THOMPSON : It  seems  to  me 

that  is  practically  the  same  thing.  That 
is  striking  out  this  line  anyway,  except 
by  consent  of  the  superintendent.  Prof. 
Merriam’s  motion  is  to  leave  the  thing 
in  the  hands  of  the  board  without  making 
any  new  agreement  in  regard  to  text 
books  and  apparatus.  The  board  should 
say  and  dictate  it.  I think  the  argument 
that  Mr.  Merriam  made  in  reference  to 
apparatus  is  certainly  the  strongest  argu- 
ment that  can  be  made.  If  any  business 
institution  started  in  to  restrict  itself  as 
this  calls  for,  for  four  years,  it  would 
soon  go  out  of  office. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  GUERIN;  May  I say  one  word? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir?  ' 

MR.  GUERIN : I wish  to  say  one 

word  on  this.  The  reason  I don’t  want 
that  stricken  out  is  this:  There  are  sev- 

eral other  text  books  that  evidently  might 
not  be  necessary  to  change.  For  example: 
A reader,  a speller,  or  books  on  mathe- 
matics, which  are  fixed  sciences.  But 


in  regard  to  natural  science  they  are 
constantly  being  changed. 

Take,  for  example,  the  subject  of 
geology,  and  the  subject  of  chemistry, 
and  biology.  Those  subjects  are  con- 
stantly changing,  and  we  might  require 
to  change  the  text  books,  but  the  other 
books  we  should  not  change,  and  we 
should  not  change  them  without  good 
reason.  Anyone  who  has  been  on  the 
school  board  must  know  that  they  do 
not  want  to  be  constantly  bothered  with 
book  men  coming  around  wanting  them 
to  change  books ; change  books  where 
there  is  no  necessity  for  it.  I think  that 
Prof.  Merriam’s  point  is  well  taken.  I 
would  like  to  have  Prof.  Merriam  ex- 
plain whether  he  thinks  I am  right  on 
this,  subject,  in  regard  to  books  on 
natural  science  especially. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  like  to  ask 

what  the  amendment  by  Dr.  Guerin  was? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  would  like 

to  hear  the  amendment? 

MR.  RAYMER : Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  add  to  the 

last  sentence  on  section  27  the  words 
“unless  by  request  of  the  superintendent 
of  education  and  with  the  concurrence  of 
a majority  of  the  board  of  education.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  Dr.  Guerin’s  amendment?  All  those 
in  favor  say  aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is 
lost.  The  question  reverts  upon  Prof. 

Merriam ’s  motion  to  strike  out  these 
words,  the  last  sentence.  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye. 

MR.  YOUNG:  What  is  this? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Opposed,  no.  The 

Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Cole,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Fisher,  Greenacre,  Hoyne,  Lathrop,  Line- 
han,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 

Michaelis,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post,  Ray- 
mer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shepard,  Smul- 
ski,  Snow,  Thompson. — 22. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A., 
Eidmann,  Guerin,  Harrison,  Hunter,  Mac- 
Millan, Paullin,  Rinaker,  Shanahan,  Tay- 


February  25 


1087 


1907 


lor,  Yopicka,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer, 

—19. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR,  McGOORTY:  What  is  the  ques- 

tion? I will  record  my  vote  later. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I want  to  be  re- 

corded as  voting  aye. 

THE  SECRETARY : McGoorty,  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Mer- 

riam’s  motion  the  yeas  are  22  and  the 
nays  are  19.  The  motion  is  carried. 
Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  28,  29. 

MR.  ROBINS:  In  the  second  para- 

graph of  27  it  provides  for  the  control 
of  teachers,  principals  and  assistant 
and  district  superintendents  and  all  other 
officers,  and  all  apparatus,  and  educa- 
tional text  books  and  so  forth,  that  it 
must  be  under  the  recommendation  of 
the  superintendent,  unless  it  be  by  two- 
thirds  vote  of  all  the  members  of  the 
board ; that  no  change  shall  be  introduced 
.by  the  board  except  on  the  recommenda- 
tion of  the  superintendent  unless  by  a 
two-thirds  vote  of  all  the  members  of 
the  board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Where  is  that? 

MR.  HUNTER:  The  same  section. 

MR.  ROBINS:  137. 

THE  SECRETARY:  27. 

MR.  ROBINS:  j.nere  is  the  same  ob- 

jection to  that  provision,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  exists  with  the  other  two-thirds 
provision,  only  a little  more  so.  The 
rule  in  the  board  of  education  at  the 
present  time,  as  I understand  it,  has 
been  followed  for  some  time  by  the 
board  in  all  matters  of  this  sort,  asking 
for  the  superintendent ’s  recommendation, 
and  the  superintendent  makes  his  recom- 
mendation, and  that  gives  a great  ad- 
vantage, of  course,  to  the  particular 
book  so  recommended.  But  if  against 
that  recommendation  a majority  of 
the  board,  by  reason  of  the  price,  or  by 
reason  of  many  things  that  come  in, 
should  determine  otherwise,  it  seems  to 
me  it  is  well  that  the  board  should  have 
the  pow’er  and  the  responsibility  in  the 


matter.  Iu  regard  to  some  text  books 
that  have  been  adopted  since  I was  a 
member  of  the  board,  it  appeared  that 
Avhile  the  superintendent  was,  to  the  best 
of  my  judgment,  doing  his  best  with  this 
particular  publication  it  was  discovered 
that  over  in  the  state  of  Indiana  they 
offered  it  at  a less  price  by  several  cents 
for  the  same  book,  which  amounted  to 
$18,000.00  to  $20,000.00  less  for  the 
whole  quantity  than  we  were  offered  here 
in  the  City  of  Chicago.  It  was  the 
identical  book.  Certain  members  of 
the  board  of  education  found  out  this 
fact  and  submitted  it  to  the  board,  and 
the  book  company  was  required  to  make 
these  reductions.  Now7,  one-third  with 
the  superintendent  would  have  passed 
that  recommendation  on  that  particular 
night  that  it  was  made.  I mean  it  would 
have  taken  two-thirds  to  have  taken  any 
other  action.  It  would  not  have  been 
taken  in  my  judgment. 

Now7,  in  this  matter  of  apparatus, 
there  is  the  old  order  and  the  new7;  old 
text  books  and  the  new.  Now,  not  neces- 
sarily everything  that  is  old  is  best. 
Many  times  there  have  been  improve- 
ments made  in  that  department,  in  ap- 
paratus and  in  text  books.  There  is  a 
certain  tendency  on  the  part  of  boards 
of  administration  everywhere  to  run 
along  general,  steady  lines,  without 
change,  no  matter  what  the  benefits  are. 
It  seems  to  me  it  is  unfortunate  if  this 
board  of  education,  charged  with  the 
responsibility  of  providing  the  best 
means  for  the  education  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Chicago,  could  not  take  action 
unless  they  got  the  recommendation  of 
the  superintendent,  unless  there  are  two- 
thirds  of  the  members  voting.  It  seems 
to  me  that  is  a mistake.  It  simply 
means  this:  That  if  by  any  possible 

chance  the  superintendent  or  the  board 
should  be  related  in  any  w’ise  to  the 
publishing  interest  so  as  not  to  get  the 
full  view  of  competing  books,  that  the 
people  of  Chicago  would  not  get  that 
benefit.  Now,  it  does  look  now  to  mo 


February  25 


1088 


1907 


as  if  you  are  giving  the  board  of  edu- 
cation— that  you  should  give  the  board 
of  education  some  power  in  this  matter, 
and  I do  not  believe  that  any  injury, 
but  rather  benefit,  would  result  in  a 
majority  rule,  as  it  has  in  the  past.  I 
believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  words, 
‘ ‘ two-thirds,  ’ ' should  be  stricken  out  and 
“a  majority  vote”  substituted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  amendment  to  the  second  paragraph 
of  section  27,  “unless  it  be  by  a two- 
thirds  vote,  ’ 5 should  be  changed  to  ‘ * un- 
less it  be  by  majority  vote.”  Are  you 
ready  for  the  question?  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  As  many  as  favor  say  aye.  To 
the  contrary,  no.  The  Chair  cannot  de- 
cide and  the  Secretary  will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Beilfuss,  Burke,  Cole,  Fisher, 
Greenacre,  Guerin,  Linehan,  MacMillan, 
McGoorty,  Merriam,  Owens,  Pendarvis, 
Post,  Bobins,  Shanahan,  Smulski,  Thomp- 
son, Yopicka,  Zimmer. — 19. 

Nays  — Beebe,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart, 
J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Harrison,  Hoyne,  Hun- 
ter, Lathrop,  Michaelis,  Paullin,  Rosen- 
thal, Taylor,  Wilkins,  Young. — 21. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Robins’ 

motion  the  ayes  are  19  and  the  nays  are 
21.  The  motion  is  lost.  The  Secretary 
will  now  proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  28,  29 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  section  29 

I want  to  strike  out  everything  after  the 
second  sentence,  that  is  in  the  fourth 
line,  and  substitute  as  a separate  para- 
graph this  amendment  which  I send  up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Please  send  it 

up  here.  The  Secretary  will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal: 

The  board  of  education  shall  main- 
tain a bureau  of  buildings  and  construc- 
tion which  shall  have  charge  of  the  erec- 
tion, construction,  alteration  and  repair 
of  all  buildings  under  the  control  of 
the  board  of  education.  The  board  of 
education  shall,  subject  to  the  provisions 


of  the  civil  service  law,  appoint  a chief 
architect,  who  shall  be  at  the  head  of 
the  bureau  of  buildings  and  construc- 
tion, and  also  a chief  engineer,  who 
shall  have  charge  of  the  matters  relating 
to  the  heating,  ventilating  and  sanita- 
tion of  buildings.  The  architect  and 
chief  engineer  shall  be  removed  only  in 
pursuance  of  the  provisions  of  the  civil 
service  law. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 

moves  to  substitute  that  for  29,  after  the 
first  sentence  of  29.  Are  you  ready  for 
the  question? 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  ask  if 

that  included  the  engineer  as  a civil 
service  officer? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I think  it  does. 

MR.  RAYMER:  We  discussed  that 

proposition  in  this  convention  at  great 
length.  I do  not  think  it  is  good  policy 
to  change  the  wording  of  the  board  of 
education  as  it  is  fixed  here  to-day.  I 
think,  Mr.  Rosenthal,  it  places  the  chief 
architect  under  the  civil  service,  accord- 
ing to  your  resolution. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  he  is  how. 

MR.  RAYMER;  I think  it  will  a mis- 
take to  make  that  change.  I look  upon 
the  position  of  chief  architect,  so  far  as 
his  appointment  is  concerned,  or  his  se- 
lection, very  much  as  you  would  select 
an  attorney  for  the  board.  A young  man 
coming  out  of  college  could  unquestion- 
ably pass  an  examination  on  technical 
lines  in  a manner  that  would  excel  an 
old  practical  architect.  That,  in  my 
judgment,  would  be  a mistake,  to  make  it 
possible  any  such  condition  could  pre- 
vail. An  architect,  from  experience, 
should  gather  a great  many  ideas  that 
you  do  not  get  out  of  the  books,  and  we 
want  the  best  talent  possible  for  this 
board,  for  work  of  this  kind,  and  I shalf 
personally  be  very  sorry  to  see  the  chief 
architect  and  the  chief  engineer  placed 
under  civil  service. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  May  I say  a word 
in  favor  of  tins  resolution? 


February  25 


1089 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  This  resolution, 

as  a matter  of  fact,  presents  two  points; 
one  is  the  creation  of  a separate  bureau 
by  the  board  of  education,  of  buildings 
and  constructions,  instead  of  putting  the 
architect — the  chief  architect  and  the 
chief  engineer  under  the  business  man- 
ager to  give  them  responsible  positions 
and  to  put  them  at  the  head  of  these  de- 
partments, and  after  consulting  quite  a 
number  of  engineers  and  architects  I 
have  learned  that  you  are  able  and  will 
be  able  to  get  a more  available  man  and 
a more  responsible  man  and  better  man 
if  you  will  give  him  an  independent  posi- 
tion at  the  head  of  a bureau  instead  of 
putting  him  under  a business  manager. 

I have  also  been  told,  and  learned  it 
by  inquiry,  and  among  others  talked  with 
the  architect  for  the  board  of  education, 
that  there  is  no  connection  whatever  be- 
tween the  office  for  the  board  of  educa- 
tion and  the  chief  engineer,  and  that  of 
business  manager.  So  the  first  object  of 
that  resolution  is  to  take  him  outside  of 
the  office. 

Now,  I myself  made  strenuous  efforts 
here  to  have  this  architect,  the  chief  ar- 
chitect and  the  chief  engineer,  withdrawn 
from  the  operation  of  the  civil  service 
law,  and  it  was  on  my  motion  that  that 
was  carried.  But,  since  that  time  I have 
also  discussed  the  matter  with  architects 
and  there  seems  to  be  a general  senti- 
ment in  favor  of  leaving  them  under  the 
civil  service  law,  so  long  as  you  get  a 
board  of  architects  to  conduct  the  ex- 
amination. 

And,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  ex- 
amination is  not  of  that  negligible  char- 
acter which  Mr.  Raymer  imagined,  I 
thought  it  might  just  as  well  be  left 
under  the  operation  of  the  civil  service 
law. 

Now,  just  one  more  word:  The  ques- 

tion discussed  here  is  as  to  whether  the 
architect  may  be  removed.  I am  told 
by  the  civil  service  officials  that  this  is 
a very  simple  matter  to  have  him  re- 


moved for  inefficiency  and  to  have  charges 
brought  against  him  to  show  he  is  not 
up  to  the  office  requirements,  and  that 
would  be  sufficient  for  his  dismissal. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I desire  to  ask  Mr. 

Rosenthal  a question. 

Do  you  mean  to  tell  me  that  the  chief 
engineer  and  the  chief  architect  are  sub- 
servient to  the  wishes  of  the  business 
manager? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Under  the  pres- 

ent draft  they  are. 

MR.  ROBINS:  They  are  not,  in  the 

actual  administration  of  the  city. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  gen- 

tlemen face  this  way  so  the  reporter  can 
get  it?  Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  YOUNG:  I desire  to  state,  mere- 
ly by  way  of  illustration,  that  there  is 
one  subject  that  the  committee  gave  con- 
siderable attention  to  and  listened  to  a 
great  many  ideas  on;  it  seemed  to  me, 
in  the  carrying  out  of  this  matter,  that 
there  were  two  general  lines;  one  of 
business  and  one  of  education;  and,  it 
seemed  that  the  board  should  have  two 
servants,  one  at  the  head  of  the  edu- 
cational department,  and  one  at  the  head 
of  the  business  department,  in  order  to 
avoid  the  various  conflicts  that  might 
otherwise  come  up,  and,  if  I remember 
rightly,  those  that  came  before  our  com- 
mittee seemed  to  think  that  the  work 
could  be  carried  out  in  this  way  and 
with  less  conflict  than  it  could  by  having 
so  many  different  heads. 

MR.  SHANAHAN;  When  this  mat- 
ter was  under  discussion  before  the  holi- 
days, and  tjhe  understanding  was  that 
the  position  that  they  wanted  to  exempt 
at  that  time  was  a consulting  engineer 
and  not  a mechanical  engineer.  Now, 
under  the  wording  of  section  29  it  ex- 
empts the  chief  architect  and  the  chief 
engineer.  Now,  there  is  a difference  be- 
tween the  chief  mechanical  engineer  and 
the  chief  consulting,  or  chief  civil  en- 
gineer, and  I would  like  somebody  to  ex- 
plain what  position  they  would  like  to 
exempt. 


February  25 


1090 


1907 


ME.  BOSENTHAL:  It  is  as  stated 

in  this  resolution. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : The  point  made 

by  Mr.  Bosenthal  is  not  carried  out  by 
section  10  of  this  article,  and  that  made 
by  Gen.  Young  is  not  carried  out  under 
section  10  of  this  article.  There  are  not 
two  departments  in  the  board  of  educa- 
tion under  the  present  draft  of  the  char- 
ter. There  are  more.  There  is,  besides 
a superintendent  of  education  and  a 
business  manager,  an  attorney  and  an 
auditor.  Now,  I submit  it  is  placing  a 
highly  technical  officer  in  charge  of  a 
general  business  manager  when  you  place 
the  appointment  of  an  architect  and  a 
chief  engineer  in  the  hands  of  a business 
manager.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  one  of  the  ways  of  get- 
ting at  this  would  be  to  go  back  and 
demand  section  10  and  make  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  chief  architect  and  chief 
engineer  on  a par  with  the  attorney  and 
the  auditor.  They  are  certainly  posi- 
tions of  as  much  importance  as  that  of 
the  auditor.  They  are  highly  technical 
positions  and  on  a basis  on  the  same 
plane  as  that  of  attorney. 

It  seems  to  me  that  to  put  their  ap- 
pointment in  the  hands  of  a business 
manager  is  to  put  something  in  his 
hands  which  is  entirely  outside  of  his 
realm  and  the  duties  prescribed  for  him 
in  this  instrument. 

If  it  would  not  be  out  of  order  I 
would  like  to  move  as  an  amendment,  go- 
ing back  to  section  10,  the  appointive 
position  of  architect  and  chief  engineer, 
that  they  be  placed  in  the  hands  of  a 
board,  and  I so  move  that  we  would  re- 
vert to  section  10,  and  as  a substitute  for 
Mr.  Bosenthal ’s  motion,  that  the  appoint- 
ment of  the  chief  architect  and  chief  en- 
gineer be  placed  in  the  hands  of  the 
board,  and  the  words  describing  the  of- 
fice be  inserted  in  line  2 of  section  10. 
That  is  where  they  belong. 

It  is  perfectly  ridiculous,  it  seems  to 
me,  to  put  the  appointment  of  an  ar- 


chitect and  a chief  engineer  in  the  hands 
of  the  business  manager  of  the  board. 

ME.  FISHEE:  I coincide  with  what 

Mr.  MacMillan  has  said  about  putting 
the  architect  under  the  business  manager, 
but  a little  while  ago  we  were  discussing 
the  function  of  the  board  of  education 
and  gentlemen  seemed  to  be  very  appre- 
hensive that  the  board  was  going  to 
play  politics  with  the  superintendent. 

Nowr,  you  cannot  put  the  architect 
right  in  the  hands  of  the  board  and  you 
can  gamble  on  politics  in  that  appoint- 
ment. You  do  not  have  to  guess  at  this 
thing.  We  all  know  that  is  the  way  the 
thing  happens  in  some  instances.  I un- 
derstand we  have  the  architect  ap- 
pointed under  the  civil  service.  Why 
shouldn ’t  the  architect  and  chief  en- 
gineer be  where  they  are — appointees  of 
the  civil  service?  It  is  a technical  mat- 
ter and  should  have  a technical  examina- 
tion. The  business  manager,  who  looks 
after  the  policy  of  the  business  ends,  is 
to  be  an  appointee  of  the  board,  and, 
therefore,  he  takes  care  of  the  policy. 
But  the  architect  takes  care  of  the  plans 
and  all  those  things.  It  is  one  of  the 
offices  in  which  you  can  have  civil  ser- 
vice examination,  and  you  are  not  to 
understand  that  your  civil  service 
answer  will  not  provide  for  experience, 
so  that  your  young  boy  out  of  school  will 
leave  an  experienced  man  to  disadvant- 
age. I am  in  favor  of  Mr.  MacMillan’s 
substitute. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : The  question  is 

that  the  chief  engineer  and  chief  archi- 
tect, provided  in  section  10,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  designation  of  their  duties 
as  described  by  Mr.  Bosenthal. 

MB.  YOUNG:  I rise  to  a point  of 

order.  I think  you  cannot  amend  sec- 
tion 10  in  that  way  now. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : That  really  can- 

not be  done  without  a reconsideration 
of  that  section.  The  chair  was  trying 
to  get  at  it  in  the  quickest  way.  As 
many  as  there  are  in  favor  of  Mr.  Mac- 
Millan’s motion  will  say  Aye.  Opposed 


m 


February  25 

No.  The  motion  is  lost.  The  question 
reverts  to  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  motion. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I am  going  to  ask 

that  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Rosenthal  be 
divided,  so  that  the  selection  or  appoint- 
ment of  these  two  officials  be  made  by 
the  board,  but  they  do  not  be  put  under 
civil  service,  but  be  exempt  from  civil 
service. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  We  have  just 

voted  on  that. 

%MR.  RAYMER:  I did  not  know  it 

was  decided. 

MR.  MacMILLAN ; I submit  that  is 
the  motion  which  has  just  been  voted 
on  and  decided.  I am  entirely  in  agree- 
ment with  the  aldermen  on  that,  but  I 
believe  he  voted  the  other  way. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

on  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  motion? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  What  is  it? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it  again. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal: The  board  of  education  shall 

maintain  a bureau  of  buildings  and 
construction,  etc. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  If  you  are  going  to 
apply  the  civil  service  law,  and  bring 
this  under  the  civil  service  law,  you 
should  not  attempt  to  amend  the  civil 
service  law,  and  Mr.  Rosenthal  should 
strike  that  out  from  his  resolution.  He 
cannot  prescribe  rules  for  the  civil  serv- 
ice commission. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any  ob- 

jection to  that? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  it  is 

very  important  that  the  examination 
for  architects  be  held  only  for  archi- 
tects. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  May  I answer 

Mr.  Rosenthal’s  question? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  If  that  be  the 

case,  why  shouldn’t  the  office  of  chief 
engineer  be  submitted  to  a board  of 


1907 

engineers?  Why  make  a resolution  ex- 
cluding him? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  no  ob- 

jection to  that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  agree  thalt 

that  shall  be  stricken  out? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I agree. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  stricken 

out. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as 

are  in  favor  of  the  motion  will  signify 
by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no. 

The  resolution  is  lost. 

MR.  FISHER:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  a 

roll  call? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I cannot  quite  see 

why  this  desire  is  to  destroy  the  or- 
ganization of  the  past  at  every  point, 
even  where  there  is  no  trouble.  Now, 
the  chief  engineer  and  the  chief  archi- 
tect, or  the  architect,  has  control,  at 
the  present  time,  of  all  of  the  buildings 
of  the  board  of  education. 

It  is  a position  that  is  one  of  high 
honor,  as  arranged  at  the  present  time, 
gentlemen,  and  under  these  provisions 
the  man  is  a clerk  of  the  business  man- 
ager and  subject  to  the  business  man- 
ager, and  you  simply  cannot  get  the 
kind  of  an  architect  that  the  great 
school  construction  work  of  Chicago  is 
entitled  to,  under  such  conditions  as 
that. 

You  want  to  have  an  architect  who 
has  a great  interest  in  the  character  of 
the  business,  who  is  up  on  all  questions 
of  architecture,  who  knows  the  whole 
story,  and  who  will  give  to  your  build- 
ings character,  individuality  and  the 
highest  sort  of  excellence. 

Now,  the  head  engineer  is  the  man 
of  the  same  type  exactly.  This  whole, 
entire  ventilation  system  in  Chicago  is 
the  invention  of  Mr.  Waters,  who  is  the 
present  chief  engineer.  Now,  take 
those  two  men  and  make  them  clerks  of 


1091 


February  25 


1092 


1907 


the  business  manager,  and  the  whole 
business  falls  into  the  general  adminis- 
tration of  the  business  of  the  board, 
and  all  of  it,  except  the  buildings  and 
some  relative  matters,  such  as  the  dis- 
cipline of  the  board,  is  subject  to  the 
school  management  committee.  It 
seems  to  me  this  convention  now  is 
seeking  to  do  a thing  which  it  would  not 
do  if  it  thoroughly  understood  the  sit- 
uation. I hope,  gentlemen,  that  this 
board  and  this  convention  will  not  put 
under  a business  manager  the  architect 
and  chief  engineer  if  we  hope  to  get 
the  kind  of  service  for  those  two  de- 
partments that  the  City  of  Chicago  is 
entitled  to. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Robins,  you 

are  talking  pending  a roll  call.  The 
Chair  has  not  interrupted  you,  knowing 
that  you  had  something  to  say,  but  the 
Chair  will  have  to  interpose  now  be- 
cause some  of  the  members  are  insist- 
ing upon  the  roll  call  being  taken. 

The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of 
Mr j Rosenthal ’s  motion. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Beilfuss,  Burke,  Cole, 
Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Lathrop,  Lin- 
ehan,  Merriam,  Michaelis,  Owens,  Pen- 
darvis,  Post,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shana- 
han, Shepard,  Snow,  Taylor,  Thompson, 
Zimmer — 22. 

Nays — Bennett,  Brosseau,  Eckhart,  B. 
A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Harrison, 
Hoyne,  Hunter,  MacMillan,  McGoorty, 
McKinley,  Paullin,  Raymer,  Smulski, 
Yopicka,  Wilkins,  Young — 17. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal’s motion  the  ayes  are  22  and  the 
nays  are  17.  It  is  adopted.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Section  30. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Gentlemen,  inad- 

vertently, I presume,  the  drafting  com- 
mittee has  omitted  after  the  word 
“features”  on  line  first  and  line  third 
the  word  “principals,”  which  was  in- 
cluded in  the  original  draft. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  it  will  be  inserted. 


MR.  TAYLOR:  There  is  no  objec- 

tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  31. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  finishes  the 

special  order.  Proceed  now  to  Sec- 
tion— 

MR.  TAYLOR:  Doesn’t  this  com- 

pulsory education  come  under  educa- 
tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  not  a 

special  matter.  Your  motion  was  Sec- 
tion 19.  That  will  be  taken  up  in  its 
regular  order. 

MR.  TAYLOR:  I meant  to  include 

it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Article  XIV. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  111,  Ar- 

ticle XIY.  Streets  and  Public  Places. 
1,  2,  3,  4,  5;  112—6. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  seems  to  me, 
in  Section  4,  where  we  give  this  unlim- 
ited power  to  the  city  council  to  permit 
the  use  of  space  below  the  level  or  sur- 
face of  the  streets,  it  ought  to  be  lim- 
ited to  a certain  time.  That  ought  to 
be  limited  to  a period  of  not  to  ex- 
ceed in  each  case  one  year.  I,  therefore, 
move  it  as  an  amendment  to  that  sec- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

amendment? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  To  limit  any 

such  grant  for  a period  of  one  year, 
because  otherwise  it  can  be  given  for 
an  unlimited  period. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Read  the  second 

paragraph. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  may  mean 
as  it  may  provide  in  the  particular  or- 
dinance. Now,  it  does  not  provide  for 
revocation.  I do  not  believe  in  giving 
irrevocable  grants. 

MTR.  HARRISON:  I will  offer  as  an 
amendment  to  that  the  substitution  of 
the  word  “ten”  for  “one,”  and  give 
the  city  the  right  to  grant  a franchise 
for  ten  years. 


February  25 


1093 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  Section 

4 you  are  referring  to? 

ME,  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  all  right 
if  you  have  it  definite. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Harrison 

moves  to  amend  that. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  I accept  that. 

MR.  POST:  I move  as  a substitute 

to  strike  out  the  words  “as  the  city 
council  may  provide”  at  the  end  of  the 
second  line  at  the  next  paragraph. 

MR.  SNOW:  On  the  motion  made 

by  Mr.  Post,  I would  like  to  say  that 
besides  a limit  of  ten  years,  that  the 
council  may  provide  that  the  city,  as 
it  does  at  the  present  time,  may  revoke 
those  grants  at  any  time  at  the  will  of 
the  council  or  the  mayor.  That  pro- 
vision should  be  inserted  in  every  one 
of  those  grants. 

MR.  POST:  Then  both  motions 

should  stand? 

MR.  SNOW : Then  both  the  motions 

will  stand. 

MR.  POST:  I am  willing  to  accept 

that. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  Do  I understand 
Mr.  Harrison's  motion  to  be  for  a pe- 
riod not  exceeding  ten  years? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  Mr.  Post 

moved  to  strike  out  “as  the  council 
may  provide.” 

MR.  SNOW:  Of  course,  I understand 
he  withdraws  that  in  case  a ten-year 
period  is  fixed  so  that  the  council  may 
still  make  it  revocable  at  will? 

MR.  FISHER:  Where  is  this  amend- 
ment supposed  to  be  inserted? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Post  amend- 
ment provides  that  the  city  council 
shall  have  power  for  a period  of  not 
greater  than  ten  years  to  permit  the 
use  of  space  below  the  sidewalk  in 
Section  4. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No. 

MR.  SNOW:  No. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  should  be  this 
way:  No  such  terms  shall  be  for  a term 
exceeding  a period  of  ten  years,  and 


subject  to  revocation  by  the  city  coun- 
cil. 

MR.  FISHER:  By  what? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : By  revocation  of 
the  city  council. 

MR,  FISHER:  At  any  time? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  This  is  the  way 
it  should  read:  Any  such  grant  should 

not  exceed  ten  years  and  should  be  sub- 
ject to  the  terms  thereof,  and  subject 
to  revocation  as  the  city  council  may 
provide. 

MR,  FISHER:  I thought  I would  call 
your  attention  to  the  language — “as 
the  city  council  may  provide.”  I think 
this  is  susceptible  of  considerable  am- 
biguity. You  might  get  out  the  ten- 
year  permit  and  not  be  able  to  do  any- 
thing with  it  for  ten  years.  Now,  I 
think  it  should  be  “revokable  by  the 
city  council  at  any  time. ' ' 

MR.  POST:  My  proposition  was  this, 
to  leave  Mayor  Harrison's  amendment 
as  it  stands,  i.  e.,  for  ten  years,  and 
then  strike  out  the  six  words,  to  re- 
move any  ambiguity,  so  that  although 
the  term  is  for  ten  years,  it  is  still  sub- 
ject to  revocation  at  any  time. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  should  be. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  the  point.  I 

do  not  quite  think  that  the  question 
implies  that  best,  unless  it  is  specifically 
stated  in  it:  “Subject  to  the  revoca- 

tion of  the  city  council  at  any  time.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  we  are 

all  agreed  that  the  provision  is  that  the 
terms  shall  be  limited  to  ten  years  and 
the  city  council  shall  have  the  right  to 
revoke  at  any  time.  Is  that  the  view 
of  the  Convention?  All  in  favor  signify 
by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  It  is  car- 
ried. Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  No.  6. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No.  5.  An  at- 

tempt is  made  there  to  interfere  with 
what  is  at  the  present  time  a general 
law  in  regard  to  the  reversion  of  real 
estate. 


February  25 


1094 


1907 


I see  no  reason  for  ambiguity  in  the 
city  charter  in  any  such  matter  that  I 
know  of  as  to  general  reversionary 
rights. 

ME.  PENDARVIS:  You  cannot  do 

that. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  The  point  of  the 
matter  is  that  if  a public  law,  or  the 
public  street,  the  fee  of  which  is  vested 
in  the  city  is  vacated,  the  title  would 
revert  to  the  original  owners,  under 
the  law.  Here  the  attempt  is  made  to 
have  that  revert  to  somebody  else.  It 
seems  to  me  it  is  inexpedient  to  put  it 
into  a city  charter.  They  ought  to  have 
a matter  of  that  sort  covered  by  a 
general  law  applying  to  all  the  states. 
I now  move  to  strike  out  that  entire 
section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  motion  of  Mr.  Rosenthal.  The  mat- 
ter is  before  the  house. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  matter  was  dis- 

cussed very  thoroughly  before  the  com- 
mittee, and  it  was  thought  this  should 
be  the  thing  to  clear  up  a lot  of  am- 
biguity that  existed.  Now,  while  it 
could  be  done  by  a general  statute,  if 
the  rest  of  the  people  of  the  state  are 
not  interested  in  having  a general 
statute,  then  we  are  not. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  There  are  more 

cases  that  come  up  from  the  country 
than  come  up  from  Chicago. 

MR.  FISHER:  If  the  general  assem- 
bly were  to  put  through  a law,  the  City 
of  Chicago  would  be  satisfied,  but 
should  we  put  our  reqeust  into  the 
state  charter? 

MR.  SNOW:  Who  would  it  revert 

to? 

MR.  FISHER:  It  would  revert  to 

the  state.  It  would  revert  to  the  prop- 
erty owners  on  either  hand.  This  clears 
up  any  ambiguity  there  is. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  May  I ask  a 

question? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Does  this  clear 


up  the  difficulty  we  are  having  at  the 
present  time,  where  the  provision  of 
this  charter  itself  says  except  where 
such  plat  shall  be  vacated  according  to 
law? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  That  does  not 

clear  it  up. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  was  intended 

to  accomplish  that  result.  The  matter 
I referred  to  was  discussed  by  Mr.  Wil- 
son and  Prof.  Freund,  and  this  is  the  re- 
sult. Prof.  Freund,  I am  sorry  to  say, 
is  not  here  with  us  this  afternoon.  I 
am  not  arguing  in  favor  of  the  exact 
language.  All  I want  to  call  the  at- 
tention of  the  Convention  to  is  that  the 
matter  was  pretty  fully  considered  in 
the  committee,  and  this  was  thought  to 
have  value  on  that  ground.  If  anybody 
has  any  specific  objection  as  to  the 
form  of  the  language,  I think  it  should 
be  stated. 

MR.  SNOW:  If  this  matter  should 

stand  as  a matter  of  law,  it  certainly 
should  stand  as  a matter  of  equity  at 
the  present  time.  When  we  vacate,  as 
the  council  is  frequently  called  upon  to 
do,  a street  or  alley,  it  is  a common 
law  deduction,  and  most  of  our  common 
laws  are  so  construed  that  the  rever- 
sionary right  goes  back  to  the  heirs  of 
the  original  subdivider. 

The  City  of  Chicago  requires  - pay- 
ment from  those  who  are  being  benefited 
by  the  vacation,  and  it  should  be  in 
position  to  give  title  as  it  stands  now; 
unless  those  benefited  by  the  vacation 
can  secure  a quit  claim  deed  from  the 
original  heirs,  which  is  a thing  I know 
in  a great  many  instances  cannot  be 
done,  as  the  heirs  cannot  be  found,  and 
the  fact  leaves  a cloud  on  the  title  of 
the  property.  Now,  that  should  be 
cleared  up,  and  if  this  clause  can  stand 
the  law,  it  is  one  which  should  be 
adopted  by  this  Convention. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I understand, 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  Supreme  Court 
has  expressly  held  that  the  legislature 


February  25 


1095 


1907 


cannot  deprive  the  reversionary  right. 
It  is  so  decided  in  the  85th  Illinois,  and 
the  second  paragraph  of  Section  7 is 
subject  to  the  same  objection,  and  it 
has  been  absolutely  held  to  be  sur- 
plussage  and  of  no  legal  value  what- 
ever. The  legislature  cannot  deprive 
the  original  owner  of  the  right  to  the 
reversion. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Can  the  owner 

himself? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  No. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  A case  came  up 
on  an  act  passed  to  remedy  the  trouble, 
and  it  was  held  that  the  reversion  or 
fee  should  vest  in  the  ownership  of  the 
property  on  each  side,  and  that  was  ex- 
pressly held  unconstitutional,  and  it 
was  decided  that  you  could  not  deprive 
a man  of  his  property  in  that  way  by 
legislation;  that  is,  his  reversionary 
rights. 

I do  not  think  an  amendment  to  this 
constitution  which  authorizes  this  act 
was  intended  to  amend  the  constitution 
as  to  property  rights,  or  reversionary 
rights,  and  I believe  it  is  a nullity, 
and,  therefore,  I am  in  favor  of  having 
it  stricken  out. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 

section  provides  that  when  a man  by 
his  own  voluntary  act 

MR.  FISHER:  That's  right. 

MR.  BENNETT:  dedicates  a 

piece  of  land  by  making  a plat,  it  pro- 
vides the  fees  shall  vest  in  the  city. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  “For  the  uses 

intended  and  indicated  by  the  plat" — 
that  is  whdt  it  says. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett  has 
the  floor. 

MR.  BENNETT:  In  my  judgment, 

that  should  go  in  and  clear  up  the  mat- 
ter. As  it  is  now,  it  will  prevent  such 
very  exacting  compensation.  I think 
this  section  should  remain  in  a charter. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

have  in  mind  a particular  case  in  point 
where  something  like  1,400  feet  were 


recently  dedicated  to  a street  for  street 
purposes.  I know  that  party  that  dedi- 
cated that  for  street  purposes  would  not 
like  to  have  those  streets  or  parts  of 
this  street  vacated  at  the  request  of 
anyone,  or  at  the  will  of  the  city  coun- 
cil, unless  he  knew  that  would  revert 
to  him.  Now,  I am  speaking  for  my- 
self now.  About  1,300  feet.  I would 
certainly  not  waste  a vote  for  anything 
that  would  allow  them  to  vacate  that 
at  any  time  the  council  should  see  fit, 
and  then  have  it  revert  to  somebody 
else.  There  is,  in  other  words,  where  I 
live — there  are  several  parks;  and 
there  are  buildings  in  some  of  those 
parks;  and  they  were  all  dedicated  for 
the  use  of  the  people  who  live  in  that 
locality.  I know  of  one  particular  build- 
ing that  certain  interests  out  there  are 
very  anxious  to  have  used  for  other 
purposes  than  that  for  which  it  was 
dedicated.  That  would  revert  to  the 
original  property  owner.  Now,  I am 
talking  about  a piece  of  property  which 
is  worth  over  half  a million  dollars,  or 
about  half  a million  dollars.  They  were 
trying  very  earnestly,  certain  interests, 
to  have  a station,  a police  station, 
turned  into  a public  library,  and  it  was 
originally  given  as  a town  hall  to  the 
parks — a town  hall  and  a police  station 
in  one — and  as  long  as  the  city  leaves 
it  as  it  is,  using  it  for  a police  station, 
it  is  all  right,  but  the  moment  they 
change  it  it  reverts  to  the  original  prop- 
erty owner.  I am  in  a position  where  I 
don't  want  to  have  that  done.  I do  not 
believe  it  is  legal,  and  I do  not  want 
it,  so  I am  prepared  to  vote  against  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  Mr.  Bennett 

has  no  objection,  the  question  will  be 
upon  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  proposition.  As 
many  as  favor  Mr.  Rosenthal's  propo- 
sition to  strike  out  the  section  will  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no.  The 
motion  is  carried.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  No.  6. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No.  6,  Mr. 


February  25 


1096 


1907 


Chairman.  I move  the  words  in  the 
second  line  of  No.  6,  “Streets  or  alleys 
intersecting  the  same,”  should  come 
out;  and  also  that  the  last  sentence  of 
the  paragraph,  which  says:  “A  map  or 

plat  of  land  subdivided  into  lots,  with- 
out streets  or  alleys  intersecting  the 
same,  shall  not  require  such  approval  in 
order  to  be  recorded. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  read 

that? 

THE  SECRETARY:  I have  got  it 

here. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I make  that  mo- 
tion. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

want  to  say 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Permit  me.  I 

want  to  speak  to  that.  In  regard  to 
that  matter,  I have  had  a talk  with 
Mr.  Freund,  and  Mr.  Freund  showed  me 
a letter  this  morning  from  the  recorder 
of  deeds,  in  which  he  stated  the  objec- 
tions in  such  a provision.  Now,  the 
trouble  very  often  is  that  in  regard  to 
this  subdivided  and  platted  land  the 
platter  and  subdivider  may  include 
more  land  than  he  actually  has,  and  in- 
clude part  of  the  street  or  alley  without 
intending  to  include  any  part  of  the 
street  or  alley.  Every  plat  and  sub- 
division in  the  city  should  be  submit- 
ted to  some  competent  person  for  ap- 
proval before  it  is  put  of  record,  other- 
wise it  may  include  part  of  a street  or 
alley. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  this 
section,  as  drawn,  requires  the  submis- 
sion of  the  plat  where  there  is  any  in- 
tersecting street  or  alley.  The  recorder 
must  provide  for  such  inspection,  or  it 
will  simply  be  a nullity.  This  last  sec- 
tion gives  a man  the  right  to  subdivide 
a lot,  for  instance,  so  long  as  he  does 
not  encroach  upon  the  street,  a right 
which  he  ought  to  have.  If  he  has  a 
hundred-foot  lot,  and  wants  to  make  a 
new  plat  and  divide  it  into  two  lots, 
without  encroaching  on  the  street,  the 


city  has  no  interest  in  the  question. 
The  only  thing  the  city  is  interested  in 
is  the  street. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Streets  and  al- 

leys, you  mean. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Yes,  sir.  What 

possible  objection  can  there  be  to  hav- 
ing them  submitted  where  the  streets 
and  alleys  are  intersecting? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  What  possible 

objection  can  there  be  to  having  every 
plat  in  the  city  submitted  to  some  au- 
thority for  approval? 

MR.  BENNETT:  What  do  you  mean 
by  city  property? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Any  piece  of 

land  in  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago. 

MR.  BENNETT:  This  included 

property  the  city  .is  not  interested  in. 
The  city  is  simply  interested  in  the 
street  feature.  A man  desires  to  sub- 
divide his  property  for  mere  con- 
venience, and  he  has  the  right  to  do  it, 
just  the  same  as  he  has  in  regard  to 
any  other  instrument. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  “Question.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
motion  is  to  strike  out  the  words  “with 
streets  or  alleys  intersecting  the  same,” 
and  also  “a  map  or  plat  of  land  sub- 
divided into  lots,  without  streets  or  al- 
leys intersecting  the  same,  shall  not  re- 
quire such  approval  in  order  to  be 
recorded.”  All  those  in  favor  of  the 
motion  signify  the  same  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  All  those  in  favor  say 
aye;  opposed,  no.  The  noes  have  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  No.  6. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I ask  for  a roll 
call. 

MR.  HUNTER:  It  is  no  good;  you 

have  lost  it. 

MR.  FISHER:  I want  to  call  the 

court’s  attention — or  the  chair’s  atten- 
tion— to  the  vote  on  this  last  section. 
A number  of  us  understood  it  was  Mr. 


February  25 


1097 


1907 


Bennett's  motion;  the  original  motion 
to  stand. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett 

withdrew  it. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I withdrew  it  in 

accordance  with  the  Chair's  suggestion. 

MR.  FISHER:  Around  here  we  were 
voting  on  Mr.  Bennett's  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  is  no  ob- 

jection to  a motion  to  reconsider  it; 
that  is  the  only  way  it  can  be  opened 
up. 

MR.  FISHER:  I move  to  reconsider 

the  vote  on  Section  6. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  vote  to  re- 

consider the  vote  on  Section  6.  Just  a 
minute. 

MR.  FISHER:  Section  5;  I beg  par- 

don. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher 

moves  to  reconsider  the  vote  by  which 
Section  5 was  carried.  All  those  in 
favor  say  aye;  opposed,  no.  All  those 
in  favor  signify  the  same  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  The  motion  to  recon- 
sider is  carried.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll  upon  the  motion  to  strike  out 
Section  5.  If  the  gentlemen  will  keep 
their  eyes  on  the  indicator,  it  will  save 
a lot  of  time. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  motion  is 

upon  the 

MR.  HUNTER:  We  are  all  mixed 

up. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

upon 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  is  on  my  motion. 
THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

upon  Mr.  Rosenthal's  motion  to  strike 
that  section  out. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Section  5. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  section  5. 

What  you  vote  on  now  is  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal's motion  to  strike  section  5 out, 
and  the  secretary  will  call  the  roll  on 
that  motion. 

Yeas — Beebe,  Cole,  Greenacre,  Hoyne, 
Hunter,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Michaelis, 


Owens,  Paullin,  Pendarvis,  Raymer, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Yopicka — 16. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Fisher,  Guerin, ' Harrison,  Lath- 
rop,  McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
Post,  Robins,  Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow, 
Taylor,  Werno,  Young — 21. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  Is  this  to  re- 

consider? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  is  upon  a 

motion  to  strike  out  section  5. 

MR,  MACMILLAN:  To  strike  out? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  Aye. 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  change  my  vote;  I vote  no. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I change  my  vote 

from  aye  to  no. 

MR,  GUERIN:  I didn't  understand 

the  motion.  I want  to  change  my  vote. 

I want  to  vote  no.  

THE  SECRETARY:  Doctor  Guerin, 

no;  Beilfussrno;  Eidmann,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  motion 
to  strike  out  the  yeas  are  16,  and  the 
noes  21,  the  motion  is  lost. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Do  you  desire  a 

roll  call  on  No.  6? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 

will  call  the  roll  on  Mr.  Rosenthal's  mo- 
tion to  strike  out  “With  streets  or 
alleys  intersecting  the  same,"  and  the 
last  three  lines  of  the  same  clause,  “A 
map  or  plat  of  land  sub-divided  into 
lots,  without  streets  or  alleys  intersect- 
ing the  same,  shall  not  require  such  ap- 
proval in  order  to  be  recorded."  On 
Mr.  Rosenthal's  motion  to  strike  out 
these,  you  will  vote. 

Yeas — Beilfuss,  Greenacre,  Hunter, 
Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal 

Nays — Bennett,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann, Fisher,  Guerin,  Harrison,  noyne, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Me- 


February  25 


1098 


1907 


Goorty,  McKinley,  Merriam,  Michaelis, 
Post,  Shepard,  Snow,  Yopicka,  Zimmer 
—23. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  going, 

Mr.  Hoyne? 

MR.  HOYNE:  I have  an  important 

engagement. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  us  get 

through  with  this.  This  relates  to  real 
estate,  and  we  will  reconsider  the  reve- 
nue act  if  you  don’t  sit  down. 

MR.  POST:  I beg  pardon,  but  I 

wish  to  ask  what  this  vote  is  on. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  motion  is  to 

strike  out  of  section  6 the  words,  1 1 With 
streets  or  alleys  intersecting  the  same,” 
and  also  the  words:  “ A map  or  plat 

of  land  subdivided  into  lots,  without 
streets  or  alleys  intersecting  the  same, 
shall  not  require  such  approval  in  order 
to  be  recorded. 

MR.  POST:  I thought  that  motion 

had  been  passed  on.  I vote  no. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I desire  to  be  rec- 

orded as  voting  aye. 

THE  SECRETARY:  How  did  Gen- 

eral Young  vote? 

MR.  YOUNG:  No. 

MR  GUERIN:  I desire  to  vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Doctor  Guerin 

desires  to  vote  no. 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  I desire  to  vote 

aye. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Beilfuss,  aye; 

Hunter,  aye;  Guerin,  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  this  motion, 

the  yeas  are  7 and  the  noes  23,  and  the 
motion  is  carried — the  motion  to  strike 
out  is  lost. 

MR.  MACMILLAN : 23  to  7? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR,  MACMILLAN:  Then  I raise 

the  question  that  we  have  no  quorum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Don’t  raise 

that  question  now;  we  have  got  a lot 
to  do. 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  Well,  if  the 

record  will  show, — if  you  will  let  the 
record  be  so  that  it  does  not  show  that 


we  have  no  quorum,  it  will  be  all  right, 
and  Mr.  Rosenthal  will  withdraw  his 
motion  for  a roll  call,  so  the  record  shall 
not  show  that  we  have  less  than  a 
quorum  present. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  I don’t  care. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  Don’t  raise 

that  question. 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  Let  the  record 

show  a vote,  but  no  roll  call,  otherwise 
the  record  will  show  that  we  have  less 
than  a quorum  voting  on  this  question, 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I rise 

to  a point  of  order.  I think  there  is  a 
quorum  present. 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  No  quorum  an- 

swering. 

MR.  FISHER:  There  is  a quorum 

present.  Let  the  record  show. 

THE  SECRETARY:  There  is  a 

quorum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  was  a 

quorum  when  this  assemblage  was  called 
to  order. 

MR.  FISHER:  There  is  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 

advises  me  that  there  is  a quorum 
present,  and  therefore  the  vote  stands 
as  announced.  The  secretary  will  pro- 
ceed with  the  reading. 

THE  SECRETARY:  6,  7,  8. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
move  to  strike  out  the  second  para- 
graph of  section  7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN!  The  second  par- 
agraph of  section  7:  “Upon  such  clos- 
ing or  vacation,  the  lot  or  tract  of 
land” — the  secretary  will  read  what 
Mr.  Pendarvis  wants  stricken  out;  the 
second  paragraph  of  7. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  112,  sec- 
ond paragraph,  14-7:  “Upon  such  clos- 

ing or  vacation  the  lot  or  tract  of  land 
immediately  adjoining  on  either  side  of 
such  street,  alley  or  public  place,  or  por- 
tion thereof,  shall  extend  to  the  center 
line  thereof,  unless  otherwise  specially 
provided  in  the  ordinance.” 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman, 


February  25 


1099 


1907 


the  reason  for  making  that  amendment 
is  that  the  supreme  court  court  has 
held  that  that  precise  language  of  the 
statute  is  absolutely  null, — it  means 
nothing.  I cannot  see  why  we  want  to 
insist  upon  putting  it  in  the  charter 
when  the  supreme  court  has  held  the 
language  is  of  no  effect. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  may 
I say  a word  or  two  upon  this  subject? 
However  the  ruling  may  apply  to  our 
existing  rights,  evidently  the  drafting 
committee,  as  Mr.  Fisher  has  indicated, 
has  considered  this  with  Mr.  Wilson  and 
Professor  Freund  that  it  will  have  some 
benefit  in  the  charter,  and  it  cannot 
effect  a right  heretofore  existing,  but 
may  be  of  great  benefit  in  the  future. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

would  be  well  to  drop  this,  because  the 
effect  may  be  that  the  ground  might  go 
back  to  the  original  owner  when  it  was 
believed  that  it  was  going  back  to  the 
side  owners.  I don’t  think  it  should  be 
in  the  charter, — it  may  be  a delusion 
and  a snare. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I do  not  think  that 
is  so.  There  is  no  delusion  or  snare. 
It  is  a provision  which  is  inserted  in  the 
interests  of  the  city,  and  in  the  inter- 
ests of  the  property  owners. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  It  is  of  no  avail. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Under  present 

methods — in  the  first  place,  in  reference 
to  this  supreme  court  decision  we  have 
heard  of,  we  should  bear  in  mind  that 
we  have  provided  that  where  a man 
makes  a plat  subsequent  to  this  act, 
the  fee  rests  in  the  city.  Now,  the  prac- 
tical working  of  this  provision  will  be 
that  when  the  city  vacates  a street  the 
city  will  be  enabled  to  exact  as  com- 
pensation the  full  value  of  the  land, 
instead  of  part  of  the  value  which  it 
now  gets;  the  practice  today,  under  the 
present  law  is  that  the  city  gets  only 
a small  compensation,  and  the  man  who 
originally  sold  out  the  land  and  who  has 
parted  with  all  of  his  interest  in  the 


land  and  who  holds  this  reversionary 
interest  holds  onto  it  until  he  sees  fit 
to  part  with  it,  and  that  results  in  the 
city  getting  a smaller  return  in  the 
way  of  compensation,  it  puts  a club  in 
the  hands  of  the  man  who  has  no  real 
interest  there  to  exact  money  for  an 
interest  which  is  not  worth  anything 
to  speak  of.  I think  this  matter  should 
stand  as  printed,  and  I move  that  it 
take  that  course. 

MR.  FISHER:  I might  just  say  a 

few  words  in  answering  Mr.  Green- 
acre’s  point;  I want  to  call  attention 
to  the  fact  that  it  would  not  be  any 
delusion  or  snare  to  the  abutting  prop- 
erty owner,  if  he  has  secured  title,  if 
the  title  has  come  to  him  instead  of 
coming  to  somebody  else,  and  he  would 
not  consent  to  the  vacation  of  the 
street.  The  theory  of  the  case  is  that 
if  it  is  going  to  the  abutting  property 
owner  he  is  not  going  to  consent  so 
readily,  in  any  event,  he  is  that  much 
better  off  than  he  would  be  otherwise. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  ask  a 

question:  As  I understand  it,  it  is  not 
claimed  that  this  will  be  retroactive  at 
all? 

MR.  BENNETT:  No,  no. 

MR.  POST:  It  seems  to  me  we  have 

provided  that  where  any  dedication  of 
streets  shall  occur  the  fee  simple  title 
shall  be  in  the  city.  Now,  if  that  is 
so,  why  should  we  proceed  to  declare 
if  a street  is  vacated  the  fee  simple 
should  be  in  the  adjoining  property 
owner? 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  idea  is  that 

the  city  exacts  compensation.  This  is 
simply  transferring  title  to  the  adjoin- 
ing owner;  it  passes  by  operation  of 
law.  The  city  don’t  want  it;  there  is 
no  excuse  for  them  closing  a street 
where  it  is  needed  for  public  use. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I wish  to  raise 

my  voice  iln  protest  against  passing  im- 
portant legislation  of  this  sort  to  which 
is  attached  deep  legal  significance,  and 


February  25 


1100 


1907 


which  may  have  an  important  bearing 
on  a great  many  battles  of  the  city 
of  Chicago  in  the  future  in  this  manner, 
and  it  is  my  hope  that  we  may  not  act 
upon  it  now  or  act  upon  anything  so 
important  now  as  this  proposition  is  by 
voting  upon  it  as  matters  stand  at  the 
present  moment.  It  has  never  been  re- 
ferred to  the  law  committee  for  its  legal 
opinion,  the  law  committee  has  never 
passed  upon  it,  and  yet  here  we  are 
passing  legislation  as  a matter  of  fact 
when  we  are  not  sure  of  what  we  are 
doing.  Now  while  it  is  true  that  Aider- 
man  Bennett  has  had  a great  deal  of 
experience  in  real  estate,  he  is  a real 
estate  man,  yet  he  has  not  had  large 
experience  as  a lawyer.  What  would 
be  the  effect  if  this  were  to  be  put 
through?  Suppose  when  plats  are  re- 
quired in  the  future,  that  instead  of 
complying  with  every  statutory  require- 
ment, by  some  little  slip  made  in  it, 
perhaps  an  acknowledgement  not  dated, 
a corner  stone  may  have  been  omitted, 
or  the  number  of  feet  of  the  plat  may 
have  been  omitted,  or  something  of  that 
sort,  why  the  effect  will  be,  as  the  su- 
preme court  has  said,  that  it  is  not  a 
statutory  dedication.  All  those  things, 
in  all  those  things,  the  city  is  acquir- 
ing no  rights,  whereas  if  you  have  an 
absolutely  statutory  dedication  we  are 
acquiring  rights.  Now,  it  seems  to  me 
this  convention  ought  not  to  go  ahead 
with  an  important  matter  of  this  kind 
and  pass  slipshod  legislation  of  this 
sort  and  throw  the  work  on  the  legisla- 
ture. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  what  section 

does  the  gentleman  refer? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I refer  to  Sec- 

tion 27,  Part  2.  Of  course,  unfortun- 
ately, the  claim  will  be  made  that  my 
argument  applies  to  Section  5,  which 
was  voted  down;  but  this  is  a matter 
upon  which  Mr.  Kale  has  worked  for 
some  weeks,  and  he  does  not  even  know 
what  the  law  is,  and  he  has  a bill  be- 


fore the  legislature  at  the  present  time, 
and  here  we  are,  in  one  hour,  in  the 
afternoon,  attempting  in  this  slipshod 
way  to  transfer  title. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  the  gentle- 

man confine  himself  to  the  discussion 
of  the  merits  of  the  question? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  sir;  that 

is  a part  of  the  merits. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Confine  yourself 

to  what  is  the  legitimate  work  of  the 
convention. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Well,  I am  a 

member  of  the  convention,  and  I refer 
to  myself  just  as  well  as  the  others  here, 
and  I think  we  should  eliminate  this 
particular  provision;  I think  Mr.  Pen- 
darvis’  motion  ought  to  carry  for  that 
reason. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I offer  as  a substi- 

tute that  Sections  5,  6 and  7 be  re- 
ferred to  the  law  committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sections  5 and 

6 have  been  passed  upon.  That  requires 
a reconsideration. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I move  a reconsid- 

eration, Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  will  be 

done  with  it  when  it  goes  to  the  law 
committee?  When  is  it  the  intention  of 
this  convention  to  complete  its  work? 

MR.  RAYMER:  It  seems  to  me,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  this  is  a very  important 
matter  on  which  we  should  have  some 
information  from  the  law  committee, 
or  at  least,  should  have  some  expert 
opinion.  I have  not  heard  anyone  on 
the  floor  of  this  convention  today 
justify  the  action  that  is  contemplated 
by  the  passage  of  these  resolutions,  or 
these  amendments  as  printed.  I do 
not  believe  we  can  deprive  any  man  of 
his  constitutional  rights.  I do  not  pre- 
tend to  be  an  attorney  or  know  very 
much  about  the  law,  but  as  it  appeals 
to  me,  I do  not  think  it  is  possible.  It 
seems  to  me  this  subject  should  be 
handled  in  the  way  suggested.  I think 
we  should  get  expert  opinions  from  the 


February  25 


1101 


1907 


law  committee  on  this  point  before  we 
make  fools  of  ourselves  by  doing  some- 
thing here  which  would  tend  to  show 
that  we  do  not  know  what  we  are  doing. 

ME.  FISHEK:  There  is  no  ambi- 

guity about  this.  As  a matter  of  fact, 
it  seems  to  me  the  point  has  been  cov- 
ered by  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken. 
Mr.  Eosenthal  simply  says  this,  that 
if  this  plat  is  not  dedicated  according 
to  statute  this  statute  won't  apply. 
That  is  perfectly  true;  nobody  contro- 
verts that.  Now,  if  that  is  true,  there 
is  nothing  to  refer  to  the  law  committee. 
The  statute  itself — the  charter  itself 
says  that  it  don't  apply  to  plats  that  do 
not  comply  with  the  statute.  What  is 
the  use  of'  debating  the  proposition? 
There  is  nothing  to  refer  to  the  law 
committee,  there  is  no  question  in  dis- 
pute here  that  I can  see.  Mr.  Eosen- 
thal himself  concedes  if  the  plat  has 
been  dedicated  according  to  statute  it 
will  hold.  He  says  that  if  the  corner 
stone  has  been  omitted,  or  the  number 
of  feet  are  not  right  that  some  failure 
may  ensue  

THE  CHAIEMAN  (interrupting  Mr. 
Fisher):  Mr.  Young,  you  are  going  to 

break  up  the  quorum  here  if  you  leave 
now.  We  are  going  to  work  a while 
here  yet. 

ME.  YOUNG:  I have  got  to  go,  Mr. 
Chairman.  I am  willing  to  come  back 
here  this  evening,  I am  willing  to  spend 
two  or  three  hours  tonight  here,  but  I 
must  go  now. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  We  ought  to  at- 
tempt to  finish  up  here.  Proceed,  Mr. 
Fisher. 

ME.  FISHEE:  I cannot  understand 
what  the  legal  question  is  that  is  in 
doubt. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  Will  the  gen- 

tleman yield  to  a question? 

ME.  FJSHEB:  Certainly,  I will, 

with  pleasure. 

ME.  EOSENTHAL:  Do  you  know 

now,  can  you  say  definitely,  what  the 


words  mean  in  Section  5,  1 1 except  where 
such  plat  shall  be  vacated  according  to 
law"? 

ME.  FISHEE:  Certainly;  that  means 
what  it  says.  There  is  a statute  with 
regard  to  the  vacation  of  plats.  That 
is  entirely  different  from  the  vacation 
of  streets.  It  is  a statute  which  pro- 
vides for  the  vacation  of  the  entire 
plat. 

MB.  EOSENTHAL:  Yes,  but  this 

does  not  say  “ entire  plat." 

ME.  FISHEE : Well,  it  relates  to  the 
plat  or  part  of  plat  as  a plat,  and  is 
effective  according  to  the  statute. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Mr.  Hoyne,  wait 
a minute;  there  are  important  matters 
coming  up  yet.  I just  wish  to  say  one 
word  to  the  gentlemen  of  this  conven- 
tion. This  is  not  my  charter,  this  is 
your  charter.  If  the  gentlemen  of  this 
convention  are  not  willing  to  stay  here 
and  complete  this  work,  a resolution 
ought  to  be  adopted  showing  that  the 
members  of  this  convention  want  to 
abandon  it.  The  members  of  the  gen- 
eral assembly  have  to  go  back  to  Spring- 
field — Mr.  Eidmann,  wait  a minute — 
the  members  of  the  general  assembly 
have  to  go  back  to  their  work  at  Spring- 
field,  and  some  time  pretty'  soon  this 
charter  is  going  to  be  sent  down  there. 
The  chair  and  the  secretary  have  been 
spending  all  their  time  trying  to  get  a 
quorum  at  this  convention,  and  if  the 
members  do  not  remain  how  shall  we 
complete  the  work? 

ME.  SHEPAED:  Mr.  Chairman,  speak- 
ing just  a word  on  Mr.  Baymer's  sug- 
gestion — 

ME.  MAC  MILLAN:  Before  we  pro- 
ceed any  further  I would  like  to  sug- 
gest that  a motion  be  made  that  if  we 
are  going  to  take  a recess  that  we  take 
the  recess  now  before  these  gentlemen 
leave,  and  if  we  ate  going  to  stay  here 
until  this  work  is  finished  let  us  have 
some  expression  of  that  sort.  It  seems 
to  me  that  if  a motion  is  made  these 


February  25 


1102 


1907 


gentlemen  who  have  to  go  to  Springfield 
must  go,  and  the  chair  has  well  said 
that  this  charter  should  be  in  their 
hands. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I desire  to 

move  that  a recess  be  taken  now  until 
7:30  o’clock  this  evening. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Make  it  seven 

o’clock. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  say  just 

a word 

MR.  E ID  MANN : Make  it  eight 

0 ’clock. 

MR.  POST:  I have  been  here  a great 
many  times  and  I believe  I have  per- 
formed my  duties  to  the  best  of  my 
ability.  I am  interested  in  the  educa- 
tional section,  as  you  all  know,  and 
there  is  another  matter  that  is  a vital 
matter  to  me,  that  is  a vital  matter  in 
determining  my  attitude  on  this  char- 
ter, which  has  not  been  disposed  of  yet, 
and  that  is  the  matter  that  preceded  the 
educational  matter,  the  question  of  the 
referendum  with  regard  to  giving  away 
public  franchises  to  private  corpora- 
tions. That  is  an  important  matter,  and 
it  seems  to  me,  that  we  ought  all  to  be 
here  when  that  is  passed  upon.  Now, 

1 have  made  an  appointment  for  tonight 
that  I cannot  break,  and  yet  I want  to 
be  here  and  vote, and  while  I am  perfectly 
willing  that  the  rest  of  the  matter  may 
be  disposed  of,  yet  it  seems  to  me  we 
ought  to  have  the  right  to  reserve  that, 
and  I ask  the  reservation  of  that  ques- 
tion. There  can  be  no  such  rush  as  all 
this. 

I wish  to  say  in  addition,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, that  these  matters  were  not  called 
to  the  attention  of  this  convention  for 
ten  months  or  so,  and  then  suddenly 
and  all  at  once  matters  began  to  be 
active  and  busy,  and  continued  so  for 
a month  or  so,  then  there  was  another 
lull,  and  now  we  are  exceedingly  busy 
again.  I don’t  see  where  we  are  going 
to  lose  any  chance  of  getting  this  char- 
ter through  in  a reasonable  time  if  we 


postpone  this  matter,  say  until  tomor- 
row. 

I wish  to  move  that  in  Article  16, 
that  part  of  the  charter  which  I have 
referred  to,  be  reserved  for  considera- 
tion, Article  16,  and  that  it  be  made  a 
special  order  for  the  next  meeting  of 
the  convention  on  the  day  we  adjourn  to 
from  this  meeting. 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  I move  that 

this  convention  when  it  adjourns  ad- 
journs to  meet  this  evening  in  this  place 
at  half  past  seven  o’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion,  that  when  we 
adjourn,  we  adjourn  to  meet  again  at 
7:30  o’clock  tonight. 

MR.  FISHER:  I move  that  the  roll 

be  called  now  to  find  out  if  we  can,  how 
many  will  be  here  at  7:30  o’clock  to- 
night, if  we  adjourn  until  then.  Let 
us  know  whether  we  are  to  have  a quo- 
rum if  we  meet  here  tonight. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Perhaps  I can  be 

here,  but  it  will  be  a little  late. 

MR.  POST:  If  the  members  of  this 

convention  had  been  here  when  I was 
here  at  ten  o ’clock  this  morning  instead 
of  waiting  until  eleven,  and  keeping  me 
here  wasting  my  time  for  over  an  hour, 
and  if  they  had  come  here  at  half  past 
two  as  I did,  instead  of  three  o’clock, 
and  wasting  another  half  hour,  we 
might  have  been  through  without  vot- 
ing any  recess. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  Mr.  Post, 

the  chair  agrees  with  you  on  that. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON : Let  us  have  a 

roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 

will  call  the  roll  to  ascertain  how  many 
members  will  be  here  at  7:30  o’clock. 

Yeas — Baker,  Beebe,  Bennett,  Bros- 
seau,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eck- 
hart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher, 
Guerin,  Harrison,  Lathrop,  Linehan, 
MacMillan,  McKinley,  Merriam,  Mich- 
aelis,  Paullin,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 


February  25 


1103 


1907 


Shepard,  Smulski,  Snow,  Taylor,  Vo- 
picka,  Werno,  Young — 27. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Cole,  Greenacre,  Mc- 
Goorty,  Owens,  Post,  Raymer,  Robins, 
Zimmer — 9. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  I have  to«  attend 

a ward  convention  tonight,  and  it  is 
impossible  for  me  to  be  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  So  do  I,  and  I 

am  a candidate.  How  does  the  gentle- 
man vote? 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  No. 

MR.  COLE:  I am  obliged  to  be  ab- 

sent tonight  for  the  reason  that  there  is 
sickness  in  my  family,  and  I cannot 
be  here  on  that  account. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I vote  no,  but  I 
will  be  here  if  you  adjourn  to  that  time. 

MR.  POST:  I vote  no,  and  I will  not 

be  here. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I vote  “aye,”  and 
I will  be  here. 

MR.  WERNO:  I can  be  here  at  eight 
o ’clock. 

MR.  YOUNG:  I will  be  here;  I vote 
ave  for  eight  o’clock. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I should  like  to  be 

here,  but  I made  an  appointment  that 
will  prevent  me  from  being.  I have 
been  here  constantly,  I do  not  think  I 
have  missed  any  session  of  this  conven- 
tion, and  I do  not  like  to  miss  this  one 
tonight,  but  I have  made  this  appoint- 
ment and  I have  to  keep  it.  I vote  no. 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  I shall  be  here 

if  there  is  a session  of  this  convention, 
although  I have  had  to  be  out  of  the 
city  and  have  not  been  home  since  last 
Tuesday  morning. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  twenty-six 
say  they  will  be  here  and  nine  say  they 
won’t.  I make  twenty-seven  that  say 
they  will  be  here. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKIIART:  There  are 

others  that  are  not  here  now  that  will 
be  here  this  evening. 


MR.  ROBINS:  I move  that  we  ad- 

journ until  next  Friday  morning  at  ten 

0 ’clock. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  What  is  the 
ruling  of  the  chair  on  the  other  vote? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  There  is  no 

vote;  twentjr-eight  said  they  would  be 
here  and  nine  said  they  would  not  be 
here. 

MR.  POS:  I wish  to  raise  this  ques- 

tion, in  regard  to  the  motion  to  adjourn: 
It  is  not  supposed  that  you  are  going 
to  pass  this  charter  in  toto  before  it 
comes  back  for  final  action,  is  it?  You 
are  not  going  to  send  it  down  to  the 
legislature  before  you  do  that,  are  you? 

1 for  one  will  vote  against  the  charter 
until  it  comes  back  in  its  finished  form. 
If  it  goes  back  to  the  committee  and 
comes  here  completed  by  next  Friday, 
why  that  would  be  in  time  and  we 
would  have  it  before  this  convention 
again. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  We  can  have 
the  whole  thing  done  and  have  a meet- 
ing here  next  Friday,  if  we  complete  it 
now,  and  we  can  get  it  down  to  Spring- 
field  in  time. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I rise  to  a point 
of  order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

point  of  order? 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  The  point  of 
order  is  that  while  it  requires  a ma- 
jority of  all  the  members  to  pass  a 
measure,  less  than  that  number  can  ad- 
journ from  time  to  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  was  not 

upon  a motion  to  adjourn,  unfortun- 
ately. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I move  that  we 
adjourn  until  7:30  o’clock  this  even- 
ing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as  fa- 

vor that  motion,  signify  by  saying  aye; 
those  opposed,  no.  It  is  carried. 

And  the  convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  at  7:30  o’clock,  p.  m.,  February 
23,  1907. 


February  25 


1104 


1907 


EVENING  SESSION  7:30  P.  M. 


MR.  MacMILLAN:  In  order  to 

facilitate  business,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
move  that  the  calling  of  the  roll  be 
dispensed  with  and  we  proceed  to  busi- 
ness. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Very  well. 

Pursuant  to  recess,  we  will  take  up  the 
second  paragraph  of  Section  7,  Article 
XIV. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I believe  there 
is  a motion  pending  by  Mr.  Raymer, 
to  have  Sections  5,  6 and  7 referred 
to  the  law  committee. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : No  such  motion 
was  put,  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  it  was 
made. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No.  It  would 
require  a motion  to  reconsider,  and 
that  motion  was  not  made;  it  was  not 
put.  The  matter  is  upon  the  second 
paragraph  of  No.  7.  Any  motion  upon 
that  ? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : Mr.  Chairman, 
I think  Mr.  Pendarvis’  motion  is  be- 
fore the  house  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  Mr.  Pen- 
darvis’ motion  is  to  strike  out  the  sec- 
ond paragraph  of  Section  7. 

MR.  FISHER : Didn’t  he  withdraw 

that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Page  112. 

AIR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman, 

just  before  we  adjourned,  Mr.  Fisher 
had  been  speaking  to  this  question  and 
I was  on  the  point  of  asking  him  a 
question  relative  to  Section  7.  This  sec- 
tion is  so  drawn  that  it  covers  com- 
mon law  dedication  and  statutory  ded- 
ication both.  No  distinction  is  made 
so  far  as  this  section  is  concerned,  and 
apparently  it  is  intended  to  cover  any 
situation  that  may  arise  where  the  city 
council  should  vacate  the  street.  That 
is  the  objection  to  this  section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 

is  upon  Mr.  Pendarvis’  motion  to  strike 


out.  Is  there  any  further  discussion 
on  this  question? 

MR.  BENNETT : Mr.  Chairman, 

strike  out  what  part. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  second 

paragraph  of  the  section.  All  those 
in  favor  signify  the  same  by  saying 
“Aye.”  Opposed  “No.”  The  motion  is 
lost.  Now,  Section  8. 

AIR.  ROSENTHAL:  Will  you 

permit  me  to  ask — 

THE  CHAIRA1AN : The  Chair  is 

under  the  impression  that  the  vote  was 
distinct  enough,  but  if  you  wish  it  shall 
be  gone  over  again. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  What  I want 

is:  I want  to  give  notice  now  that 

I shall  move  to  reconsider,  because  I 
want  to  bring  that  out  at  a later  time. 
There  are  some  suggestions  that  I 
have  in  regard  to  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Very  well. 

Your  rights  will  be  preserved. 

AIR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I now  move  to  strike  out  the  second 
paragraph  of  Section  2. 

This  paragraph  so  far  as  I am  ad- 
vised was  not  considered  at  all  by  the 
Convention  when  we  went  over  it,  and 
I would  like  to  have  some  one  explain 
what  the  reasons  were  for  inserting 
that  section. 

It  seems  to  me  that  it  provides  a 
situation  that  would  not  be  desirable 
at  alL-a  situation  whereby  the  board 
of  local  improvements  could  take  the 
position  that  it  could  not  improve  a 
street  until  the  property  owners  along 
that  street  would  be  forced  to  ask  an 
improvement  and  thereby  would  be  cut 
off  from  the  50  per  cent  as  provided 
by  the  section. 

AIR.  RAYMER:  I agree  with  Air. 

Pendarvis  in  that.  This  provision  was 
not  passed  on  by  the  Convention  and  it 
seems  to  me  that  the  people  are  not 


February  25 


1105 


1907 


going  to  be  asked  to  be  permitted  to 
spend  their  money  unless  the  condition 
of  the  street  would  warrant  it,  and 
that  would  be  the  effect  of  it  if  this 
provision  was  in  here.  I second  the 
motion  of  Mr.  Pendarvis  to  strike  those 
rights  out. 

I want  to  say  by  way  of  explana- 
tion that  the  reason  why  that  was  put 
in  is  this:  Since  the  situation  might 

arise  in  which  the  city  would  not  be 
bound  therefore,  to  carry  on  the  work, 
of  street  paving  under  this  50  per  cent 
minimum  requirement;  under  such  cir- 
cumstances the  work  of  street  pave- 
ment might  accidentally  come  to  a 
standstill.  If,  under  such  circumstances, 
the  majority  of  frontage  abuttors  could 
not  petition  for  re-pavement  without 
this  50  per  cent  quorum  that  would  per- 
mit them  to  go  ahead  with  it.  It  seems 
to  me  to  be  a little  bit  dangerous  to 
tie  this  matter  up  with  a 50  per  cent 
requirement  for  all  the  future. 

We  might  have  financial  stringencies 
and  be  unable  to  recover  the  50  per 
cent.  This  provision  is  found  in  the 
laws  of  most  of  the  cities  and  the  law 
usually  permits,  like  the  New  York 
law,  which  permits  the  majority  to  pe- 
tition for  re-pavement  outside  of  the 
law. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  The  ex- 

planation made  by  Mr.  Merriam  after 
this  question  was  discussed  and  con- 
sidered by  the  committee  it  was  thought 
proper  to  permit  property  owners  front- 
ing on  the  street  if  they  desired  to  do 
so,  to  pave  the  street.  The  majority 
of  the  property  owners,  or  all  of  the 
property  owners  may  desire  at  any  time 
to  pave  a street  or  in  improving  a cer- 
tain street  and  in  case  the  city  had 
no  money  to  pave  a portion,  50  per 
cent  which  should  be  assessed  for  the 
public  benefit,  and  I cannot  see  any 
harm  in  permitting  property  owners,  if 
they  so  choose  and  desire  to  pave  the 
street,  to  do  so.  It  is  no  reason  why 


they  should  not  be  permitted  to  do  so. 

MR.  LATHROP : I understood  there 
was  another  matter  that  might  be 
covered  by  this.  Another  objection 
that  was  made  to  this  provision  was 
that  the  subdivisions  made  out  in  the 
country  might  be  paved  very  inex- 
pensively, and  then  after  a year  or  so 
the  property  owners  would  ask  for  the 
pavement  of  the  street  with  granite 
blocks,  asphalt,  or  something  far  more 
costly,  and  there  is  no  provision  that 
I have  discovered  in  this  article  guard- 
ing against  that  condition,  unless  it 
may  be  this  paragraph. 

MR.  BEEBE : It  seems  to  me  that 

this  provision  would  take  away  the 
right  of  a majority  of  people  for  tak- 
ing themselves  out  from  under  h,  posi- 
tion whereby  the  city  could  pay  50  per 
cent,  and  it  seems  to  me  this  provision 
might  be  made  in  such  a way  as  to 
cover  that  by  waiving  the  first  clause 
instead  of  providing  entirely  for  the 
ratification  of  the  jury. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I think  that  is 

right;  it  better  read  that  it  shall  not 
apply  if  those  rights  are  waived.  I 
think  that  would  be  better. 

MR.  BEEBE:  Yes. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  The  objection 

Mr.  Lathrop  urges  does  not  seem  to 
me  as  a valid  objection  because  of  the 
question  of  the  nature  and  the  char- 
acter of  the  improvement  is  all  with- 
in the  jurisdiction  and  the  authority 
of  the  Board  of  Local  Improvements, 
and  they  never  are  under  any  obliga- 
tion to  put  in  an  improvement  which 
they  think  is  not  fit  and  proper  for 
the  locality  where  it  is  situated.  It 
seems  to  me  that  as  drawn,  that  this 
provision  may  in  fact  almost  completely 
nullify  all  that  we  have  been  discussing 
at  great  length  and  which  was  finally 
fixed  upon  as  a suitable  provision. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Anything 

further? 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 


February  25 


1106 


1907 


think  there  is  a misapprehension  in  re- 
gard to  the  purpose  of  this  thing.  It 
seems  to  me  the  thing  is  of  importance. 
You  are  to  have  50  per  cent  and  you 
• would  have  a situation  where  the  city 
would  not  put  in  an  improvement  be- 
cause there  was  a number  of  property 
owners  who  might  prevent  the  improve- 
ment being  proceeded  with,  and  the 
city  contribute  25  per  cent.  The  work 
should  be  proceeded  with  if  only  for 
the  purpose  of  improvement.  We 
should  not  tie  our  hands  so  that  we 
cannot  go  ahead.  This  section  would 
be  redrafted  so  that  it  would  not  pre- 
sent these  objections. 

MR.  PENDDARVIS : Should  not  it 
be  charged  a percentage? 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  think  this 

makes  a great  deal  of  difference.  The 
majority  would  not  petition  without  50 
per  cent  unless  provision  for  a contribu- 
tion of  50  per  cent  is  available.  The 
majority  of  the  petitioners  would  con- 
sider no  petition  unless  it  was  clear 
they  would  get  a contribution  from 
the  city.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  mat- 
ter should  be  referred  to  the  committee 
for  re-drafting,  or  to  the  draftsmen, 
for  the  purpose  of  making  it  and  draw- 
ing it  so  that  it  would  permit  the  prop- 
erty owners,  or  a majority  of  the  prop- 
erty owners  to  petition  for  a pavement 
without  such  contribution. 

MR.  SHEPARD : That  is  the  inten- 
tion of  this. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  is  the  inten- 

tion of  this  provision. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Does  that  meet 
your  views,  Mr.  Pendarvis? 

MR.  FISHER:  Otherwise,  I think 

the  point  is  well  taken. 

MR.  BEEBE:  It  seems  to  me  that 

the  objectionable  features  of  it  might 
be  met  by  this  motion : “Provided  that 
the  majority  of  the  abutting  property 
owners  may  waive  all  or  a portion  of 
such  contribution  by  the  city.” 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Read  it,  Mr. 

Secretary. 

THE  SECRETARY  : By  Mr.  Beebe  : 
“Provided  that  a majority  of  the  abut- 
ting property  owners  may  waive  all 
or  a portion  of  such  contribution  by 
the  city.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Does  that  meet 
your  views,  Mr.  Pendarvis? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  It  does  not 

meet  the  situation  entirely,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, but  I don’t  care  to  urge  my  views. 
Of  course,  I wish  to  call  attention  to 
the  situation,  but  I do  not  waive  my 
right  to  ask  for  a reason  for  inserting 
the  provision  as  it  was  not  considered 
when  we  went  over  the  question  and 
the  adoption  of  the  principle.  But  I 
still  am  of  the  opinion  that  it  would 
be  just  as  well  not  to  adopt  the  pro- 
vision at  all. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman— 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : In  case  the 
city  has  money  to  pay  the  50  per  cent 
for  any  improvement  that  may  be  de- 
sired, in  such  instance  the  property 
owners  should  be  permitted  to  pave  the 
street  if  they  wish  to  do  so. 

MR.  GREENACRE : In  the  coun- 

try roads,  this  position  comes  up  quite 
often.  They  have  a law  there  that  un- 
der the  Roads  and  Bridges  Act  it  pro- 
vides for  property  owners  in  such  cases. 
‘I  make  no  motion,  but  I make  that 
suggestion,  that  you  will  find  something 
by  which  they  provide  for  that  in  the 
country  under  a section  of  the  Road 
and  Bridges  Act. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I want  to  ask  a 

question,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  regard  to 
this  matter : Supposing  that  the  minor- 

ity of  the  property  owners  on  the  street 
refuse  to  waive  their  rights  which  is 
guaranteed  to  them  in  the  previous 
clause  of  this  section ; I would  like  to 
have  that  question  answered. 

MR.  GREENACRE : Under  the 

country  provision,  they  can  be  com- 
pelled to  waive  it.  That  is  what  I want 


February  25 


1107 


1907 


to  lay  before  you.  Those  who  want  the 
road  paved  can  chip  in  something  and 
the  highway  commissioners  are  allowed 
to  chip  in.  That  is  the  way  it  is  done 
in  the  country.  I don’t  know  if  it  is 
applicable  to  the  city  or  not.  I merely 
make  the  suggestion. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I don’t  know 

whether  we  can  force  them  to  do  so 
in  this  case. 

MR.  GREENACRE : You  can  force 

them  there. 

MR.  RAYMER:  It  would  make  the 

burden  fall  very  heavily  upon  the  prop- 
erty owners. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question?  The  proposition  is 
that  the  drafting  committee  be  asked 
to  reconsider  this  section  in  conformity 
with  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Beebe  and 
the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Fisher.  As  many 
as  favor  that  proposition  say  “aye.” 
Opposed  “no.”  Carried. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 

I have  something  in  regard  to  the  same 
section ; in  the  sixth  line  of  the  first 
paragraph ; I ask  to  have  these  words 
inserted,  and  I wish  to  say  a word 
on  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY.  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal : “If  done  within  ten  years  of  the 

time  of  the  former  paving.” 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  The  object  of 
that,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  this : We  are 

tying  up  our  hands  forever  as  far  as 
repaving  is  concerned.  The  complaint 
is  made  now  that  we  have  not  enough 
money  with  which  to  do  our  municipal 
work ; and  we  are  asking  contributions 
for  this  special  purpose  in  regard  to 
certain  portions  of  the  city.  We  know 
that  in  the  course  of  ten  years  the 
pavements  are  absolutely  worn  out  so 
that  the  street  is  in  the  same  condition 
as  it  was  when  it  was  originally  paved. 
Now,  that  street  cannot  be  repaved  un- 
less 50  per  cent  of  the  cost  is  paid 


by  the  city.  That  seems  to  me  to  be 
inequitable,  and  if  in  the  case  of  the 
original  pavement  part  of  the  cost  was 
then  charged  to  the  property  owners, 
we  should  make  some  provision  for  it 
at  the  end  of  a certain  period  of  time ; 
when  that  has  elapsed,  say,  ten  years 
or  a longer  period,  that  we  shall  spread 
the  entire  cost,  which  can  be  taxed 
just  as  the  original  assessment.  That 
will  reach  the  evil  we  aim  at,  and  it 
seems  to  me  we  should  not  tie  our 
hands  in  this  manner. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  the  principle  is  ex- 
actly opposite ; the  correct  principle  is 
the  exact  opposite  of  what  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal has  stated.  Mr.  Lathrop  has  al- 
ready pointed  out  the  situation  where 
the  property  owners  will  put  in  a cheap 
pavement.  Now,  as  the  matter  now 
stands  a cedar  block  pavement  may  be 
put  in,  and  we  lay  such  pavements,  or 
an  easier  and  cheap  macadam  pave- 
ment, and  we  do  a lot  of  that,  that  is 
worn  out  in  a little  while  and  then 
comes  a necessity  for  asphalt  or  even 
some  more  expensive  pavement,  and  this 
city  pays  half  of  it.  Now,  as  a matter 
of  fact,  the  man  who  is  entitled  to 
have  the  city  contribute  to  this  pave- 
ment is  the  man  who  has  paid  for  the 
permanent  and  more  costly  form  of  im- 
provement. As  a matter  of  fact,  under 
the  suggestion  made  by  Mr.  Rosenthal, 
the  man  who  has  paid  in  full  for  a gran- 
ite block  pavement  that  lasts  longer 
than  ten  years,  for  which  the  life  is 
fifteen  or  twenty  years,  that  that  man 
cannot  get  any  contribution  from  the 
city.  When  they  come  to  lay  the  sec- 
ond granite  pavement.  Now,  the  man 
who  lays  a cheap  pavement,  rather  than 
the  man  who  lays  the  expensive  one, 
gets  half  of  the  expenses.  That  is  con- 
verse to  the  correct  principle.  If  there 
is  a differentiation  it  should  be  made 
in  exactly  the  other  way.  The  second 
pavement  is  the  second  improvement 


February  25 


1108 


1907 


and  it  may  not  have  lived  ten  years, 
and  we  should  consider  some  such 
scheme  as  that. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Will  you  let 

me  ask  a question? 

MR.  FISHER:  Certainly. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : Is  it  not  a fact 
that  the  man  who  pays  for  the  more 
expensive  pavement  will  get  the  great- 
est improvement  ? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  and  he  pays  for 
it.  Here  is  the  situation  : It  is  practically 
offering  a^  premium  to  go  and  put  in 
a cheap  pavement,  because  it  will  soon 
wear  out  rather  than  to  put  in  an  ex- 
pensive pavement  of  which  the  city  will 
pay  half  the  costs.  Whereas  if  a man 
puts  . in  a good  pavement  lasting  ten, 
twelve  or  fifteen  years,  he  gets  no  con- 
tribution from  the  city  when  the  second 
pavement  hereafter  comes  to  be  laid. 
That  does  not  seem  to  be  wise  public 
policy. 

Personally  I was  not  present  at  the 
time  when  this  percentage  was  adopted, 
and  if  it  were  proper,  if  we  had  a 
proper  attendance  here  so  that  the  en- 
tire Convention  could  vote  upon  it,  and 
we  would  not  be  taking  a snap  judgment 
on  the  others,  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
percentage  should  be  reduced  materially, 
and  may  be  increased  hereafter.  We 
should  adopt  this  policy  of  some  grad- 
uated scale  instead  of  going  at  once 
into  a large  expense 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Will  you  yield 
to  another  question  ? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Don’t  you 

think  there  would  be  a greater  in- 
centive if  you  were  to  have  a cheap 
pavement  put  down  the  first  time, 
wouldn’t  there  be  a greater  incentive 
for  the  property  owner  to  do  that  the 
first  time,  because  he  has  to  pay  for  it 
entirely,  whereas  in  five  years  he  will 
get  a more  permanent  pavement  to- 
wards which  the  city  will  pay  a sub- 


stantial part?  Wouldn’t  that  work  the 
other  way? 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  if  you  put 

the  time  limit  on  it  that  you  speak  of,  I 
think  it  would;  I think  the  city  should 
not  contribute  to  the  cost  of  the  sec- 
ond pavement  unless  it  is  laid  more 
than  ten  years  after  the  laying  of  the 
first. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  is  it  ex- 

actly. 

MR.  FISHER:  I did  not  so  under- 

stand that  that  was  the  proposition  you 
made. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Well,  then, 

you  did  not  understand  me,  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER:  Well,  I probably  did 
misunderstand  you,  if  that  is  the  case. 

MR.  BEEBE : I want  to  say  this, 

if  there  is  any  provision  in  this  charter 
that  is  popular,  this  is  it;  there  is  no 
other  provision  in  this  charter  I have 
found  more  popular  than  this  one,  pro- 
viding for  an  increase  of  taxation,  and 
among  the  property  owners  I find  this 
provision  is  very  satisfactory,  it  is  a 
most  popular  one,  probably  the  most 
popular  one,  in  the  charter,  and  I should 
like  to  see  it  stay. 

MR.  RINAKER:  Will  the  Secre- 

tary please  read  the  section  with  the 
amendment  in? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Secretary 

will  read  the  section  with  the  amend- 
ment inserted. 

THE  SECRETARY:  At  page  113, 

Article  XV,  Section  2,  as  amended  by 
Mr.  Rosenthal : 

“Whenever  a street  or  alley  shall  have 
been  paved  after  the  passage  of  this 
act  by  the  general  assembly,  and  a 
special  assessment  or  special  tax  there- 
fore shall  have  been  confirmed,  and  such 
special  assessment  or  tax,  or  if  divided 
into  installments,  the  first  installment 
shall  have  been  certified  for  cellection, 
not  more  than  fifty  per  cent  of  the  cost 
of  repaving  such  street  or  alley  at  any 
future  time  if  done  within  ten  years 


February  25 


1109 


1907 


of  the  time  of  the  former  paving)  shall 
be  imposed  upon  property  owners  by 
special  assessment  or  special  taxation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  that  is  proper 
if  done  within  ten  years,  it  says. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I will  word  it 

the  other  way  and  accept  your  amend- 
ment. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I think  this  would 
be  a great  mistake  to  put  this  in  there 
as  suggested  either  by  Mr.  Rosenthal 
or  Mr.  Fisher.  This  is  in  part  needed 
as  a compromise,  by  which  we  raise  the 
tax  rate  and  also  take  care  of  the 
street  paving.  Now,  if  we  are  going  to 
put  a ten-year  limit  in  here  it  may  put 
the  operation  of  the  act  so  that  per- 
haps in  fifteen  years,  say,  the  property 
owners  will  get  no  relief  at  all  im- 
mediately, and  but  postpone  it  for  half 
a generation,  which  I think  is  no  relief 
at  all. 

MR.  BENNETT : I agree  with  Prof. 
Merriam  as  to  what  he  said,  and  I 
move  that  that  section  stand  as  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 
Mr.  Bennett’s  motion,  that  the  section 
stand  as  printed.  As  many  as  favor 
that  motion  will  signify  by  saying,  aye. 
Opposed,  no. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I call  for  a rising 
vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  in 

favor  will  please  rise.  All  those  op- 
posed will  rise.  Aid.  Bennett’s  motion 
is  carried. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I rise  to  offer  an 
amendment,  and  I do  it  with  Mr.  Ben- 
nett’s consent,  and  I presume  it  does 
not  conflict  with  his  motion,  namely, 
to  strike  out,  commencing  with  the 
word  “the”  in  the  first  line,  the  fol- 
lowing: “The  passage  of  this  by  the 

general  assembly,”  and  insert  in  lieu 
thereof  “after  this  act  shall  take  effect 
and  become  operative.”* 


That  is  not  a minor  matter,  but  it  is 
a very  vital  matter,  when  you  come 
to  figure  the  matter  out  as  to  the  cost 
of  the  whole  thing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Shepard’s 

motion  is  to  make  the  time  after  this 
is  passed  and  when  it  becomes  operative, 
instead  of  after  its  adoption  by  the 
legislature. 

MR.  SHEPARD : I can  see  that  this 
is  one  of  the  things  that  is  just  as 
you  mentioned  awhile  ago,  is  a part 
of  the  whole  section,  it  is  a part  of 
the  increased  taxes ; now,  it  is  unfair 
to  say  that  this  part  shall  take  effect 
immediately  on  the  passage  of  the  act 
by  the  general  assembly,  and  then,  per- 
haps have  the  whole  act  fall  when  it 
is  voted  on  by  the  people.  You  do  not 
have  a revenue. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me,  the  whole 
charter  should  go  altogether  and  be- 
come the  language  of  the  charter  itself, 
the  last  clause  to  take  effect,  and  be- 
come operative.  The  language  any- 
how is  bad ; if  the  general  assembly  is 
(going  to  pass  it,  I think  this  clause 
should  take  effect,  as  the  other  clauses 
do  when  the  act  fairly  takes  effect  and 
becomes  operative. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  Mr.  Shepard 
will  admit  he  is  wrong,  for  this  rea- 
son : You  will  at  once  stop  all  street 

improvements  until  the  act  is  all  com- 
pleted, and  you  will  tie  up  everything 
here  so  that  no  one  will  want  to  do 
anything.  The  man  will  know  if  he 
waits  he  will  get  the  benefit  of  this 
50  per  cent,  and  if  not  then,  he  will 
wait  for  the  second  time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question? 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as 

favor  Mr.  Shepard’s  motion  will  sig- 
nify by  saying,  aye.  Opposed,  no. 

MR.  RINAKER:  I am  not  just  clear 
as  to  the  effect  of  Aid.  Bennett’s  mo- 
tion which  was  adopted  a moment  ago. 


February  25 


1110 


1907 


Did  he  mean  we  adopt  this  section 
as  printed,  or  did  he  mean  that  we 
adopt  this  section  as  amended  by  Mr. 
Beebe’s  amendment? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  amend-  j 

ment  of  Mr.  Bennett  was  that  the  sec-  j 
ond  paragraph  of  Section  2 of  Article  i 
XV  be  adopted  as  printed. 

MR.  RINAKER:  The  first  para- 

graph ? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  first  para- 
graph, I beg  your  pardon. 

MR.  RINAKER:  Then  Mr.  Beebe’s 

amendment  stands? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  I have  an  amend- 
ment to  offer  in  connection  with  this 
local  improvement  act. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Vopicka 

has  an  amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Vo- 
picka : '‘Whenever  the  making  of  a 

local  improvement  requires  the  exercise 
of  the  right  of  eminent  domain  and 
the  levying  of  an  assessment  for  the 
payment  of  compensation  to  the  own- 
ers of  private  property  to  be  taken  or 
damaged  for  said  improvement,  such 
assessment  may  at  the  discretion  of 
the  City  Council  be  made  payable  in  one 
sum  or  in  such  annual  installments, 
not  to  exceed  twenty,  as  the  said  City 
Council  may,  in  the  ordinance  for  the 
making  of  such  improvement  and  the 
levying  of  such  assessment,  provide,  and 
bonds  may  be  issued  to  anticipate  the 
collection  of  such  assessment  in  like 
manner,  as  near  as  may  be,  as  provided 
by  law  for  the  issuance  of  bonds  to 
anticipate  the  collection  of  special  as- 
sessments levied  for  the  payment  of  the 
cost  of  local  improvements  which  do 
not  involve  the  exercise  of  the  right 
of  eminent  domain.  Bonds  issued  for 
the  purpose  of  anticipating  the  collec- 
tion of  an  assessment  to  pay  the  com- 
pensation so  awarded  to  the  owner  of 
property  so  taken  or  damaged,  may  be 
sold  by  the  city  at  not  less  than  the 


par  value  thereof,  and  the  city  may 
guarantee  the  prompt  payment  at  ma- 
turity of  such  bonds  and  interest.” 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

wish  to  explain  the  resolution  just  of- 
fered. This  resolution  is  offered  for 
this  purpose:  In  case  large  improve- 

ments are  to  be  made  in  the  City  of 
Chicago,  like  the  opening  or  widening 
of  a street,  in  these  cases  they  gen- 
erally assess  from  25  to  50  per  cent, 
and  of  course  the  city  has  no  money 
for  that  purpose;  then,  unless  there  is  a 
certain  article  in  this  charter  in  regard 
to  that,  the  city  can  never  make  these 
large  improvements  which  are  so  neces- 
sary in  this  city. 

Suppose  a street  should  be  widened 
and  the  assessment  should  be  for  about 
$500.00;  the  city  would  pay  about 
$100.00  out  of  the  assessment  for  pub- 
lic benefit.  Now,  as  everybody  knows 
the  city  usually  has  no  money  for  that 
purpose,  and  I do  not  think  the  city 
will  ever  have  any  surplus  in  its  treas- 
ury to  use  for  that  purpose. 

Now,  if  the  city  should  be  authorized 
to  issue  bonds  for  this  purpose  in  ad- 
vance, the  property  can  be  condemned 
and  . the  improvement  can  be  ac- 
complished. Now,  this  is  absolutely  es- 
sential to  this  charter.  If  we  are  go- 
ing to  make  lots  of  improvements,  such 
as  dividing  streets,  widening  streets  and 
so  forth,  unless  we  have  something  of 
this  kind  in  the  charter,  we  cannot 
think  of  making  improvements  of  that 
kind.  For  this  reason,  Mr.  Chairman, 
I move  the  adoption  of  the  resolution. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  What  is  the 

necessity  of  having  the  city  guarantee 
the  bonds? 

MR.  VOPICKA:  Because  you  can- 

not dispose  of  them  unless  they  are 
guaranteed. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  answer  to 

Mr.  Greenacre’s  question,  I might  say 
that  the  city  would  be  liable  for  the 
condemnation  money,  and  it  would  be 


February  25 


1111 


1907 


another  form  of  changing  this  liability. 
The  city  becomes  the  guarantor  of  the 
bonds  instead  of  having  to  pay  the  con- 
demnation money. 

MR.  FISHER:  This  is  a radical  de- 
parture from  the  present  situation  in 
regard  to  special  assessments.  We 
might  as  well  understand  this  before  the 
vote  is  entered  upon.  At  the  present 
time  the  city  cannot  divide  into  install- 
ments the  special  assessments  on  any 
improvement  which  involves  the  con- 
demnation of  property.  The  very  pur- 
pose which  Mr.  Vopicka  has  in  mind, 
which  he  advocates  in  cases  of  this  kind, 
where  there  are  required  improvements 
to  be  made  that  cost  a great  deal  of 
money,  such  as  the  widening  of  Halsted 
street  and  matters  of  that  kind,  where 
property  owners  hold  back  because  of  the 
very  large  initial  cost.  It  is  a very 
excellent  idea  to  divide  that  cost  into 
annual  installments  if  it  can  be  done ; but 
under  the  existing  law  the  city  cannot 
become  a guarantor  of  special  assess- 
ments, and  the  contractor  who  takes 
bonds  or  warrants  under  special  assess- 
ments now  takes  them  at  his  own  risk. 
In  the  matter  of  supplemental  assess- 
ments, then  it  may  be  that  it  acts  merely 
as  trustee,  the  city  does,  as  between 
the  property  owners'  on  the  one  hand 
and  the  contractors  on  the  other.  In 
this  proposed  case  you  are  going  to 
make  the  City  of  Chicago  absolutely 
liable  financially,  and  you  are  doing  it 
under  the  form  of  this  amendment  in 
advance  of  having  any  definite  knowl- 
edge that  the  assessment  is  going  to  be 
sustained.  It  seems  to  me  that  our 
present  safeguard  in  regard  to  special 
assessments  is  automatic,  and  it  has 
been  shown  to  be  sufficient ; the  con- 
tractor takes  all  the  risk.  The  city 
goes  ahead  and  makes  certain  improve- 
ments and  levies  special  assessments, 
and  if  it  does  not  collect  the  money  the 
contractor  is  out  and  not  the  city. 

It  seems  to  me  this  is  a very  dan-  J 


gerous  experiment  to  start  out  by  mak- 
ing the  city  guarantee  these  bonds. 
There  should  be  some  limitation  put 
in  the  law  under  which  there  should 
be  a final  confirmation  of  these  assess- 
ments, and  we  could  get  to  a point  then 
where  it  might  not  be  successfully  at- 
tacked in  the  courts.  But  that  is  not 
the  case  now,  because  in  a number  of 
these  cases,  successful  attacks  have 
been  made  upon  subsequent  installments 
for  special  assessments,  through  some 
technicality,  or  spme  error  or  other- 
wise, and  the  city  may  be  put  to  a con- 
siderable expense,  and  it  will  interfere 
at  once  with  the  tax  limits. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I just  want  to 
ask  Mr.  Fisher  one  question,  if  the 
confirmation  of  the  assessment  in  the 
court — if  after  the  confirmation  any  at- 
tack can  be  made  upon  the  bonds? 

MR.  FISHER:  Yes,  attacks  have 

been  made  and  made  successfully  on 
subsequent  installments  where  it  is  di- 
vided into  several  installments,  by  some 
person.  I have  known  of  cases  per- 
sonally of  that  kind. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Not  under  the 
recent  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
I do  not  think  it  can  be  done  now  un- 
der the  law. 

MR.  FISHER : The  Supreme  Court 
has  held  so,  it  is  true,  unless  the  ques- 
tion is  raised  as  to  the  jurisdiction; 
but  there  are  a'number  of  cases,  a num- 
ber of  kinds  of  cases  where  that  can  be 
raised,  and  where  it  can  be  very  much 
reduced  from  what  they  were  under  the 
former  law,  and  I think  it  would  be 
a very  rash  statement  to  say  absolutely, 
to  assert  with  absolute  assurance  that 
after  the  confirmation  of  the  first  in- 
stallment you  could  not  successfully  at- 
tack the  others.  I think  some  cases  will 
arise  where  you  can. 

MR.  SNOW : It  seems  to  me  there 

is  another  feature  of  the  proposition 
as  submitted  here  by  Mr.  Vopicka  that 
would  be  a very  dangerous  one,  if  the 


February  25 


1112 


1907 


city  is  to  guarantee  these  special  assess- 
ment bonds,  and  that  is  that  those 
bonds  would  become  a part  of  the  reg- 
ular bond  indebtedness  of  the  City  of 
Chicago,  and  our  limit  of  indebtedness 
would  very  soon  be  reached,  with  the 
amount  of  paving  the  amount  of  special 
bonds  which  would  have  to  be  issued 
of  that  character,  it  would  be  only  a 
matter  of  a year  and  a half  or  two  years 
until  the  indebtedness’  limit  would  be 
reached. 

MR.  VOPICKA : In  answer  to  that, 

I would  like  to  say  that  so  far  as  pav- 
ing the  streets  is  concerned  that  for  the 
last  ten  years  there  has  been  no  im- 
provement of  any  size  made  in  the 
City  of  Chicago  for  the  reason  that 
there  was  no  money  in  the  treasury 
for  the  public  benefit.  If  these  bonds 
are  issued  and  guaranteed  by  the  City 
of  Chicago,  every  year  a certain  amount 
of  money  will  be  paid  toward  those 
bonds,  and  they  will  not  be  like  the 
bonds  Mr.  Snow  refers  to  because  they 
are  the  bonds  of  the  City  of  Chicago, 
and  will  have  to  be  paid  for  these  im- 
provements mentioned — they  will  have 
to  pay  for  these  improvements  anyway, 
and  you  have  to  pay  cash  for  them,  and 
that  could  be  done  from  general  taxa- 
tion. 

If  we  do  not  adopt  this,  gentlemen, 
you  cannot  get  any  large  improvements 
in  the  City  of  Chicago  for  the  next  ten 
years.  I have  not  reference  to  any 
special  matter  at  this  time,  but  I think 
it  is  absolutely  necessary  that  you  make 
the  proper  provision  for  the  North 
Side  and  the  South  Side  and  the  West 
Side ; you  have  to  connect  those  streets ; 
you  have  to  open  some  and  widen 
others,  and  unless  you  have  a pro- 
vision of  this  kind  in  the  charter,  you 
will  never  accomplish  anything  in  that 
line. 

I believe  that  this  talk  about  danger 
is  absolutely  out  of  place.  You  don’t 
have  to  take  into  consideration  any  of 


those  things,  because  the  bonds  can  be 
provided  for  in  the  budget  every  year 
and  they  will  be  paid  for  in  less  than 
no  time,  and  the  taxpayers  won’t  feel 
it,  and  I feel  sure  that  you  can  ac- 
complish it  in  that  way. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  To  divide  the 

issue,  I move  as  an  amendment  to  the 
pending  amendment  to  strike  out  the 
words  that  make  the  city  a guarantor 
of  the  bonds;  I am  in  favor  of  the  rest 
of  it,  but  I am  not  in  favor  of  that, 
and  that  is  my  reason  for  offering  the 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Greenacre 

moves  to  strike  out  that  portion  of  the 
resolution  which  relates  to  the  guar- 
anteeing of  the  bonds  by  the  city. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I think  that 
the  proposition  is  a notorious  one,  and 
ought  to  be  considered  on  its  merits, 
and  to  strike  out  that  portion  of  the 
resolution  referred  to  by  the  gentleman 
will  be  to  kill  the  proposition ; there 
will  be  nothing  left  to  it  in  my  judg- 
ment if  you  strike  that  out. 

It  appears  to  me  that  it  is  a proposi- 
tion which  will  enable  a great  many 
very  worthy  improvements  to  be  made. 
There  may  be  some  little  objection  to 
it  in  its  present  form,  and  it  may  have 
to  be  re-written^  but  to  strike  out  that 
portion  that  Mr.  Greenacre  moves  to 
strike  out  will  be  to  strike  out  the 
enactment  clause  of  the  bill;  it  will 
have  the  same  effect.  I think  this  whole 
matter  should  be  left  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Rules,  Procedure  and  General 
Plan. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Conven- 

tion had  better  decide  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  policy  first. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  It  seems  to  me 

that  it  is  wise  to  adopt  the  principle 
involved.  We  do  not  adopt  the  letter 
of  this  resolution  if  we  do  that;  but 
this  is  a matter  that  has  been  before 
the  Convention  for  a long  time,  and 
Mr.  Vopicka  has  introduced  the  proposi- 


February  25 


1113 


1907 


tion  or  the  principle  very  early  in  the 
deliberation  of  this  Convention,  and  has 
spoken  on  it.  It  does  have,  it  seems 
to  me,  great  merit.  This  draft  has  been 
prepared  as  I understand  it  by  Major 
Tolman  and  others,  and  we  can  adopt  it 
with  perfect  safety  it  seems  to  me, 
that  is,  we  can  adopt  the  prin- 
ciple involved  in  this,  and  if  they 
desire  more  properly  to  hedge  it  about 
or  change  the  letter  of  the  draft,  they 
can  do  that  without  any  re-reference 
to  this  Convention. 

I support  the  motion  of  Brother  Vo- 
picka  assuming  that  the  drafter,  es- 
pecially those  interested  in  this,  Major 
Tolman  and  others,  Professor  Freund, 
will  look  it  over  very  carefully  and  re- 
port to  the  Committee  on  Plans  and 
Procedure. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  first  ques- 
tion is  upon  Mr.  Greenacre’s  motion  to 
strike  out. 

MR.  ROBINS:  A question  of  in- 
formation : I want  to  know  whether  if 

this  resolution  is  adopted,  and  bonds 
are  issued,  they  come  within  the  bond 
limitation  or  debt  limitation  of  the  city? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Whether  it  will 
affect  it? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  FISHER:  Oh,  it  will,  beyond 

a question. 

•MR.  SHEPARD:  In  answer  to  that 
I respectfully  suggest  that  the  claims 
against  the  property  owners  under  the 
special  assessment  would  be  a set-off  for 
the  bonds  pro  tanto  for  the  bonds  guar- 
anteed by  the  city? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Well,  let  us 

see — 

MR.  BENNETT:  That  would  be  the 
effect,  when  it  was  worked  out,  if  the 
money  was  collected ; but  from  the  mo- 
ment that  the  city  guarantees  those 
bonds  the  amount  would  be  a charge 
against  the  debt  limit ; it  would  reduce 
the  power  to  issue  bonds  by  that 
amount.  There  is  one  question  that 


comes  to  my  mind  at  this  time,  and 
that  is  whether  we  could  guarantee 
these  bonds  without  a referendum  on 
the  bond  question.  Under  the  charter 
we  would  have  to  have  a referendum 
vote  on  it  in  order  to  issue  these  bonds. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  As  a substi- 
tute for  all  the  pending  motions  I move 
that  the  whole  matter  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  General  Plans,  because 
it  is  a matter  that  will  have  to  be 
threshed  out  in  the  Committee  and  we 
can  rely  on  them  to  work  out  the  de- 
tails of  it. 

* MR.  ROBINS:  I hope  that  the  prin- 
ciple will  not  be  adopted.  As  I under- 
stand the  proposals  now  of  the  revenue 
committee,  the  building  of  school  build- 
ings in  the  future,  it  is  proposed  by 
the  Convention  that  the  buildings  shall 
be  taken  care  of  by  bond  issue ; that 
will  amount  to  two  and  a half  to  three 
millions  increase  every  year,  three  to 
four  million  dollars  a year.  If  these 
improvement  bonds  are  to  become  a 
part  of  the  debt  limit  of  the  city,  it 
seems  to  me  we  are  in  danger.  This 
matter  of  the  building  of  schools  in 
the  city  by  a bond  issue  is  a serious 
question,  because  there  is  no  adequate 
provision  otherwise,  and  I am  opposed 
to  this  proposal,  to  the  adoption  of  this 
proposal,  upon  principle  until  it  has  been 
thoroughly  discussed  by  this  Conven- 
tion. Some  of  us  have  not  had  the 
chance  to  look  deeply  enough  into  it, 
that  I think  we  should  have  before  it  is 
passed.  I move  that  it  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Rules,  Procedure  and 
General  Plans  and  returned  to  the  Con- 
vention for  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 
now  upon  Mr.  Rosenthal’s  substitute  for 
the  whole  matter,  that  it  be  referred  to 
the  Committee. 

MR.  FISHER:  That  carries  with  it 
the  proposition  of  the  approval  of  the 
suggestion.  I don’t  know  how  far  that 
goes.  I suppose  if  the  committee  re- 


February  25 


1114 


1907 


ports  back  to  the  Convention  we  will  all 
know  about  it  and  have  a chance  to 
discuss  it  after  it  shall  have  been  re- 
ferred back.  I have  no  objection  to 
that. 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  the  fact  that  this  does 
not  limit  the  guaranteeing  of  these 
bonds  until  a certain  period  of  time 
after  the  assessment  has  been  confirmed ; 
under  the  present  form  in  which  it  is 
drawn,  the  bonds  can  be  issued  in  an- 
ticipation of  the  collection  before  the 
assessment  has  been  confirmed  by  the 
court.  That  is  one  illustration  that  4 
want  to  call  your  attention  to. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART : That  can  be 
discussed  before  the  Committee.  Mr. 
Chairman,  I think,  the  motion  should 
be  considered  by  the  Committee  cover- 
ing all,  the  suggestions  that  have  been 
made,  and  reconsidered  by  the  Conven- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  in 

favor  of  referring  it  to  the  Committee 
signify  the  same  by  saying,  aye.  Those 
opposed,  no.  So  ordered.  Carried.  Go 
on. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  113; 

15—3,  4,  5.  Page  115. 

MR.  FISHER : Before  we  leave  this 
subject  of  local  improvements,  Mr. 
Chairman,  there  is  a matter,  it  seems 
to  me  we.  should  take  some  action  on. 

I am  not  entirely  clear  as  to  just  ex- 
actly what  form  the  action  should  take, 
and  I have  had  but  little  time  in  which 
to  investigate  it;  but  I have  attempted 
to  investigate  it  as  far  as  possible,  and 
that  is : The  question  of  patented  pave- 
ment. There  is  no  provision  in  the 
present  law,  and  the  Supreme  Court 
has  held  that  a patented  pavement  can- 
not be  adopted,  which  has  knocked  out 
the  brick  pavement  which  is  coming 
into  favor.  I have  no  interest  in  bit- 
ulithic  pavement,  and  have  no  knowl- 
edge of  it  outside  of  the  fact  that  there 
are  a good  many  friends,  some  of  them 


entirely  disinterested,  and  some  of  them 
interested,  and  among  others  people 
who  have  been  engaged  in  paving  some 
of  the  parks  who  have  given  informa- 
tion about  it,  I think  Mr.  Eckhart  and 
others.  Some  of  them  believe,  and  I 
understand  that  it  is  practically  con- 
ceded to  be  the  best  pavement  that  can 
be  obtained,  that  it  can  be  worn  very 
serviceably.  That  is  to  say  in  certain 
classes  of  street  on  which  some  form  of 
pavement  must  be  adopted,  it  would 
be  more  satisfactory  than  the  present 
form.  It  seems  to  me  that  some  method 
should  be  found  of  permitting  the  use 
of  that  sort  of  article.  I understand  it 
has  been  used  very  extensively  in  St. 
Louis  and  many  eastern  cities.  It  is 
a macadam  pavement  with  a binding 
material  of  an  asphaltic  nature.  It  is 
quite  satisfying,  and  the  present  form 
which  is  known  as  bitulithic  may  be 
succeeded  by  something  else ; by  a pave- 
ment of  that  character  or  any  other 
character  upon  which  the  owners  may 
have  a good  device,  or  composition,  on 
which  they  may  get  patent.  Such  a form 
of  patent  as  that  may  be  extremely  de- 
sirable to  use.  Now,  this  is  a matter 
after  it  was  called  to  my  attention  and 
the  subject  was  discussed  with  me  in 
the  committee  I thought  it  was  discussed 
unsatisfactorily,  and  it  was  referred  for 
the  purpose  of  attempting  to  have  some 
provision  made.  I went  a little  further 
into  it  so  as  to  get  some  prices  and 
other  things.  I have  in  my  hand  a 
kind  of  brief  and  argument  of  a case 
which  went  up  from  the  city  of  Evan- 
ston, in  which  opinion  Judge  Carter, 
now  of  the  Supreme  Court, — in  which 
his  opinion  is  quoted  in  full— in  which 
he  reviewed  the  different  subjects  at 
length.  It  certainly  makes  a very 
strong  case  for  the  makers  of  that  pave- 
ment. Now,  there  is  no  provision  un- 
der the  present  law  and  none  in  this 
charter.  We  all  know  that  the  asphalt 
pavements  are  in  the  hands  of  a very 


February  25 


1115 


1J07 


few  individuals,  and  certainly  are  held 
very  strongly  so  that  the  asphalt  peo- 
ple practically  have  a 'monopoly.  It 
seems  to  me  that  we  should  get  any 
better  pavement  which  comes  in  and 
that  we  should  make  some  provision 
whereby  we  should  have  the  opportunity 
to  do  so.  Now,  I care  nothing  about 
it  personally,  but  it  seems  to  me  we 
should  not  be  prevented  from  having 
the  opportunity  of  putting  in  that  kind 
of  a pavement  under  proper  safeguards. 
I would  like  to  propose,  as  another  sec- 
tion, you  might  call  it,  as  an  additional 
section  to  this  article,  something  which 
I would  like  to  have  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Fisher: 
"Proposed  provision  for  the  Chicago 
Charter  which  relates  to  the  use  of 
patented  articles  by  the  city.” 

An  ordinance  for  any  public  improve- 
ment, to  be  paid  for  by  special  assess- 
ment or  otherwise,  may  provide  for  the 
use  of  any  article,  material  or  process 
covered  by  letters  patent  granted  by  the 
United  States  Government,  provided  the 
owner  or  owners  of  such  patent  rights 
shall,  before  the  passage  of  any  such 
ordinance,  agree  in  writing  to  allow  the 
use  of  such  patent  rights  and  sell  such 
patented  article,  material  or  process  at 
a stated  price,  either  to  the  City,  or  to 
any  contractor  to  whom  a contract  may 
be  awarded  for  doing  such  work;  but 
no  ordinance  shall  be  adopted  for  a pat- 
ented pavement  unless  a majority  of 
property  owners  owning  property  abut- 
ting on  any  street  proposed  to  be  im- 
proved shall  petition  for  the  same. 

MR.  MERRIAM : One  day  when 
Mr.  Fisher  was  unfortunately  not  pres- 
ent in  the  sub-committee  this  matter 
was  more  thoroughly  gone  into  than 
on  the  day  when  he  was  present. 

The  representatives  of  this  bitulithic 
pavement  were  present  and  also  the 
other  companies,  and  had  a very  long 
and  quite  a very  interesting  discussion 
of  the  matter. 


It  seems  that  Warren  Brothers  are 
unwilling  to  agree  to  the  bids  on  what 
they  call  open  specifications,  saying  that 
their  pavement  calls  for  a maximum  of 
density. 

It  appeared  before  the  Committee  that 
they  do  not  want  to  bid  on  these  speci- 
fications. It  appears  that  the  bitulithic 
pavement  either  is  patented,  or  the  ma- 
chinery that  makes  it  is  patented,  the 
machinery  that  produces  it  in  this  form. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  you  adopt  an 
amendment  of  the  fashion  of  which  Mr. 
Fisher  has  proposed,  you  will  stop  the 
people  from  getting  any  benefit  from 
any  lower  price.  It  gives  these  people 
a monopoly  of  that  pavement,  and,  of 
course,  if  the  property  owners  want  the 
bitulithic  pavement,  they  will  have  to 
take  it  from  these  people  at  the  price 
they  set. 

Of  course,  we  know  in  many  other 
cases  that  the  city  buys  patented  articles. 
They  are  buying  fire  engines  that  are 
patented,  are  they  not,  and  described 
accurately,  specifications  which  really 
call  for  a certain  machine.  But  in  the 
case  of  pavements  they  apparently  try  to 
simply  secure  the  result.  One  bid  seems 
to  call  for  the  bitulithic  pavement,  un- 
less the  bids  are  on  open  specifications, 
and  it  has  been  the  policy  of  the  bitu- 
lithic people  not  to  bid  on  these;  and, 
if  you  make  a resolution  of  this  kind 
you  will  never  get  anything  but  a 
monopoly  price  on  that  kind  of  pave- 
ment. 

MR.  FISHER  : I do  not  wish  to  dis- 
cuss the  matter  if  any  other  member 
wishes  to  talk  upon  it,  but  the  objec- 
tions raised  by  Mr.  Merriam  were  men- 
tioned to  me.  I agree  entirely,  if  you 
force  the  owner  of  this  patented  ma- 
chinery, or  the  patent  itself,  to  throw  it 
open  that  that  would  be  quite  a de- 
sirable way  to  handle  it ; but  it  seems 
to  me  that  none  of  the  objections  go  to 
the  merits  of  this  proposition  at  all 


February  25 


1116 


1907 


The  whole  question  will  adjust  itself. 
The  proposition  is  a very  simple  one. 

The  owners  of  the  patents  which  re- 
late to  the  manufacture  of  this  street 
pavement  think  they  are  entitled  to  the 
benefit  of  their  ingenuity  and  skill  in  de- 
vising this  machinery,  and  the  method  of 
laying  this  pavement.  They  claim  if  you 
attempt  to  describe  the  pavement,  and 
not  have  it  made  by  their  machinery,  the 
machinery  that  they  make,  you  will  not 
get  the  right  pavement  and  they  say  that 
the  pavements  which  have  been  laid 
under  those  circumstances  have  been 
very  unsatisfactory,  therefore,  they  will 
not  bid,  because  the  asphalt  people  or 
some  one  comes  in  and  bids  on  the 
specifications  which  simply  provides  that 
there  shall  be  stone  of  a certain  size 
and  quality  used  and  laid  in  a certain 
manner.  They  claim  you  do  not  get  the 
results,  and  they  are  unwilling  to  go 
into  that  competition,  because  they  are 
underbid  and  inferior  work  is  done,  and 
they  are  discredited.  Now,  if  that  is 
so  and  they  will  not  bid,  there  is  no  way 
the  public  can  compel  them  to  sell  unless 
they  wish  to  do  so. 

The  question  of  price  will  take  care 
of  itself.  Unless  this  pavement,  at  the 
price  they  are  willing  to  sell  it  at,  made 
with  their  machinery,  is  either  lower 
m cost  or  superior  in  quality  than  that 
of  the  competition  in  contact  with  which 
it  is  brought,  of  course,  the  property 
owners  would  not  petition  for  it  and 
the  city  would  not  use  it.  Now,  sup- 
pose you  can  lay  an  asphalt  pavement  for 
$2.00  a yard  and  this  would  cost  you 
$3.00  a yard,  the  $3.00  may  be  a higher 
price  than  necessary,  but  if  you  can  get 
a better  job  done  for  the  $3.00  than  you 
can  for  the  $2.00,  why  not  have  it?  If 
the  majority  of  the  resident  property 
owners  are  willing  to  petition  for  it  and 
pay  for  it,  and  if  the  public  authorities 
of  the  city  believe  it  is  better  pavement 
why  not  adopt  it  and  leave  it  open  so 
that  it  can  be  used?  If  the  price  is  so 


high  that  it  would  not  be  adopted  by  the 
property  owners  or  the  authorities,  this 
would  cover  that  point. 

I understand  from  the  people  who 
have  used  it,  that  it  has  been  experi- 
mented with  and  investigated  elsewhere, 
and  everybody  who  has  investigated  this 
pavement  is  quite  enthusiastic  over  it; 
it  has  many  qualities,  apparently  over  the 
asphalt  pavement,  when  properly  laid. 
I do  not  know  whether  the  price  is 
higher  or  not.  If  it  is  lower  than  the 
other,  why  not  have  it  done,  so  that  the 
property  owner  can  have  it  if  he  wants 
to  ? For  the  life  of  me  I cannot  see  why 
you  should  not. 

MR.  PENDARVIS : I should  like  to 
ask  Mr.  Fisher  one  or  two  questions : 
Would  this  resolution,  Mr.  Fisher,  you 
think,  do  away  with  the  objections 
raised  by  the  Supreme  Court  as  to  the 
use  of  such  a pavement? 

MR.  FISHER:  Well,  I have  not  in- 
vestigated those  authorities.  I have  sim- 
plv  looked  through  the  briefs  of  the  at- 
torneys who  have  had  those  cases  on 
behalf  of  the  people  that  lay  this  pave- 
ment. Whether  it  would  or  not  I do 
not  know,  because  I have  not  made  any 
sort  of  an  investigation  ;but  this  is  sim- 
ply as  the  result  of  a conference  which 
I sought  with  the  purpose  of  getting 
some  light  on  this  subject.  I talked 
with  Mr.  Lathrop  about  it,  and  he 
knows  something  about  it;  and  I talked 
with  Mr.  Eckhart  about  it  and  he  knows 
something  about  it,  and  wherever  I have 
talked  about  it  it  is  thought  to  be  a 
superior  pavement;  if  so,  I think  we 
ought  to  be  able  to  use  it.  The  at- 
torney for  the  paving  company  said  he 
thought  this  would  meet  the  law,  so  that 
they  could  do  business  under  it. 

MR.  PENDARVIS : In  one  case  the 
parties  offered  to  furnish  the  materials 
at  the  price  that  you  mentioned,  but  the 
Supreme  Court  held  that  did  not  meet 
the  difficulty. 

MR.  FISHER:  They  had  not  given 


February  25 


1117 


1907 


the  City  of  Chicago,  or  the  municipality, 
or  whatever  it  was,  the  right  to  make 
that  price.  They  tried  to  fix  up  their 
rival  afterward,  for  that  sort  of  a propo- 
sition, and  it  did  not  help  them  out. 
This  throws  the  right  upon  any  con- 
tractor, and  they  used  their  machinery 
and  get  the  pavement  and  lay  it.  Whether 
that  meets  the  law  or  not,  I do  not 
know. 

MR.  VOPICKA:  It  seems  to  me 

this  experience  would  be  very  expensive 
to  the  people  and  the  taxpayers  in  gen- 
eral, because  it  must  be  given  out  by 
contractors.  If  you  do  this  sort  of  thing 
every  man  will  get  a patent  on  these 
matters.  It  seems  to  me  ridiculous  to 
put  such  a sort  of  thing  in  the  charter, 
and  I think  it  is  dangerous.  If  you  ad- 
vertise for  bids  with  a certain  material, 
and  if  only  one  man  has  got  that  ma- 
terial, how  can  you  put  that  in  there? 
If  you  get  only  one  bid  the  question  is 
whether  they  will  accept  the  bid  or  not. 
Now,  you  know  what  it  means ; if  I am 
a member  of  the  board  and  a bid  comes 
in  on  certain  work  on  one  job,  and  you 
are  unable  to  get  more  than  one,  why, 
then,  that  is  a trust;  there  would  be 
no  limitation.  I hope  the  amendment 
will  not  prevail. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : This  is  Mr. 
Fisher’s  resolution : 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  May  we  have 
it  read? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  secre- 
tary read  it  again. 

The  secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
hereinbefore  printed. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  the 
word  “resident”  ought  to  come  out  of 
this  resolution. 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  care  about 

that. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Do  you  con- 
sent to  have  that  word  stricken  out? 
MR.  FISHER:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  word  is 
that? 


MR.  ROSENTHAL:  The  word 

“resident”  in  there. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I have  no  opinion 

to  express  in  regard  to  the  questions  at 
issue,  but  I should  like  to  say  a word 
about  the  desirability  of  some  measure 
which  would  enable,  for  instance,  such  a 
city  as  this  to  use  this  article.  I have 
been  studying  pavement  for  years  in 
some  other  cities,  and  the  great  diffi- 
culty at  present  is  to  discover  a pave- 
ment for  parkways  and  the  boulevards, 
which  will  not  in  the  course  of  a few 
months  be  destroyed  by  automobiles. 
The  experience  of  Michigan  avenue  is, 
as  Mr.  Foster  tells  me,  this:  The  street 

had  to  be  paved  formerly  once  in  two 
years,  and  it  now  has  to  be  resurfaced 
four  times  in  every  two  years.;  in  other 
words,  the  streets  and  the  boulevards 
used  by  automobiles  will  hardly  last  six 
months.  Asphalt  pavements  are  very 
perishable.  Prof.  Dow  of  Washington 
told  me  that  he  had  almost  abandoned, 
and  had  almost  made  up  his  mind  to  use 
them  no  more.  An  asphalt  pavement 
will  crumble  away  to  pieces  in  six  years. 
An  asphalt  pavement  is  also  slippery. 

Now,  the  experience  of  S’t.  Louis,  Bos- 
ton and  many  other  cities  that  a pave- 
ment made  as  this  bitulithic  pavement  is, 
with  tar  or  asphalt — oh,  no,  with  tar  or 
pitch — not  asphalt — is  as  far  as  expe- 
rience has  gone  almost  imperishable. 

I would  like  to  cite*  one  illustration ; 
in  Washington,  a new  street  about  400 
feet  in  length  was  paved  by  something 
of  this  nature  over  thirty-five  years  ago. 

\ Within  two  months  I have  examined 
what  was  left  of  that  pavement.  It  was 
patched  with  asphalt,  but  sections  of 
that  pavement  are  perfectly  hard  and 
firm  and  smooth  to-day,  after  having 
lain  there  for  over  thirty-five  years. 

I have  been  in  correspondence  with 
the  road  bureau  in  Washington  in  re- 
gard to  some  substitute  for  this  pave- 
ment. So  far  they  have  not  hit  on  any 
device,  but  I hope  some  will  be  found ; 


February  25 


1118 


1907 


but,  if  there  is  any  legal  method  by 
which  the  park  commissioners  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  can  be  given  the  privi- 
lege of  adopting  a pavement  of  this  kind 
— we  know  what  the  other  pavements 
cost;  it  is  not  a question  of  cost,  we 
know;  within  a short  range  of  price — 
any  authority  that  will  enable  them  to 
adopt  it  is  much  better  than  all  others, 
and  I think  it  would  be  beneficial  to  the 
city  and  to  the  park. 

MR.  HOYNE : I am  surprised  at 

Brother  Fisher  coming  into  this  Conven- 
tion and  trying  to  institute  such  an  in- 
novation. There  is  nothing  that  will 
prevent  the  property  owners  from  hav- 
ing this  if  they  want  it.  They  can  lay 
it  themselves,  and  if  the  property  own- 
ers want  that  improvement  there  is 
nothing  to  prevent  them  from  having  it. 
There  is  another  thing,  talking  about 
the  automobiles.  They  use  the  boule- 
vards. Is  there  anything  in  the  act 
preventing  them  from  using  these  pave- 
ments ? I do  not  know  of  anything.  The 
question  of  the  property  owners  you 
may  make  it  in  every  block,  or  you  may 
make  it  for  a mile. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  question  of  the 

mile  can  be  made  as  stringent  as  you 
want.  There  is  in  the  law  to-day  a pro- 
vision under  which  the  property  owners 
can  take  over  a contract  and  lay  the 
pavement.  They  say  that  is  the  way  to 
get  at  that  if  you  want  to  get  at  it,  but, 
as  a matter  of  fact,  they  have  got  prac- 
tically to  get  the  unanimous  consent,  or 
present  the  pavement  gratis  to  the  man 
who  will  not  join.  There  . are  nearly 
always  enough  of  non-residents  or  peo- 
ple who  wont  chip  in,  who  think  they 
will  win  by  staying  out,  to  defeat  that 
plan.  I agree  with  Mr.  Lathrop  that 
almost  anything  that  will  permit  the 
property  owners  to  have  this  laid  under 
any  practical  plan  should  be  in  there. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  This  bitulithic 

pavement  is  being  used  in  St.  Louis, 
isn’t  it? 


MR.  FISHER:  I understand  so. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Under  what  terms 

and  conditions  do  they  lay  it  there?  Do 
they  bid  under  specifications? 

MR.  FISHER:  I don’t  know. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  It  would  be  of  in- 

terest and  worth  time  to  find  out. 

MR.  FISHER:  I have  inquired  and 

discovered  in  quite  a number  of  the 
states  they  lay  it  under  the  federal  law, 
but  many  of  the  state  laws  are  similar 
to  ours,  and  have  decided  that  you 
cannot  put  it  up  but  our  supreme  court 
has  held  the  other  way. 

Now,  it  is  a question  on  this  point, 
between  the  asphalt  trust  and  the  bitu- 
lithic monopoly.  I do  not  think  that 
there  is  any  difference  between  the 
two,  I do  think  that  they  should  be 
allowed  to  compete  on  the  quality,  and 
the  man  with  a better  article  should  be 
permitted  to  compete  with  any  man,  if 
he  has  a superior  article. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman, 

it  seems  to  me  the  real  question  is 
who  ought  to  yield;  whether  they 
should  yield  under  the  point  of  the 
specifications  or  whether  we  are 
bound  to  yield.  It  is  a question  of 
who  should  yield;  whether  the  city 
should  yield  to  them  or  not.  It  is  a 
suitable  principle  this  recognizing  of 
a patent. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I have  an 

amendment  which  I have  just  sent  to 
the  desk  which  I believe  covers  the 
point  made  by  Professor  Merriam 
and  the  original  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Fisher.  I hope  it  will  be  acceptable 
to  Mr.  Fisher.  I think  in  the 
amended  power  an  ordinance  should 
be  passed  to  allow  of  wider  latitude 
as  a matter  of  convenience. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secre- 

tary will  read  the  amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr. 
Rosenthal;  provided  that  in  all  cases 
the  owner  or  owners  of  any  such  pa- 
tented pavement  or  article  shall  be- 


February  25 


1119 


1907 


fore  any  such  ordinance  is  passed  be 
required  by  the  Board  of  Local  Im- 
provements to  make  a bid  for  such 
pavement  or  improvement  upon  writ- 
ten or  printed  specifications  to  be 
prepared  under  the  direction  of  such 
board. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal 
moves  the  adoption  of  that  amend- 
ment. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

confess  I do  not  understand  where 
this  is  to  come  in.  Is  that  a substi- 
tute? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  No,  that  is 

an  addition. 

MR.  FISHER:  An  additional  pro- 

viso? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  an  ad- 

ditional proviso  to  that  section. 

MR.  FISHER:  As  an  additional 

proviso  I don’t  know  that  I object 

to  it. 

MR.  SNOW:  I would  like  to  ask 

Air.  Rosenthal  what  is  gained  by  that 
provision. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I introduced 
that  to  cover  the  suggestion  by  Pro- 
fessor Merriam  before  any  ordinance 
is  passed.  It  will  develop  a certain 
willingness  on  the  part  of  the  own- 
ers; in  other  words,  it  is  a sort  of  an 
incentive  to  get  their  prices  down  to 
the  lowest  bidder.  We  know  what 
is  the  cost  and  they  know  it  will  have 
to  come  to  a certain  figure  in  order 
to  have  the  ordinance  passed. 

MR.  SNOW:  Now,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, it  is  the  property  owners  who 
are  interested  in  knowing  what  the 
cost  is  and  projects  can  be  discussed 
at  the  last  hearing  prior  to  the  pas- 
sage of  the  ordinance  at  the  public 
hearing.  Now,  if  people  are  going 
to  be  bound  to  present  prices  prior 
to  the  passage  of  the  ordinance  the 
property  owners  in  making  their  deci- 
sion can  say  whether  they  want  it  or 
not. 


There  is  another  thing,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, that  I want  to  speak  to  while 
I am  on  my  feet.  I want  to  call  at- 
tention to  this  bitulithic  pavement 
question  and  its  use  in  Chicago.  It 
was  in  paving  a street  in  the  ward  in 
which  I in  part  represent  in  the  coun- 
cil because  I was  very  desirous  of 
having  that  pavement  laid.  I investi- 
gated it  wherever  it  has  been  laid  in 
other  cities  and  I found  it  gave  very 
desirable  results,  and  that  it  was  a 
very  desirable  form  of  pavement.  But 
I have  been  assured  by  those  who 
represent  the  company  here  that  the 
pavement  could  be  laid  under  open 
specifications  if  they  desired;  and 
that  being  so,  I do  not  believe  that 
this  convention  would  be  wise  in  pro- 
viding for  a law  on  that  or  any  other 
form  of  pavement  as  a patented 
article.  If  the  specifications  can  be 
drawn,  and  I am  assured  that  they 
can  be  drawn,  that  the  pavement  can 
be  secured  of  the  same  character  as 
will  be  secured  under  laying  one 
under  the  name  of  a bitulithic  pave- 
ment then  certainly  it  should  be  laid 
under  open  specification  in  order  that 
a patent  may  be  had  in  bidding  for 
the  privilege  of  laying. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you 

ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as 
favor  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr. 
Rosenthal  to  Mr.  Fisher’s  motion  will 
signify  the  same  by  saying  “aye.” 
Opposed  “no.”  It  is  lost.  The  ques- 
tion reverts  upon  Mr.  Fisher’s  reso- 
lution. All  those  in  favor  signify  the 
same  by  saying  “aye.”  Opposed 
“no.”  Lost.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  113. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Have  we  passed 

Section  15? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I have  an 

amendment. 


February  25 


1120 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair 
recognizes  Mr.  Eidmann.  That  has 
been  passed  once,  Mr.  Eidmann,  at 
the  time  set  for  the  assembling  of  the 
convention  and  it  was  set  back  till 
eight  o’clock. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I have  to 

apologize  for  not  being  here. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secre- 
tary will  read  the  amendment.  Mr. 
Eidmann  wants  us  to  go  back  to  15. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr. 

Eidmann:  Amend  by  adding  on  page 

113  at  the  end  of  15-2,  the  following, 
page  113,  15-2:  “The  City  of  Chi- 
cago shall  also  have  authority  to  levy 
special  assessments  to  defray  the  cost 
of  sprinkling  of  improved  streets  with 
water.” 

MR.  EIDMANN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

there  may  be  a question  of  whether 
this  is  constitutional  or  not.  There 
was  a time  in  Chicago  when  the 
streets  were  sprinkled  by  special  as- 
sessment. I think  one  of  the  biggest 
evils  we  have  here  in  the  City  of  Chi- 
cago is  the  dust  from  our  macadam 
streets  and  well-paved  streets,  be- 
cause they  are  not  sprinkled.  In  the 
City  of  St.  Louis  the  streets  are 
sprinkled  by  special  assessment.  I 
am  informed  under  reliable  authority 
that  the  cost  for  a 25-foot  lot  for  the 
season’s  sprinkling  is  about  $1.25. 
The  property  owners  in  Chicago  here 
and  residents  pay  all  the  way  fro.m 
$5,  $6,  $7,  $8,  $9  and  $10  for  the 
sprinkling  of  the  street  in  front  of 
their  premises  by  private  contract. 
The  sprinkling  of  the  streets  has 
largely  been  taken  over  by  a great 
number  of  improvement  associations 
in  the  city  at  the  present  time.  It  is 
a hardship.  It  is  a hardship  that  the 
taxpayer  should  not  be  burdened 
with.  The  fact  of  the  matter  is  that 
the  city  council  should  make  an  ap- 
propriation each  year  to  sprinkle  the 
streets,  just  the  same  as  they  clean 


the  streets.  But  I contend  on  every 
sanitary  standpoint  it  is  better  to 
have  the  street — to  have  the  dirt  on 
the  streets  and  the  dust  on  the  streets 
than  to  have  it  in  the  air.  Mr.  Chair- 
man, if  there  is  no  objection,  I move 
the  adoption  of  the  amendment. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  it 

seems  to  me  that  Mr.  Eidmann  has 
answered  his  own  proposition  be- 
cause he  understands  it  is  not  an  im- 
provement and  cannot  be  made  upon 
a special  assessment. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I don’t  think 
that  case  was  well  presented.  If 
there  is  no  objection  I would  like  to 
have  it  referred  to  the  Law  Commit- 
tee for  an  opinion. 

MR.  FISHER:  If  you  claim  for  it 

that  it  is  a local  improvement  then 
it  can  be  made  under  the  law  as  it 
now  stands.  It  is  not  a question  of 
additional  authority. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  In  the  case  of 

a macadam  street  I am  satisfied  and 
any  engineer  can  tell  you  from  his  ex- 
perience that  a macadam  street  in  the 
City  of  Chicago — any  engineering  au- 
thority will  testify  at  any  time  that 
the  life  of  a macadam  street  is  im- 
proved all  the  way  from  50  to  75  per 
cent  by  judicious  sprinkling  in  the 
summer  time.  And  in  this  case  I 
think  it  would  be  proper  and  I think 
it  would  be  a'  permanent  improve- 
ment. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  question  is, 

if  I may  be  permitted;  if  it  is  a local 
improvement. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you 

ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  FISHER:  I see  no  reason 

for  specifying  this  in  the  charter. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:'  The  Su- 
preme Court  has  held  that  this  as- 
sessment for  the  sprinkling  of  streets 
is  invalid  because  they  were  not  in 
the  nature  of  permanent  improve- 
ments. It  cannot  be  said  to  be  a 


February  25 


1121 


1907 


permanent  improvement.  Now,  all 
we  have  to  do  is  to  set  our  supreme 
court  right,  but  we  need  not  make 
any  change  in  the  charter  because  it 
is  for  a local  improvement  or  not  a 
local  improvement,  and,  as  Mr.  Fisher 
suggested,  I think  Mr.  Eidmann 
should  employ  good  counsel  and  go 
to  the  supreme  court  again. 

MR.  EIDMANN:  I want  to  say, 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  case  was 
taken  to  the  supreme  court  from  the 
town  of  Lake.  That  was  the  place 
where  the  supreme  court — where  the 
sprinkling  was  done  by  special  as- 
sessment, and  I think,  certain  parts 
of  Hyde  Park.  The  legislature  was 
requested  to  pass  an  act  legalizing  the 
sprinkling  of  streets  in  Chicago. 
Governor  Altgeld  vetoed  the  measure 
passed  by  the  legislature.  I consider 
it  is  very  vital  from  the  sanitary 
standpoint  and  the  economical  stand- 
point that  the  matter  should  be  given 
especially  careful  consideration  by 
the  best  legal  talent  of  this  conven- 
tion as  it  is  a very  important  matter. 
I think  as  I have  said  before  that  this 
service  should  be  rendered  by  the 
City  of  Chicago  out  of  a general  fund. 
But  if  we  are  going  to  burden  a gen- 
eral fund  firstly  by  a percentage  of 
the  cost  of  the  improvement  of  the 
streets  hereafter  I venture  to  say  that 
it  will-  be  very  little  left  for  the  im- 
provement of  streets  outside  the  loop 
district  or  Chicago  avenue  on  the 
north  or  Austin  on  the  west  and  so 
forth.  So  that  the  provision  if  it  can 
be  legally  embodied  to  take  care  of 
the  laying  of  the  dust  should  be  in- 
serted. We  should  take  care  of  the 
laying  of  the  dust  which  every 
stranger  that  comes  into  town,  and 
every  visitor  that  comes  to  this  town 
dwells  on.  It  is  a much  bigger  nuis- 
ance than  the  smoke  nuisance  in  this 
city.  You  drive  during  the  summer 
time  in  the  outskirts  of  the  town  and 


you  will  find  the  trees  and  the  foliage 
and  the  grass  is  gray  from  the  lime- 
stone dust  thrown  out  by  every 
breeze  of  the  wind,  and  blown  into 
the  houses,  and  blown  into  the  stores 
and  thus  damaging  the  stock.  And  I 
am  referring  here  especially  to  a 
street  recently  improved,  Halsted 
street,  from  55th  to  79th,  which  was 
paved  with  a fine  asphalt,  but  the  dust 
is  simply  intolerable.  The  cars  come 
along  and  sweep  up  the  dirt,  and  the 
street  by  the  time  they  stop,  every 
passenger  is  covered  with  dust;  the 
sidewalks  are  covered  all  the  way 
from  one-eighth  to  one-quarter  of  an 
inch  every  morning.  It  is  thrown 
out  by  these  street  cars.  And  yet, 
Mr.  Chairman  if  there  is  any  doubt 
about  it,  I would  like  to  have  it  re- 
ferred to  the  law  committee  for  in- 
quiry. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, entirely  apart  from  the  legal 
question,  I think  that  would  be  un- 
wise on  principle  for  this  reason  as 
Mr.  Eidmann  admits  it  is  a matter  of 
maintenance.  He  says  it  will  in- 
crease the  value  and  the  life  of  the 
pavement.  If  you  commence  main- 
taining things  rather  than  improving 
them  by  special  'assessments  there 
will  be  no  end  to  it,  and  we  will  be 
maintaining  all  the  various  depart- 
ments of  the  city  government  by  spe- 
cial assessment,  and  in  that  way  we 
shall  successfully  avoid  taxes.  I op- 
pose it  on  principle.  I cut  the  law 
question  out,  because  I think  on  prin- 
ciple it  should  not  be  referred  to  the 
law  committee  and  it  should  be  dis- 
posed of  now.  It  opens  up  the  ques- 
tion of  maintenance  apart  from  spe- 
cial taxation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 
favor  of  Mr.  Eidmann’s  motion  will 
signify  the  same  by  saying  aye.  Op- 
posed no.  The  motion  is  lost.  The 
secretary  will  proceed. 


February  25 


1122 


1907 


MR.  EIDMANN : Mr.  Chairman, 

on  Section  2;  I wish  to  have  stricken 
out  the  first  paragraph  of  the  first 
section  the  last  line,  the  word: 
“Owners,”  after  the  word  “property.” 
Special  assessments  are  not  on  pri- 
vate property  owners  but  they  are  on 
private  property.  For  that  reason 
the  word:  “owners”  should  be 

stricken  out. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  it  will  be  so  ordered. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  115, 
Article  16.  Public  utilities.  1,  2. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  have  the  record  show 
that  I vote  against  section  1. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  The  record 

will  so  show. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wish  to  move, 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  section  2 together 
with  the  sections  on  Chapter  2 on 
page  23  be  made  a special  order  for 
consideration  at  the  next  meeting  of 
this  convention. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that 
motion;  you  want  the  whole  article 
deferred? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman, 

speaking  to  that  motion,  it  does  seem 
to  me  as  if  we  should  proceed  to 
consider  this  tonight.  I would  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  A little 

louder. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I call  your  at- 

tention to  the  fact  that  so  many  have 
made  an  effort  to  attend  this  meeting 
tonight  and  we  have  what  appears  to 
me  what  appears  to  be  quite  a large 
attendance.  We  are  entering  on  the 
discussion  of  this  charter,  and  special 
orders  have  been  made  from  time  to 
time  to  accommodate  members  and 
this  is  about  the  last  subject  before 
the  convention  for  its  consideration 
and  for  its  discussion.  We  have  the 
whole  evening  before  us  and  after 
urging  the  members  to  come  at  great 


personal  sacrifice,  it  does  seem  to  me 
as  if  we  should  proceed  to  the  con- 
sideration of  everything  before  the 
convention,  and  I therefore  with  re- 
luctance oppose  this  motion,  but  op- 
pose it  for  the  good  of  this  conven- 
tion and  for  the  good  of  our  charter. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

understand  we  have  quite  a number 
of  other  matters  to  be  taken  up,  and 
if  it  would  meet  the  pleasure  of  the 
gentlemen  that  we  defer  this  for  the 
time  being,  I am  willing  to  go  that 
far,  because  I don’t  think  we  shall 
reach  it  tonight  considering  all  the 
other  important  matters  we  have  to 
consider.  I happen  to  know  of  cer- 
tain persons  who  have  very  consider- 
able interests  in  this,  who  are  going 
to  ask  for  a reconsideration  if  this  is 
considered  tonight,  and  it  seems  to 
me  it  is  a waste  of  time  for  the  con- 
vention to  take  it  up  as  we  have  other 
important  matters  to  consider  which 
we  can  all  agree  about.  We  need  not 
take  up  a matter  over  which  there  is 
such  great  controversy  as  this  to- 
night. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 
pleasure  of  this  convention? 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  as 

I understand  Mr.  Robins,  he  desires 
that  this  refers  to  only  section  2. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Yes,  only  section 

2,  and  this  other  matter  set  over  at 
the  same  time,  the  other  matter  on 
page  22,  which  was  passed  at  the 
time,  as  the  record  will  show. 

MR.  FISHER:  I assume  that 

relates  to  the  question  of  the  referen- 
dum, both  as  to  the  form  of  the  peti- 
tion and  the  verification  of  the  signa- 
tures and  the  percentage  and  vote  re- 
quired. 

MR.  ROBINS:  That  is  the  point. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  certainly  is  true 

if  we  undertake  the  discussion  on  this 
matter  this  evening  that  there  will  be 
a motion  in  regard  to  the  percentage 


February  25 


1123 


1907 


to  reconsider  later  on,  and  there  may 
be  other  changes  made  under  section 
2 and  it  would  serve  no  purpose  to 
have  them  considered  twice.  I think 
it  will  be  a saving  of  time  if  we  post- 
pone action  now.  I want  to  call  at- 
tention to  that  fact  that  section  9 
should  be  included  in  the  motion  be- 
cause section  9 also  contains  a provi- 
sion in  regard  to  the  percentage. 

MR.  ROBINS:  You  include  sec- 

tion 9? 

MR.  FISHER:  Section  2 and  9, 

article  16. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Sections  2 and  9 

containing  the  references  to  the  per- 
centages for  referendum  petitions. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  we  all  re- 

cognize the  fact  that  there  are  quite 
a number  of  gentlemen  who  are  not 
here  tonight  who  are  vitally  con- 
cerned in  this  matter,  and  if  we  argue 
this  now  it  would  probably  have  to 
be  argued  again.  I think  it  would  be 
better  to  have  the  argument  all  at 
one  time  and  get  through  with  it, 
rather  than  have  it  tonight  and  have 
to  repeat  it  again. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I suggest  that 

we  go  ahead  with  the  regular  order, 
and  if  we  cannot  finish  when  the 
time  comes  to  adjourn  that  it  go  over 
until  the  next  meeting  of  the  conven- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion 
is  on  sections  2 and  9 of  article  16, 
that  they  be  postponed. 

MR  HOYNE:  I amend  that,  I 

move  that  we  pass  the  entire  article. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 
motion? 

MR.  HOYNE:  That  the  entire 
article  be  passed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 
favor — 

MR.  MERRIAM:  (Interrupting.) 

If  a motion  is  in  order  here,  I move 
that  we  take  up  article  17,  if  Mr. 
Robins  will  withdraw  his  motion. 


MR.  ROBINS:  I will  withdraw 

the  motion. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  We  will  now, 

proceed  to  the  consideration  of  article 
17. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 
is  upon  the  postponing  of  those  sec- 
tions, or  of  this  whole  section. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Robins 

withdrew  that  motion,  as  I under- 
stand it. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  If  Mr.  Robins 

has  withdrawn  the  motion  there  is 
no  motion  before  the  house. 

MR  MERRIAM:  I made  a mo- 

tion. 

MR.  HOYNE:  And  I made  a mo- 
tion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  have 
been  reading  this  paragraph  by  para- 
graph, that  is  the  method  we  have 
been  pursuing. 

MR.  HOYNE:  My  motion  was 

that  we  pass  the  entire  No.  17  for 
further  consideration. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  A point  of 
order. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  move  to 
postpone,  Mr.  Hoyne? 

MR.  HOYNE:  That  is  it. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  A point  of  or- 
der. Mr.  Robins  withdrew  his  mo- 
tion with,  the  understanding  that  I 
was  to  move  that  article  17  be  taken 
up.  Was  not  that  the  case,  Mr. 
Robins? 

MR.  ROBINS:  That  is  true,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I move  that  we 

take  up  article  17. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have 
heard  the  motion;  all  those  in  favor 
signify  by  saying  aye;  those  opposed, 
no.  It  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Article  17, 
page  122. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Article  17, 
water  supply.  1,  2,  3;  take  123 — 

MR.  BENNETT:  In  connection 


February  25 


1124 


1907 


with  this  water  supply  article,  I want 
to  move  that  the  drafting  committee 
be  requested  to  prepare  an  additional 
section  which  will  provide  that  the 
issuance  of  warrants  and  obligations 
be  payable  solely  out  of  the  water 
fund,  and  shall  not  be  included  in  the 
municipal  debt.  Now,  I think  that 
can  be  done  under  this  amendment  to 
the  constitution,  and  it  would  be  a 
material  help  in  financing  the  exten- 
sion of  the  water  works  system. 
These  warrants  are  payable  solely 
out  of  the  water  works  fund,  and  they 
are  now  included  in  our  debt  limit. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any 

objection  to  Mr.  Bennett’s  amend- 
ment? If  not,  all  in  favor  signify  by 
saying  aye;  those  opposed,  no.  It  is 
carried. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Section  1 of 

that  article — I don’t  know  what  is 
meant  by  this  language:  “The  juris- 

diction of  the  city  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing” — I am  not  using  the 

word  “punishing,”  “ preventing 

injury  to  its  water  supply  shall  ex- 
tend five  miles.”  As  a matter  of 
fact,  the  jurisdiction  at  the  present 
time  is  indefinite,  because  we  might 
proceed  by  injunction,  or  might  pro- 
ceed otherwise.  It  might  be  con- 
tended that  if  anybody  polluters  the 
water  supply,  which  is  outside  of  the 
five-mile  limit  the  city  would  have  no 
redress;  that  certainly  would  be  a 
peculiar  situation,  and  I do  not  be- 
lieve that  is  the  intention  of  the  draft- 
ing committee  to  have  it  so  under- 
stood. I move  that  the  drafting  com- 
mittee redraft  this  section  so  as  to 
express  the  proper  sense. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  That  is  the 
present  law,  is  it  not,  Mr.  Rosenthal? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think  this 

is  a mistake. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal misunderstood  this  section;  I 
think  he  frankly  admitted  he  did  not 


understand  it.  The  exercise  of  the 
jurisdiction  within  five  miles — that  is 
not  the  exact  language,  but  that  does 
not  apply,  that  is  not  the  same  thing 
as  applying  to  a court  of  chancery  for 
an  injunction.  A property  owner 
does  not  exercise  any  jurisdiction  be- 
yond what  is  his,  yet  he  can  apply 
for  an  injunction,  and  it  then  rests 
within  the  discretion  of  the  court. 
This  gives  the  city  jurisdiction  as  a 
municipality.  As  I understand  it,, 
that  is  the  intent  of  it. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  What  does 
that  particular  language  mean? 

MR.  FISHER:  I suppose  it  is  in- 

tended to  apply  to  Lake  Michigan.  I 
think  it  is  the  same  language  as  con- 
tained in  the  present  law.  It  is  in- 
tended to  allow  jurisdiction  out  in  the 
lake  for  a distance  of  five  miles  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  any  pollu- 
tion of  the  water  supply.  We  can 
prevent  anybody  by  physical  force, 
or  police  force,  ,by  patrol  boat,  or 
something  else,  from  dumping  stuff 
out  there;  we  have  the  police  jurisdic- 
tion to  prevent  pollution  within  five 
miles.  That  is  what  it  is  intended  to 
cover. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  If  we  have 

jurisdiction  over  the  submerged  lands 
we  can  do  it  in  that  way,  can’t  we? 

MR.  FISHER:  I don’t  know 

whether  we  can  or  not,  I don’t  know 
whether  jurisdiction  over  submerged 
lands  extends  to  superimposed  waters 
or  not,  unless  it  is  in  the  charter.  At 
any  rate,  I understand  this  language 
refers  to  the  statute. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Go  ahead 

with  No.  18. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  127, 

article  18;  1,  2,  3,  page  124,  4.  5,  6,  7, 
8,  9,  10. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I wish  to  offer 

an  amendment  to  section  10  by  add- 
ing to  section  10  a paragraph  substan- 
tially as  follows: 


February  25 


1125 


1907 


THE  SECRETARY:  “By  Mr. 
Lathrop : 

Amend  section  10  by  adding  to  it  a 
paragraph  substantially  as  follows: 

The  board  of  park  commissioners 
shall  have  authority  to  enter  into  con- 
tracts or  agreements  under  seal  with 
any  owners  of  property  abutting  on 
any  parkway  or  boulevard,  relating  to 
the  maintenance,  upkeep  and  repair 
of  said  parkway  or  boulevard,  and 
providing  for  annual  contribution  by 
such  property  owners  therefor  when 
such  contracts  or  agreements  shall 
contain  a provision  to  the  effect  that 
they  are  to  be  regarded  as  covenants 
running  with  the  land,  then  upon  the 
recording  thereof  in  the  office  of  the 
recorder  of  deeds  of  Cook  county, 
such  covenants  or  agreements  provid- 
ing for  contribution  by  property  own- 
ers as  aforesaid  shall  become  a lien 
upon  the  premises  therein  described 
to  the  extent  of  the  agreement  of  the 
owner  of  each  lot  or  parcel  of  land  for 
the  payment  of  such  amounts  as  may 
be  therein  agreed  upon,  for  the  main- 
tenance, upkeep  and  repair  of  such 
parkway  or  boulevard. 

MR.  LATHROP:  Just  a few 
words  in  explanation  of  the  amend- 
ment offered.  In  the  past  it  has  been 
the  custom  of  the  Lincoln  Park  board 
for  many  years  in  taking  over  streets 
as  parkways  and  boulevards,  to  make 
an  agreement  with  the  abutting  prop- 
erty owners  that  the  cost  of  mainte- 
nance and  repair  should  never  fall 
upon  the  park  funds  and  become  a 
burden  upon  the  public.  We  have 
been  advised  universally  by  lawyers 
that  this  agreement,  while  binding 
upon  the  owners  during  their  lives, 
or  while  they  continued  to  own  the 
abutting  property,  that  while  those 
agreements  were  binding  upon  them, 
they  were  not  binding  upon  sub- 
sequent owners. 

In  other  words,  no  agreement  can 


now  be  entered  into  on  the  part  of 
property  owners  with  the  park  com- 
missioners for  an  annual  payment  or 
contribution  for  maintenance,  which 
can  be  made  a lien  upon  the  property, 
and  we  were  advised  that  such  agree- 
ments might  be  made  a lien  if  there 
was  a law  providing  for  it. 

Now,  that  is  the  condition  of  Lin- 
coln Park  boulevard,  also  Sheridan 
road,  or  Diversey  avenue  east  of  the 
north  part  of  State  Street  and  Dear- 
born avenue.  It  seems  to  me  obvious 
that  it  is  unjust  that  streets  should  be 
taken  over,  which  are  not  a necessary 
link — which  are  not  necessary  links 
in  the  boulevard  systems,  unless  the 
property  owners  will  maintain  them. 
In  order  to  avoid  that  the  Lincoln 
Park  board  several  years  ago  passed 
a resolution  that  the  board  would 
thereafter  take  no  more  streets  over 
that  were  not  necessary  to  the  boule- 
vard system  unless  the  property  own- 
ers should  deposit  with  the  board  a 
sum  of  money,  the  interest  on  which 
at  a low  rate  would  provide  a sum. 
say  50  cents  per  running  foot,  to  take 
care  of  the  cost  and  expenses.  This 
provision  is  simply  to  legalize  such 
agreement  to  be  made  between  the 
property  owners  and  the  park  com- 
missioners. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 
favor  of  Mr.  Lathrop’s  resolution 
signify  by  saying  aye.  Those  op- 
posed no.  It  is  carried. 

THE  SECRETARY:  11,  12,  13. 
MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  11,  I 

think  the  same  words  should  be  sub- 
stituted that  I,  mentioned  once  be- 
fore, “goods,  chattels  and  fixtures” 
instead  of  “personal  property.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is 
no  objection,  it  will  be  so  ordered. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I wish  to  offer 

an  amendment  to  section  13,  by  strik- 
ing out  section  13  and  substituting 
what  I have  here.  I say  substituting, 


February  25 


1126 


1907 


because  this  should  be  referred  to 
the  drafting  committee  and  put  in  the 
proper  form. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr. 

Lathrop:  Amend  by  striking  out 

section  13  and  substituting  therefor 
a section  substantially  as  follows: 
18-13.  Any  person  violating  any  rule, 
ordinance,  or  regulation  relating  to 
the  parks,  boulevards,  parkways  or 
other  property  within  the  jurisdiction 
of  said  park  commissioners,  shall  be 
deemed  guilty  of  a misdemeanor  and 
shall,  on  conviction,  be  punished  by 
a fine  or  imprisonment  in  the  bride- 
well of  the  City  of  Chicago,  or  both, 
but  no  fine  thus  imposed  shall  exceed 
the  sum  of  $1,000  for  any  one  offense 
nor  shall  any  imprisonment  exceed 
ninety  days  duration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you 

ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  LATHROP:  I would  like  to 
say  one  word  in  explanation  only.  It 
has  been  the  custom  in  the  past  when 
men  have  been  arrested  for  offenses 
to  have  them  confined  in  the  Bride- 
well. There  is  no  existing  authority 
really  for  that,  and  it  has  merely  been 
by  courtesy,  as  it  were,  of  the  city 
that  those  men  have  been  imprisoned 
there.  The  park  commissioners  had 
no  place  to  imprison  them. 

MR.  BENNETT:  The  question 

rises  in  my  mind  as  to  whether  all 
these  ordinances  referred  to  in  sec- 
tions 12  and  13  should  not  properly 
be  passed  by  the  city  council  with  the 
concurrence  of  the  park  commission- 
ers. Now,  the  city  has  corporate  au- 
thority, and  these  sections  provide, 
section  12  provides  that  the  commis- 
sioners may  pass  ordinances  and  the 
city  ordinances  now  in  force,  or  here- 
after entered  shall  be  presumed  not 
to  apply  to  the  parks. 

I don’t  know  but  the  better  way 
would  be  to  have  the  ordinances 
passed  upon  the  recommendation  of 


the  park  commissioners  and  have  the 
ordinances  passed  by  the  city  council. 

MR.  LATHROP:  No  objection 

to  that,  Mr.  Bennett,  at  all. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I think  that 

would  be  the  better  way  and  more 
effective. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you 

ready  for  the  question?  Do  you  offer 
that  in  the  form  of  an  amendment, 
Mr.  Bennett? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Yes,  I move 

that  these  sections  be  redrafted  so 
as  to  make  such  provision. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  the  or- 
dinances shall  be  passed  by  the  city 
at  the  recommendation  of  the  park 
commissioners? 

MR.  BENNETT:  Yes,  sir. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you 
ready  for  the  question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 
favor  will  signify  by  saying  aye;  those 
opposed  no.  It  is  carried. 

THE  SECRETARY:  14,  15. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  connec- 

tion with  section  12,  the  second  para- 
graph should  be  redrafted,  because 
it  will  leave  some  ambiguity  and  lead 
to  mistakes.  It  says,  “Such  ordi- 
nances now  in  force  or  hereafter  en- 
acted, shall  be  presumed  not  to  apply 
to  the  parks,  if  contrary  to  any  regu- 
lations made  by  the  authority  of  this 
section.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Ben- 

nett’s resolution  will  cover  all  that; 
the  resolution  would  be  made  to  apply 
to  that. 

THE  SECRETARY:  14,  15. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I have  an 

amendment  to  section  15  which  I 
would  like  to  have  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr. 

Lathrop:  18-15.  Amend  by  the  ad- 

dition of  provision  substantially  as 
follows:  The  police  under  the  con- 

trol of  the  board  of  park  commission- 
ers may,  by  the  direction  of  the 


February  25 


1127 


1907 


mayor  or  the  chief  of  police  of  the 
city  and  the  president  of  the  park 
board,  exercise  the  powers  and  per- 
form the  duties  of  police  officers  at 
any  place  within  the  City  of  Chicago, 
and  any  police  officer  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  may,  by  a like  authority  of 
the  mayor  or  the  chief  of  police  of  the 
City  of  Chicago  and  the  president  of 
the  park  board,  exercise  and  perform 
the  same  duties  and  powers  within 
the  limits  of  the  parks,  boulevards 
and  parkways  as  are  now  conferred 
upon  park  policemen. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Any  objec- 
tion to  this  change?  If  not,  all  those 
in  favor  will  signify  by  saying  aye. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I would  like 

to  ask  for  information  if  by  that 
amendment  members  of  the  park  po- 
lice force  would  become  members 
of  the  city  police  force? 

MR.  LATHROP:  If  you  will  ob- 

serve this  section,  it  provides  simply 
that  members  of  the  park  police  force 
will  have  authority  only  within  the 
limits  of  the  parks.  There  may  be 
cases  and  occasions  when  it  may  be 
found  desirable  to  have  the  city  police 
help  in  the  affairs  of  the  park,  and 
vice  versa.  It  think  that  is  the  gen- 
eral intent,  and  it  is  simply  in  regard 
to  matters  of  that  kind. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as 

favor  the  substitution  of  this  will  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye.  Those  opposed 
no.  It  is  carried. 

THE  SECRETARY:  16,  17,  18, 

19;  page  128,  20,  21. 

MR.  ROBINS:  What  about  this 
charge  in  the  second  paragraph  of  19, 
“an  admission  fee  not  to  exceed  25 
cents  for  each  visitor  over  ten  years 
of  age  may  be  charged  and  per- 
mitted.” Has  that  been  the  custom 
in  the  past? 

MR.  LATHROP:  May  I answer 

that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 


MR.  LATHROP:  I think,  Mr. 

Robins,  that  this  is  intended  largely 
to  apply  to  the  Art  Institute  and  the 
Field  Museum,  where  a charge  of 
that  kind  has  been  made  for  years. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  20,  21,  22, 
23;  page  129,  24,  25,  26,  27;  page  130, 
article  19 — 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Before  we 

proceed  with  that  article,  it  seems 
to  me  we  ought  to  have  had  section 

7,  article  18  on  page  124,  “subject 
to  the  civil  service  law,”  or  “pursuant 
to  the  civil  service  law,”  subject  to 
the  power  of  the  city  of  the  city 
council. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I think  that  is 
provided  for,  Mr.  Rosenthal,  in  an- 
other section. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I do  not  find 
the  section. 

MR.  LATHROP:  I think  you  will 
find  it  in  article  1-13  and  then  again 
in  article  7-2-7-11,  fully  covered. 

MR.  MAQMILLAN:  There  is  a 
verbal  change,  where  the  word  “com- 
mon council”  occurs  we  had  better 
make  it  “city  council.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  I have 
so  changed  it.  The  secretary  will 
proceed  with  “compulsory  educa- 
tion.” 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  136, 

article  20,  “Compulsory  education,”  1, 

2,  3;  page  138,  4,  5;  page  139,  6,  7, 

8. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  No.  9— 
well,  never  mind. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  140; 

9,  10,  11;  141,  12,  13.  Article  21. 
The  Public  Library,  1,  2;  page  142, 

3,  4. 

MR.  BROSSEAU:  Tn  regard  to  ar- 
ticle 4,  I wish  to  add  in  the  fourth 
line  after  the  words  “chief  librarian” 
“and  secretary  of  the  board.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Brosseau 


February  25 


1128 


1907 


moves  to  insert  the  words  “and  sec- 
retary of  the  board.” 

MR.  BROSSEAU:  That  means  to 
exempt  the  secretary  of  the  library 
board  from  the  action  of  civil  serv- 
ice. The  secretary  of  the  library 
board  is  substantially  the  financial 
agent  of  the  board.  He  is  not  now 
under  civil  service. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  As  many  as 
favor  that  will  signify  by  saying  Aye. 
Those  opposed,  No.  It  is  carried. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  After  the 
word  “librarian,”  or  rather  after  the 
words  “the  librarian  shall  have  the 
power  to  appoint  or  make  provision 
for  the  appointment  of  librarians” 
and  the  words  “and  secretary.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart 
moves  to  insert  the  words  “and  sec- 
retary” in  section  4.  As  many  as  fa- 
vor that  will  signify  by  saying  Aye; 
those  opposed,  No;  it  is  carried. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  142;  3, 
4,  5,  6,  7,  8. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  21-8,  I 
want  to  insert  after  the  word  “held” 
the  words  “in  the  custody  of.” 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  What  is  the 
line? 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  That  is  the 
fourth  line,  after  the  word  “held,”  in 
21-8. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Eckhart 
moves  to  insert  the  words  “in  the 
custody  of.”  All  those  in  favor  sig- 
nify by  saying  Aye;  those  opposed, 
No.  It  is  carried. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  the  same 
section,  after  the  word  “so”  I move 
to  amend  it  by  inserting  the  words 
“either  in  the  city  of  Chicago,  or  in 
the  board  of  directors,  of  the  library.” 
That  is  section  21-8,  page  143.  It  is 
quite  important  and  necessary  at 
times  to  invest  the  title  in  the  board 
of  directors,  and  it  is  very  doubtful 
whether  that  can  be  done  unless  we 
provide  for  it  in  this  way.  That  will 


IS?  I 

provide  that  it  may  be  vested  in  the 
city  of  Chicago,  or  in  the  board. 

MR.  BENNETT:  That' occurred  to 
me,  and  I think  it  should  be  so  that 
it  could  be  left  to  the  city,  probably 
I think  it  should  be  left  in  the  city; 
but  there  may  be  some  reason  for 
this  provision. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  In  this 
provision  I want  to  say  that  this  does 
not  refer  to  money;  this  refers  to 
gifts,  that  the  title  by  deeds  of  prop- 
erty, deeds  vested  in  the  board  of  di- 
rectors of  the  Chicago  Public  library 
could  not  be  invested  in  the  city. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Eckhart, 
if  the  charter  convention  will  indulge 
me  for  one  moment,  my  point  is  this: 
A gift  may  be  made  by  will  to  the 
city  of  Chicago,  and  the  question 
would  then  arise  whether  under  this 
clause  that  gift  would  be  or  could  in 
such  way  be  made  to  the  city  for  li- 
brary purposes,  so  that  it  should  have 
the  authority  to  accept  it,  or  the 
trustees,  or  the  board  of  directors  of 
the  library  could  accept  it  for  library 
purposes. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  Well,  that 
would  be  agreeable  to  me. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in  fa- 
vor of  Mr.  .Rosenthal’s  amendment 
will  signify  by  saying  Aye.  Those 
opposed.  No.  Carried. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  143,  ar- 
ticle 22.  General  Provisions  1.  Page 
144;  2,  3,  4,  5.  Article  23. 

MR.  WERNO:  I offered  an  amend- 
ment yesterday  for  section  5.  I was 
not  here  when  that  came  up,  but  I 
understand  it  was  the  intention  that 
there  should  be  a provision  in  the 
charter  itself  providing  for  the  sub- 
mission of  this  act  to  a vote  of  the 
people,  and  if  adopted  by  the  people 
that  it  should  then  become  a part  of 
the  charter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  printed 
on  page  1036. 


February  25 


1129 


1907 


MR.  WERNO:  My  amendment  is 
that  section  5,  article  22,  be  amended 
in  accordance  with  the  amendment  I 
submitted  yesterday,  which  was  pub- 
lished in  yesterday’s,  or  Saturday’s 
proceedings,  article  22,  General  Pro- 
visions. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  what  has 
that  to  do  with  section  5? 

MR.  WERNO:  I would  like  to 
have  the  section  read  that  I sent  in, 
as  amended. 

The  secretary  read  the  resolution  as 
printed  in  the  proceedings  at  page 
1036. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I would  like  to  ask 

Mr.  Werno  what  the  effect  of  that  would 
be.  It  says  this  act  here,  with  two  sep- 
arate acts  is  recommended.  Now,  what 
would  be  the  effect  of  that  in  law? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  I think  the  aider- 

man  should  modify  it  so  as  to  limit  this 
act,  so  that  when  his  act  is  adopted  it 
shall  become  a part  of  the  charter  of  the 
city  of  Chicago. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  The  law  does  not 

know  any  separate  acts.  I should  like 
to  have  Alderman  Werno  explain  it. 

MR.  WERNO:  The  idea  is  that  the 

charter  itself  is  one  act.  Then  there 
are  two  other  acts,  here,  which,  as  I 
understand  it,  this  convention  decided 
should  be  recommended  to  the  legisla- 
ture for  adoption. 

MR.  SHEPARD;  Just  limit  your 
motion  to  this  act.  As  I understand  it, 
you  desire  that  when  that  act  is  adopted 
it  then  becomes  a part  of  the  city  char- 
er? 

MR.  WERNO:  Yes,  and  that  amend- 

ment also  refers  to  article  23  which  pro- 
vides that  it  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
vote  of  the  people. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Will  you  yield 

to  a question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Why  should  it 

not  become  a part  of  the  charter? 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  Yes,  that  is  the 

way. 

MR.  WERNO:  That  would  mean  that 


when  the  charter  is  submitted  to  the 
people  the  bill  also  must  be  submitted 
to  the  people. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Couldn’t  the 

legislature  do  that  anyway?  It  could 
strike  out  that  law. 

MR.  WERNO:  Certainly  they  could 

strike  it  out. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Why  not  attach 

it  to  the  other  subject? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  I submit,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  no  one  act  we  may  rec- 
ommend, and  which  we  may  call  the 
charter  will  be  the  charter  finally.  The 
charter  may  consist  of  half  a dozen  dif- 
ferent acts  that  may  be  recommended 
or  passed  by  the  legislature.  The  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act  is  as  much  a part  of 
this  charter  as  any  other  part  of  the 
charter. 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  think  Mr. 

Werno ’s  point  is  correctly  stated  in  his 
amendment.  Organizations  and  others 
who  are  interested  in  this  Sunday  clos- 
ing question  have  accepted  the  proposi- 
tion which  was  suggested  here  as  a com- 
promise on  the  whole  matter. 

MR.  YOUNG:  The  proposition  should 

be  submitted  to  the  people  by  separate 
referendums,  but  they  want  it  as  a part 
of  the  charter.  They  want  it  to  come 
to  the  legislature  as  a part  of  the  chart- 
er; in  other  words,  they  want  to  have 
this  provision  which  is  now  embodied 
in  this  separate  bill,  written  in  as  a part 
of  the  charter  as  Section  So-and-So  and 
Article  So-and-So,  whatever  it  may  be, 
but  provide  when  those  particular  sec- 
tions of  that  particular  article  are  reach- 
ed they  shall  not  go  into  effect  unless 
and  until  there  is  a particular  referen- 
dum on  that.  Now,  I see  no  special  ob- 
jection to  drafting  it  in  that  way.  It 
should  be  referred  to  the  drafting  com- 
mittee to  redraft  it  in  accordance  to  that 
desire. 

MR.  MICHAELIS : As  I understand 

it,  on  December  7th,  the  United  Societies 
for  Local  Self  Government  called  on  the 
committee  and  after  much  discussion 


February  25 


1130 


1907 


there  was  a dissenting  vote.  A proposi- 
tion was  submitted. 

Now,  the  Sunday  closing  question 
comes  up  at  nearly  every  election.  Near- 
ly always  the  candidates  declare  they  will 
not  interfere  with  the  closing  act. 
There  are  hundreds  of  thousands  of  peo- 
ple in  this  city  who  can  only  enjoy  those 
pleasures  that  they  are  looking  for  on 
that  particular  day.  At  the  last  time 
of  the  election  they  declared  that  they 
would  not  interfere  with  the  Sunday 
closing  law. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  that 
the  conditions  existing  in  this  city  are 
so  absolutely  different  from  those  in  any 
other  town  or  village  in  the  state  that  I 
cannot  understand  why  that  should  go 
down  to  Springfield  covering  just  this 
one  question  which  interests  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  people  in  this  city  only, 
—why  should  that  go  to  the  legislature? 

We  understood  at  the  time  that  it  was 
to  be  a part  of  the  charter,  but  if  the 
citizens  work  for  it  at  the  election,  it 
was  to  be  voted  on  separately,  and  if  the 
citizens  did  not  want  it  and  voted  it 
down  then  it  would  be  a part  of  the  char- 
ter again. 

In  the  bill  as  drafted  Article  23  says 
it  should  be  submitted  as  a special  bill 
in  Springfield;  now,  I do  not  see  why 
that  should  be  submitted  as  a special 
bill  in  Springfield  when  everything  else 
is  in  the  charter.  I think  we  ought  to 
make  this  Article  22  as  a part  of  Sec- 
tion 5, — Section  22,  Article  5, — and  make 
these  two  things  that  are  submitted  here 
as  special  views,  make  them  belong  to 
Article  5.  Now,  I do  not  think  that  is 
unfair,  gentlemen,  and  I really  think  this 
convention  ought  to  do  that.  It  did  so 
decide  by  unanimous  vote  on  the  27th 
day  of  December. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  A separate  bill. 

MR.  MICHAELIS : No,  as  a part  of 

the  charter.  Here  is  the  record  of  De- 
cember 27th;  but,  when  the  bill  was 
framed,  we  found  Article  23  had  only 
two  things  that  were  to  be  voted  on 


separately.  Now,  gentlemen,  I shall  be 
very  much  pleased  if  you  can  see  your 
way  clear  to  make  that  a part  of  the 
charter. 

It  is  a matter  that  interests  hundreds 
of  thousands  of  people  in  the  city,  and 
I do  not  see  why  that  should  be  made  a 
special  bill  down  in  Springfield.  If  these 
organizations  wanted  a special  bill  they 
could  introduce  a special  bill  without 
this. 

MR.  FISHER : I move  you,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, after  this  separate  bill  has  been 
considered  so  that  this  article,  whether 
it  meets  the  views  of  the  convention, 
that  it  be  re-referred  to  the  Committee 
on  Rules  and  General  Procedure  and  go 
through  the  Law  Department,  provided 
the  Law  Commitee  thinks  it  is  proper. 
There  is  a question  of  technical  legality 
involved  as  to  whether  you  can  make 
the  charter  go  into  effect  that  way ; 
but,  it  seems  to  me  possible  to  draft  it 
in  that  way,  and  I think  the  motion  that 

I have  made  will  cover  the  point. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  are 

in  favor  will  please  signify  my  stating 

I I aye.  ’ ’ 

MR.  CHURCH:  Please  state  the  mo- 

tion again. 

MR.  FISHER;  the  motion  is  that  we 
shall  proceed  to  consider  this  bill,  and 
.when  it  is  in  shape  it  shall  be  re-referred 
to  the  Committee  on  General  Rules  and 
Procedure,  and  the  Law  Committee,  and 
be  incorporated  as  a special  article  under 
this  charter ; if  that  be  correct, — but, 
otherwise  shall  be  separate. 

MR.  SMULSKI:  What  is  the  objec- 

tion to  having  that  section  amended,  or 
rather,  that  paragraph  amended  as  pro- 
posed by  Mr.  Werno?  It  simply  in- 
cludes in  that  charter  those  two  propo- 
sitions. Your  proposition  here  is  to  pro- 
vide bills  for  the  city  of  Chicago,  and 
then  you  have  two  other  bills  that  are 
entirely  outside  of  this  bill. 

The  amendment  of  this  section  will 
simply  strike  out  the  intention  of  this 
Convention  to  have  those  two  provisions 


February  25 


1131 


1907 


in  that  charter,  and  if  the  amendment  as 
made  by  Mr.  Werno  is  passed,  it  would 
be  clear  that  that  was  the  intention  of 
the  convention. 

ME.  FISHEE : But  when  it  appeared 

as  a part  of  the  statute  it  would  not  mean 
anything  at  all.  Now,  we  are  assum- 
ing that  this  act  has  been  passed  by  the 
legislature  in  the  form  in  which  we  have 
recommended  it.  Now,  we  suppose  it  is 
on  the  books  of  the  State  of  Illinois  as 
an  Act;  Then  it  says  this  act  recom- 
mended. By  whom?  By  the  charter  con- 
vention of  the  city  of  Chicago.  It  does 
not  belong  in  the  statute  at  all.  It  is 
all  right  as  a part  of  the  report  of  this 
convention  but  what  we  all  want  is  a part 
of  the  statute. 

MB.  SMULSKI:  I submit,  it  is  not 

the  intention  to  have  the  bill  in  the 
charter  itself,  but  it  is  the  intention  of 
the  drafters  of  the  charter  that  the  bill 
should  provide  for  that  very  thing;  that 
those  two  provisions  would  be  included 
in  the  draft  of  the  charter. 

ME.  FISHEE : I think  they  would  be 

proper  in  the  statute  itself  then.  That 
would  not  have  any  place  in  the  statute. 
If  the  bill,  after  the  re-reference  which 
I have  moved,  is  thought  to  be  necessary 
to  be  submitted  as  a separate  bill,  then 
you  can  attach  to  that  separate  bill  the 
portions  desired,  and  it  is  a part  of  the 
charter,  passed  under  the  constitutional 
amendment ; but  it  would  not  do  any  good 
to  have  that  mentioned  in  another  bill; 
it  would  do  no  good  to  say  that  this 
part,  together  with  other  things  recom- 
mended by  the  Charter  Convention  was  a 
part  of  the  charter. 

I think  Mr.  Pendarvis’  point  was  well 
taken.  The  charter  may  consist  of  forty 
acts  before  we  get  through  with  this 
thing.  New  acts  passed  hereafter  may 
be  a part  of  the  charter  of  the  city  of 
Chicago. 

MB.  YOUNG:  I do  not  understand 

the  motion,  whether  that  refers  to  para- 
graph 5 of  the  preceding  question  or  6 
and  23.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  Article 


23  states  an  affirmative  vote  of  the  peo- 
ple, that  these  sections  shall  become  a 
part  of  the  charter,  but  that  is  all  that 
is  desired. 

THE  CHAIEMAN : I understand  that 
is  what  is  sought  to  be  done,  that  if  these 
acts  are  adopted,  they  shall  be  of  their 
own  force  upon  the  charter.  Now,  I 
do  not  see  why  the  drafting  committee 
cannot  frame  that  so  as  to  be  satisfac- 
tory to  everybody. 

ME.  WEBNO:  I think  it  should  pro- 

vide that  these  acts  should  be  submitted 
to  the  people  and  then  at  the  end  of 
this  act  add  that  if  the  act  is  adopted 
by  the  people  it  shall  then  become  a part 
of  the  charter. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  For  these  sep- 

arate acts?  If  these  separate  acts  are? 

ME.  WEBNO:  Yes. 

ME.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Question. 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  It- is  purely  a 

question  of  getting  it  properly  framed 
by  the  drafting  committee.  Let  us  see 
if  the  Chairman  is  correct : The  draft- 

ing committee  is  directed  to  redraft  the 
proper  sections  so  that  when  these  sep- 
arate acts  have  been  adopted  by  a sep- 
arate referendum  they  shall,  at  that  date, 
become  a part  of  the  city  charter.  There 
seems  to  be  no  difference  there.  Are 
you  ready  for  the  question? 

MB.  MEEEIAM:  That  means  the 

voters  shall  vote  alone  on  this  question 
of  Sunday  closing  or  Sunday  opening? 

THE  CHAIEMAN:  Will  you  kindly 

state  that  again? 

ME.  MEEEIAM:  Does  that  mean  in 

the  general  referendum  on  this  so-called 
charter  act  that  the  voters  shall  vote  on 
the  question  of  Sunday  opening  or  Sun- 
day closing  or  does  it  mean  a different 
act? 

ME.  FISHEE:  My  motion  is  before 

the  house.  You  have  before  this  referred 
matters  to  the  Law  Committee  to  see 
whether  you  can  have  it  drafted  and 
made  a part  of  the  charter,  or  whether 
you  have  to  have  a separate  bill.  We 
have  provisions  in  this  charter  that  do 


February  25 


1132 


1907 


not  go  into  effect  unless  they  are  approv- 
ed. Now,  it  may  be  possible  that  you 
will  have  to  have  an  entirely  separate 
act,  a separate  act  that  will  stand  entirely 
on  its  own  body  as  a separate  act? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question.  All  those  in  favor  of 
the  motion  will  signify  by  saying  ‘ ‘ aye.  ’ ’ 
Those  opposed,  “no.”  It  is  so  ordered. 
Article  23. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I do  not  think 

that  Article  23  has  been  disposed  of.  I 
think  the  drafting  committee  ought  to 
be  instructed  to  draft  some  such  pro- 
vision as  is  attached  to  the  Municipal 
Court  Act,  for  the  submission  of  this 
act  to  the  people.  I believe  that  ques- 
tion, that  that  special  provision  has 
been  passed  upon  by  the  Supreme  Court 
in  the  Snyder  case  and  has  been  approv- 
ed, and  unless  we  have  it  provided  for 
in  this  act  itself,  as  to  method  of  sub- 
mission we  raise,  of  course,  the  difficul- 
ties of  the  general  law. 

MR,  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

now  move  you  that  the  drafting  com- 
mittee shall  be  asked  to  draft  some  pro- 
vision similar  to  Section  67  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Court  Act  for  the  submission 
of  this  act  to  the  vote  of  the  people. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion,  that  the  drafting 
committee  redraft  these  submission  sec- 
tions so  as  to  conform  to  the  Submission 
Act  of  the  Court  Act. 

The  Chair  desires  to  say  that  there 
have  been  some  hours  spent  upon  this 
submission  section,  more  hours  on  tliis 
section  than  anything  else,  and  the  le- 
gal sharps  have  spent  a great  deal  of 
time  on  it. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Was  that  before 

or  after  the  decision  of  the  Supreme 
Court  ? 

MR.  FISHER : After. 

MR,  ROSENTHAL:  Well,  I think 

they  should  spend  a little  more  time  on 
it. 

MR.  FISHER:  If  Mr.  Rosenthal 

would  make  his  motion  so  it  would  not 


be  obligatory  upon  the  committee,  but 
that  they  will  consider  that  the  propo- 
sition referred  to  it,  and  not  be  bound 
to  draft  a thing  of  that  kind. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection,  it  will  simply  be  a suggestion 
on  the  part  of  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

call  up  for  passage  the  bill  I introduced 
some  days  ago:  It  is  found  on  page 

1036.  It  is  for  the  repeal  of  Section  2 
of  the  Juul  Law;  the  proceedings  of 
February  23.  I do  not  know  whether 
you  want  this  read  or  not. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  1036. 

THE  CHAIRMAN;  This  is  to  make 
the  Juul  Law  conform  to  the  Revenue 
Law  of  this  act? 

MR.  SHEPARD:  That  is  to  repeal 

a section  of  it — reciting  that  the  pro- 
visions of  this  charter  are  inconsistent 
with  the  Juul  Law,  and  the  provisions 
of  the  Juul  Law  are  not  in  harmony 
with  the  purposes  of  the  Revenue  Laws 
of  this  charter. 

MR.  FISHER : Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

All  those  in  favor  will  signify  by  vot- 
ing 1 1 aye.  ’ ’ Those  opposed,  “ no.  ” The 
motion  is  carried. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  before  the 

Sunday  closing  bill  goes  back  to  the 
committee  that  any  suggestions  that  are 
to  be  made  to  it  should  be  made  before 
the  convention,  so  that  it  will  be  in  ac- 
cordance with  any  changes  that  are  de- 
sired by  the  convention,  as  to  whether 
in  other  respects  it  meets  the  approval  of 
the  convention.  It  should  be  easy  to 
see  whether  or  not  there  is  anything 
else  there.  Just  read  it  by  title. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  xn umber  1 of  the 
Shepard  bill  and  Number  2.  Number  1 
of  the  Second  Shepard  bill  and  Number 
2. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I gave  notice  for 
the  motion  for  a reconsideration  of  the 
vote  on  pages  111  and  112  of  Sections 
5,  6 and  7 of  Article  14. 


February  25 


1133 


1907 


I have  discussed  the  matter  with  Pro- 
fessor Freund,  who  seems  to  be  of  the 
same  opinion  that  I was  at  the  time  that 
that  motion  was  made  or  attempted  to  be 
made  by  Mr.  Raymer,  to  refer  this  mat- 
ter to  the  Law  Committee;  and,  there 
was  also  a motion  by  Mr.  Pendarvis  to 
strike  out  the  second  paragraph  of  Sec- 
tion 7. 

Now,  with  regard  to  Section  6,  I would 
like  to  have  it  changed.  It  is  a letter 
signed  by  Mr.  Abel  Davis,  the  Recorder, 
to  Doctor  Freund,  which  explains  itself. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  In  regard  to  what 

section  ? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Section  6. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : If  you  desire  you 
can  take  it  up  at  another  sitting.  We 
have  got  to  have  another  meeting. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Well,  we  have 

got  to  have  another  meeting,  and  I will 
take  it  up  at  the  other  meeting. 

MR.  FISHER : It  might  be  printed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  will  be  print- 

ed. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  I would  like 

to  go  to  Article  21. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  That  motion  will 
be  for  reconsideration,  Mr.  Chairman? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Your  rights  will 

be  preserved. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I ask  you  to  go  back  to  Article  12 
and  act  on  the  resolution  offered  on 
page  953  of  the  record. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  What  page? 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART : 953. 

THE  SECRETARY;  Also  1033  of  the 
present  procedings.  By.  Mr.  J.  W.  Eck- 
hart:-  Resolved,  That  it  is  the  sense  of 
this  convention  that  the  present  pen- 
sion law  providing  for  a pension  system 
of  employes  of  the  Chicago  Public  Li- 
brary be  included  in  the  proposed  char- 
ter for  the  City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, the  pension  law  that  we  have  there 
does  not  use  any  money  from  taxation 
at  all.  It  is  provided  by  voluntary  con- 


tributions by  the  employes  and  by  fines. 
I would  like  to  have  that  adopted. 

MR.  BENNETT:  It  hardly  seems 

necessary  to  introduce  and  insert  that  in 
the  charter.  It  is  purely  a matter  of 
voluntary  contribution  between  the  em- 
ployes of  the  department  of  library.  I 
think  it  should  be  left  as  it  is  now.  This 
pension  fund  is  not  carried  on  under  any 
authority  today. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART:  It  is  volun- 

tary. 

MR.  McMILLAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

suggest  to  Mr.  Bennett  that  part  of  it 
does  not  come  out  of  the  voluntary  con- 
tributions of  the  employes.  Part  of  it 
comes  out  of  fines. 

MR.  J.  W.  ECKHART : I stated  that. 

MR.  McMILLAN:  It  does  not  all 

come  from  moneys  contributed  by  em- 
ployes altogether. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  on 

the  subject  of  these  pensions,  to  my  mind 
there  is  only  one  class  of  employes  which 
should  be  recognized  as  profiting  by  pen- 
sions, and  that  is  the  class  which  per- 
forms hazardous  work.  Take  for  ex- 
ample the  police  department,,  the  fire 
department,  and  the  department  of  elec- 
tricity. When  you  depart  from  that  rule 
you  get  into  deep  sea  at  once,  and  we 
will  simply  be  swamped  by  efforts  to 
get  pensions  for  people  in  almost  every 
department  of  the  city  government.  I 
have  no  objection  to  the  present  pension 
laws  of  the  Library  Board,  where  it  is 
taken  only  out  of  the  fines,  and  so  forth, 
but  I scarcely  think  it  should  be  in  this 
charter.  We  left  all  the  other  pensions 
out  of  the  charter,  and  I think  it  should 
be  left  in  this  way.  If  there  is  a pres- 
ent separate  statute  on  that  we  may 
leave  it  as  it  is. 

MR.  ,T.  W.  ECKHART:  There  is  a 

difference. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  ask  whether  there  is  any- 
thing in  the  charter  as  drawn  that  pre- 
vents the  city  of'Chicago  from  arrang- 


February  25 


1134 


1907 


ing  for  pensions  for  employes  of  the 
city? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  not.  I 

think  that  is  the  proper  method  to  pur- 
sue. What  will  you  do  with  Mr.  Eck- 
hart’s  motion?-  All  those  in  favor  of 
it  signify  the  same  by  saying  “aye.” 
All  those  opposed,  “no.” 

MR.  SHEPARD : I understood  it  was 
withdrawn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  SHEPARD : I understood  it  was 
withdrawn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No.  All  those 

in  favor  say  “aye. ” All  those  op- 
posed, “no.”  The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  On  page  124, 

Mr.  Chairman,  section  18-8,  next  to  the 
last  line  of  the  first  paragraph,  there 
is  a fatal  omission. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  chair  can- 

not hear  you  unless  you  speak  louder. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Page  124,  sec- 


tion 18-8,  next  to  the  last  line  of  the 
first  paragraph  there  is  a fatal  omis- 
sion. I move  to  insert  the  words:  after 
'“within  the  jurisdiction”  “or  bor- 
dering upon.”  Page  124,  article  18, 
section  8.  Next  to  the  last  line  of  par- 
agraph 1. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  move  to  in- 

sert the  words:  “or  bordering  upon.” 
All  those  in  favor  signify  the  same  by 
saying  “aye.”  Opposed,  “no.”  Car- 
ried. 

The  convention  will  now  stand  ad- 
journed till  Friday  morning  at  10:00 
o ’clock,  at  which  time  the  completed 
charter  will  be  presented.  The  matter 
of  public  utilities  will  be  presented  to 
the  convention,  and  the  chair  believes 
that  will  be  the  last  meeting  that  will 
be  held.  In  fact  he  is  certain  of  it. 

And  the  convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Friday,  March  1,  1907,  at  10:00 
o’clock  a.  m. 


February  25 


1135 


1907 


Resolutions  offered  from  the  floor  of  the  Convention. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  that  the  present  laws  re- 
lating to  firemen’s  pensions  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  SNOW: 

Amend  proposition  1,  Section  16,  Pub- 
lic Utilities,  by  striking  out  all  after 
the  word  “city”  in  line  11,  and  insert- 
ing in  lieu  thereof  the  following:  “also 
to  docks  and  wharves.” 


BY  MR.  SHEDD: 

Resolved,  That  in  cases  where  a po- 
lice officer,  in  the  actual  discharge  of 
his  duty,  is  charged  with  an  offense, 
such  as  murder,  manslaughter,  or  other 
serious  charge,  or  charges,  that  the 
Common  Council  shall  appropriate  a 
sufficient  fund  for  attorney’s  fees  to 
the  end  that  such  officer  shall  be  prop- 
erly represented  in  court,  and  the  truth 
of  said  allegations  brought  out. 


BY  MR.  PENDARVIS: 

Resolved,  That  the  charter  shall  con- 
tain a provision  preserving  the  integ- 
rity of  prohibition  districts  established 
by  ordinance  of  the  city,  and  providing 
that  the  City  Council  shall  have  no 
power  to  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
prohibition  district  until  the  proposi- 
tion to  so  modify  or  abolish  any  such 
district  shall,  upon  a petition  of  not 
less  than  20  per  cent,  of  the  legal 
voters  thdn  residing  within  any  such 
district,  be  submitted  to  and  be  ap- 
proved by  a majority  of  all  the  legal 
voters  residing  within  such  prohibition 
district. 


BY  MR.  BENNETT: 

Resolved,  That  the  present  pension 


laws  relating  to  policemen  be  retained 
and  included  in  the  charter. 


BY  MR.  McCORMICK: 

The  mayor  shall,  as  often  as  yearly, 
and  may  as  often  as  semi-annually,  ap- 
point certified  public  accountants,  to  ex- 
amine and  audit  the  accounts  of  the 
city,  and  the  report  thereof,  together 
with  any  recommendation  of  such  ac- 
countants, as  to  change  in  the  businesB 
methods  of  the  city,  or  of  any  of  its  de- 
partments, officers,  or  employes,  shall 
be  made  to  the  mayor  and  City  Coun- 
cil, and  be  spread  upon  the  records  of 
the  latter.  The  expenses  of  such  audit 
shall  be  paid  by  the  city. 


BY  MR.  GREENACRE: 

Amend  Section  1 of  Article  12  (page 
104)  by  inserting  therein  immediately 
after  the  words  “levied  for  library  pur- 
poses” and  before  the  words  “certified 
copy  of  such  ordinance,  ’ ’ the  following 
sentence : 

Said  City  Council  shall  have  power  to 
set  aside  from  any  such  specified  amount 
levied  for  any  of  said  purposes,  parts 
thereof,  together  not  exceeding  one  per 
cent  thereof,  and  contribute  the  same  to 
pension  funds  for  disabled,  retired  or 
superannuated  public  servants  of  any  de- 
partment toward  the  maintenance  of 
which  such  specified  amount  levied  ap- 
plies. 

By  MR.  GREENACRE:  Amend  arti- 

cle 12  by  adding  thereto  as  section  la 
after  section  1 : 

“Interest  accruing  under  section  16 
of  article  11  shall  be  distributed  pro- 
portionately between  and  credited  to  the 
separate  funds  above  provided  for. 

“The  proper  authority  may  set  aside 
all  or  any  part  of  the  interest  so  added 


February  25 


1136 


1907 


to  any  such  separate  fund  and  contribute 
same  to  pension  funds  for  disabled,  re- 
tired or  superannuated  public  servants 
of  the  department  toward  the  mainte- 
nance of  which  department  such  separate 
fund  applies. 


i ‘ Provided,  however,  that  such  interest 
so  contributed  shall  never  in  any  year 
exceed  one  per  cent  of  the  principal  of 
such  separate  fund.  ’ ’ 


CORRECTIONS 


MR.  COLE:  Page  1013,  strike  out 

remarks  in  first  column  and  substitute 
the  following : 

* 1 1 am  glad  to  know  t7mt  Mr.  Wilson 


has  his  head  turned  towards  Zion  and  I 
hope  he  will  be  encouraged,  and  that  the 
amendment  will  prevail.  ” 


COMMUNICATION 


Chicago,  Feb.  19,  1907. 
Dear  Doctor:— 

I was  absent  from  the  city  for  a few 
days,  and  have  just  received  your  note 
of  February  10,  in  regard  to  the  pro- 
posed section  of  the  Charter  dealing  with 
maps  and  plats.  I am  very  glad  that 
you  ask  my  opinion  in  regard  to  the  sec- 
tion submitted. 

The  Recorder’s  Office  has  no  way  of 
determining  whether  there  any  streets 
and  alleys  in  any  parcel  of  land,  of  which 
a map  or  plat  is  about  to  be  filed.  The 
Recorder  would  not  be  in  a position  to 
know  when  a map  or  plat  should  bear 
the  approval  of  the  city  and  when  it 
should  not.  Besides,  I again  call  your 


attention  to  the  provisions  of  Section  13r 
Chapter  115,  Revised  Statutes  of  Illinois, 
in  regard  to  Recorders,  which  makes  it 
unlawful  for  any  recorder  to  record  1 1 any 
map,  plat  or  subdivision,  situated  in  any 
incorporated  city,  town  or  village,  until 
the  same  shall  have  been  approved  by  the 
legislative  authority,  etc. 

The  safer  and  more  satisfactory  man- 
ner is  to  have  the  City  pass  upon  every 
map  or  plat  of  property  to  be  affected 
by  the  filing  of  such  map  or  plat. 

Yours  very  truly, 

ABEL  DAVIS. 

To  Dr.  Ernest  Freund,  University  of  Chi- 
cago, Chicago. 


February  25 


H3: 


1907 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  thei 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may / 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majorfty  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special);  and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


February  25 


1138 


1 90  7 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


% 


PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE 


Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CITY  COUNCIL  CHAMBER 
FRIDAY,  MARCH  1,  1907 


CChinuui  (filjartrr  CCmuirntimi 

Convened,  December  12,  1900 
Headquarters 
171  WASHINGTON  STREET 
TELEPHONE  MAIN  4877 


Milton  J.  Foreman Chairman 

Alexander  H.  Newell.  . . Vice-Chairman 

M.  L.  McKinley Secretary 

Henry  Barrett  Chamberlin,  Asst.  Secy 


March  1 


1141 


1907 


PROCEEDINGS 

OF  THE 

Chicago  Charter  Convention 

CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 
Regular  Meeting,  Friday,  March  i,  1907 
10  O’clock  A.  M.,  in  the  City  Council  Chamber 


OFFICIAL  RECORD 

Published  by  authority  of  the  Chicago 
Charter  Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  convention 

will  be  in  order  and  the  secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Present  — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eidmann, 
Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Greenacre,  Guerin, 
Harrison,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMil- 
lan, McGoorty,  Merriam,  Michaelis, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Pendarvis,  Post, 
Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Sethness, 
Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny,  Tay- 
lor, Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Wilkins, 
Young,  Zimmer — 47. 

Absent  — Baker,  Beebe,  Brosseau, 
Carey,  Clettenberg,  Crilly,  Dever,  Eck- 
hart, J.  W.,  Erickson,  Graham,  Haas, 
Lundberg,  McCormick,  McKinley, 
Oehne,  Paullin,  Powers,  Rainey,  Revoll, 


Rinaker,  Ritter,  Shedd,  Smulski,  Swift, 
Thompson,  Walker,  Wilson — 27. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Quorum  present. 

The  minutes  will  stand  approved.  Any 
correction  will  be  made  at  the  members’ 
request.  Page  133  of  the  new  draft, 
Article  XVI. 

I MR.  POST:  Mr.  President,  I would 

like  to  know  if  the  new  draft  changes 
the  phraseology  at  all  of  that  section? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No,  sir. 

MR.  POST:  The  new  draft  is  just 

now  in  my  possession  and  I don’t 
know  what’s  in  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  doesn’t 

change  it  in  any  way. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  133,  of 

the  new  draft.  Article  XVI,  Public 
Utilities.  One.  Two. 

MR.  RAYMER:  Mr.  Chairman, 

didn ’t  we  dispose  of  that  section  at  the 
last  meeting? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  will  dispose 

of  it 

MR.  RAYMER:  All  right;  I desire 

to  bo  recorded  on  that  proposition,  no. 


March  1 


1142 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Raymer  re- 

corded on  that  no.  Proceed. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Sir? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  That  is  the  law  of 

the  state  of  Illinois. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  He  wants  to  be 

recorded  no. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I beg  your  pardon, 

what  is  that  Mr.  Linehan? 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I say  that  is  the 

law  of  the  state  of  Illinois. 

MR.  RAYMER:  The  right  to  operate 

all  public  utilities. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  No.  2. 

THE  SECRETARY:  No.  2,  page  14. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  ask  at 

this  meeting — I shall  address  myself 
first  to  the  section  as  it  is  reported  and 
in  connection  with  the  provision  that 
was  passed  for  consideration  until  we 
should  come — the  consideration  of  this 
question,  namely,  the  provision  Article 
2. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Page  20  of  the 

new  draft. 

MR.  POST:  Page  23  of  the  old 

draft. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  21  of  the  new 

draft. 

MR.  POST:  Taking  these  two  sec- 

tions together  there  is  a requirement 
for  a percentage  that  makes  it,  under 
the  most  liberal  circumstances,  almost 
impossible  to  get  a referendum  peti- 
tion, and  in  connection  with  that  per- 
centage we  now  have  conditions  so 
strict  in  regard  to  the  petition  that  it 
would  be  practically  impossible  to  get 
it  into  the  time  limited,  if  at  all. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  raises  the 
question  of  initiative  and  referendum. 
With  regard  to  that  question,  this  con- 
vention is  holding  back  the  charter  of 
the  city  of  Chicago  in  the  direction  in 
which  the  municipalities  of  the  states 
of  the  country  are  going;  and,  it  is 


no  new  thing;  for  75  or  100  years  that 
has  been  the  tendency,  not  so  strong 
as  latterly,  but  very  distinct  in  the 
legislation  of  the  country,  in  the  direc- 
tion of  the  principle  of  the  initiative 
and  of  the  referendum;  that  is  to  say, 
of  the  principle  of  having  a representa- 
tive government  under  such  restrictions 
as  to  the  representatives  that  they  shall 
be  representatives  and  not  misrepresen- 
tatives. 

Under  such  restrictions  as  that,  and 
under  reasonable  circumstances,  the 
people,  we  may  say  of  any  nation,  may 
say  that  the  representatives  propose  to 
put  into  law — we  veto  this  measure; 
and,  any  measure  that  the  representa- 
tives refuse  to  put.  into  law,  we  demand 
that  this  be  put  into  law. 

That  has  been  the  trend  in  this 
country  for  nearly  a hundred  years  and 
it  has  now  become  very  strong,  and  we 
are  holding  it  back  in  this  charter  of' 
ours. 

We  have  it  in  several  of  the  Rocky 
Mountain  states,  it  is  about  to  be  intro- 
duced in  Texas,  and  we  have  it  munici- 
pally in  Detroit,  Mich.,  and  we  have  it 
in  Denver  and  other  places;  but,  we  are 
now  proposing  to  throw  restrictions 
about  the  referendum  and  the  initiative 
so  that  the  people  cannot  make  use  of 
it — we  are  holding  back  instead  of  go- 
ing forward,  just  as  we  held  the  home 
rule  qualities  of  the  charter;  we  are 
now  making  what  we  call  a home  rule 
charter,  but  we  have  got  it  so  tied  up 
with  leading  strings  from  Springfield 
that  it  requires  a microscope  to  find  the 
home  rule  qualities  in  the  charter. 

After  having  cut  out  all  the  initia- 
tive and  referendum  features  in  any 
general  form,  practically,  in  the  char- 
ter, we  come  to  one  principal  place 
where  .allowance  is  made,  not  initiative 
but  for  a referendum  in  veto  of  the  ac- 
tion of  the  council. 

We  find  in  this  section  that  I am  now 
speaking  of,  that  the  city  council  by  a 


March  1 


1143 


1907 


bare  majority  may  at  any  time  give 
away  to  private  corporations  the  most 
valuable  property  of  the  public;  I say 
of  the  public,  and  I say  that  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a distinction:  The 

most  valuable  property,  not  of  the 
city  as  a corporate  body,  but  of  the 
street  car  riding  public,  of  the  people, 
of  the  great  mass  of  the  people,  who  are 
using  public  utilities,  we  give  to  the 
city  council  by  a bare  majority  vote 
at  any*  time  the  right  to  give  away  on 
any  terms  that  they  please  for  twenty 
years  these  public  rights. 

And,  then  the  only  popular  safeguard 
we  put  about  it  is  a referendum, 
which  must  be  on  a petition,  the  burden 
of  which  is  thrown  upon  the  people 
themselves  who  are  about  to  be  swin- 
dled, or  who  may  be  swindled  by  a ma- 
jority of  the  city  council,  a referendum 
of  20  per  cent,  or  over  80,000  signa- 
tures of  the  people,  in  order  to  protect 
these  public  rights  from  a vote  of  an 
improvident  majority  in  the  city  coun- 
cil. 

And,  not  satisfied  that  it  should  be 
80,000  signatures  we  then  propose  to 
make  a provision,  as  is  in  this  draft, 
which  shall  make  it  practically  impos- 
sible to  get  these  80,000  signatures 
within  the  time  required;  i.  e.,  sixty 
days.  In  other  words,  this  section  as  it 
now  stands  proposes  that  a majority  of 
the  council  may  vote  away  these  rights, 
and  that  vote  shall  stand  in  suspense  for 
60  days;  that,  if  this  almost  impossible 
petition  is  then  presented,  there  shall 
be  a further  suspension  until  a popu- 
lar vote,  and  if  the  vote  is  against  the 
giving  away  of  the  property,  then,  and 
only  then,  shall  the  action  of  the  coun- 
cil be  vetoed. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  we  are  told,  and 
this  bears  upon  the  character  of  the  pe- 
tition required — we  are  told  that  we 
want  clean  petitions;  we  are  told  that 
that  is  the  motive  of  requiring  this 
great  strictness,  which  is  the  basis  of 


this  great  percentage;  that  we  want 
clean  petitions. 

Well,  gentlemen,  we  all  know  that 
the  petitions  in  this  city  have  been 
clean;  you  all  know  that  there  have 
been  enough  signatures,  genuine  signa- 
tures of  voters,  to  make  the  petitions 
good  under  the  law,  high  as  is  the  per- 
centage that  is  required,  and  the  vote 
proves  it.  When  the  vote  came  it  was 
always  in  the  majority,  and  there  was 
always  a much  larger  vote  than  there 
were  petitioners.  And  you  know  well 
that  the  petitions  now  pending  before 
the  people  were  got  by  honest  means. 

I am  with  you  when  you  say  that  ef- 
forts were  made  to  make  these  petitions 
that  are  now  pending,  false  petitions, 
and  saturated  with  fraud;  that  is  true. 
There  was  an  attempt  and  no  one  knows 
better  than  some  of  the  men  on  this 
floor  how  far  that  attempt  was  carried 
and  bow  near  it  came  to  being  success- 
ful. There  was  an  attempt  to  make 
these  petitions,  to  saturate  these  peti- 
tions, with  fraud,  so  that  they  might  be 
denounced  by  the  newspapers  from  one 
end  of  the  country  to  another,  as  fraudu- 
lent petitions.  Fradulent  petitions  were 
imposed  upon  the  public  officials  here, 
and  on  account  of  the  vigilance  of  the 
public  officials  those  fraudulent  signa- 
tures were  eliminated  from  the  petition 
as  it  stands.  And,  Mr.  President,  it  was 
tried  to  falsify  this  pending  petition, 
and  the  men  who  are  howling  against 
the  circulation  of  the  petition  with 
fraud,  and  among  them  were  the  same 
newspapers  and  the  same  men  who  are 
now  clamoring  for  clean  petitions. 
Now,  let  us  not  fool  ourselves.  We  can- 
not fool  the  public.  There  is  no  use 
trying  it.  Let  us  not  fool  ourselves. 
The  real  motive  for  this  great  strict- 
ness with  regard  to  these  petitions  and 
with  regard  to  this  referendum  was 
declared  frankly  by  Mr.  Shedd  in  the 
committee  room  where  the  matter  was 
under  discussion,  where  he  said:  “We 


March  1 


1144 


1907 


want  to,  or  we  ought  to  make  referen- 
dum voting  difficult.  ” There  is  the 
explanation,  and  I honor  Mr.  Shedd  for 
having  come  out  frankly  and  candidly 
in  giving  the  real  reason  for  this 
attempt  to  make  referendum  voting  on 
this  traction  matter,  and  other  matters 
practically  impossible.  "We  want  to 
make  referendum  voting  difficult.  ’ 7 
That  is  a motive  that  the  people  of  this 
city  will  understand,  let  me  tell  you. 

And  let  me  predict,  Mr.  Chairman 
and  gentlemen,  one  thing  more:  I can- 

not see  any  further  into  next  week  than 
anybody  else,  but  I do  not  think  I am 
very  far  wrong,  and  I think  you  gentle- 
men will  admit  it  in  your  hearts  when 
I say  the  gentlemen  of  this  city  will 
realize  what  this  means  if  it  goes  in 
in  this  way.  We  have  now  got  trac- 
tion petitions  up  for  a vote  before  the 
people,  and  the  people — to  the  number 
of  200,000,  at  least — have  asked  it, 
that  a vote  of  the  people  be  placed  upon 
the  granting  of  these  traction  fran- 
chises. 

If  that  is  voted  down,  that  is  if  the 
franchises  are  voted  down  at  the  com- 
ing election,  you  have  got  them  in  this 
charter,  you  have  this  question  of  the 
proposition,  you  have  the  proposition 
that  a majority  of  the  city  council,  if 
the  mayor  happens  to  be  favorable,  and 
two-thirds  if  the  mayor  is  opposed  to 
granting  an  outright  franchise  to  these 
gentlemen  and  allowing  their  manipu- 
lation of  the  street  rights,  and  you 
have  a referendum  then  that  will  practi- 
cally prevent  a veto. 

You  cannot  make  that  veto  effective 
if  that  is  done,  unless  you  get  on  this 
clause  the  20  per  cent  or  eighty  odd 
thousand  within  sixty  days,  and  on  a 
provision  that  every  separate  sheet  of 
signatures  shall  be  verified  under 
oath  

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post,  your 

time  has  expired. 

(Cries  of  “continue,  continue. ”) 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  has 

unanimous  consent  to  continue. 

MR.  POST:  Thank  you,  gentlemen; 

it  will  take  little  time,  and  it  seems  to 
me  the  subject  demands  it. 

You  then  have  a grant  outright  to 
these  companies,  which  can  be  stopped 
only  by  a petition  of  80,000  upon  sheets 
of  paper,  every  sheet  of  which  must 
be  verified  under  oath  as  containing  the 
names  which  the  verifier  swears  that 
he  has  signed,  and  that  he  believes  the 
signer  is  the  proper  person. 

Now,  why  all  of  this,  gentlemen?  It 
is  not  the  petition  that  determines  the 
question;  it  is  not  that  makes  the 
veto ; it  is  the  vote.  What  you  are 
putting  up  here  is  not  a protection  to 
the  voter  who  wants  to  vote  for  what 
the  council  may  do,  but  an  obstruction 
to  allowing  him  to  vote. 

I have  seen  clean  petitions,  and  while 
I think  they  will  be  clean  petitions,  the 
petition  is  of  less  importance — a less 
important  fact,  it  is  the  fact  that  there 
is  a vote  itself  after  the  petitions  are 
in. 

The  petition  does  not  veto  the  ordi- 
nance as  it  may  be  passed,  all  the  pe- 
tition does  is  to  give  the  people  a right 
to  veto  it  afterwards,  and  even  if  your 
petitions  were  clean,  the  people  would 
not  vote  upon  the  proposition  upon  the 
petitions  merely  because  the  petitions 
were  there.  The  point  is  to  get  a hear- 
ing. 

Now,  if  we  reduce  it  even  to  10  per 
cent  you  have  to  get  40,000  to  reduce 
it;  and  if  5 per  cent  you  have  to  get 
twenty  odd  thousand.  You  have  got 
only  the  petition,  the  Chairman  has 
shown  it,  if  we  have  it  as  low  as  20  per 
cent  the  Socialists  could  get  up  any- 
thing, because  they  have  got  20,000 
votes,  and  if  they  voted  on  that,  every 
one  of  them,  they  could  carry  it.  Sup- 
pose the  Socialists  did  bring  forward  a 
proposition,  even  if  the  majority  did 
not,  if  the  majority  did  not  want  what 


Maich  1 


1145 


1907 


the  Socialists  voted  for,  they  can  go 
on  and  vote  it  down  and  we  wouldn’t 
get  it.  There  is  no  more  reason  why 
the  Socialists  should  put  up  anything 
more  than  anybody  else.  You  are 
afraid  to  have  the  Socialists  with  the 
20,000  votes,  vote  on  the  traction  propo- 
sition, still  you  are  afraid  to  have  that 
done,  and  yet  you  give  the  Socialists  a 
right  to  have  full  party  machinery,  a 
full  set  of  candidates,  and  all  of  that — • 
all  of  that  expense,  all  of  that  time,  and 
after  all,  the  percentage  you  are  de- 
manding here  from  the  people. 

I want  to  be  fair  to  the  nominees.  If 
the  convention  brings  forward  a vote 
for  its  nominees,  or  brings  forward  a 
vote  of — I cannot  say  the  exact  amount, 
but  I think  it  is  8 per  cent,  or  certainly 
a per  cent  lower  then  it  becomes  a 
party,  and  it  is  entitled  to  a primary 
and  you  make  no  objection.  Yet  you 
want  20  per  cent  under  strict  rules  in 
order  to  pass  the  veto  for  the  referen- 
dum, to  pass  before  the  public  in  order 
to  get  the  public  to  agree.  I stand  for 
the  position  that  should  not  be  so  ready 
to  give  away  public  property  and  be 
so  unready  to  throw  obstacles  in  behalf 
of  the  people  around  the  giving  away  of 
public  property.  We  are  very  solicitous 
about  the  petition;  that  it  may  have 
some  false  names  on  it  in  order  to  au- 
thorize us  to  vote,  but  we  are  not  so 
solicitous  about  protecting  the  property 
rights  of  the  people  of  the  city.  But 
when  we  come  down  to  the  real  ques- 
tion, when  we  come  down  to  the  real 
essence  of  the  matter  in  connection 
with  this  charter  and  question,  we  shall 
find  that  it  is  not  a question  so  much 
of  petition  as  of  something  else.  There 
should  be  no  petition  required  in  a case 
of  this  kind. 

If  the  council  thinks  it  wise  to  give 
away  the  public  property  to  a private 
corporation  the  burden  then  should  be 
on  the  council  to  get  the  support  of  the 
people.  The  burden  should  not  be 


thrown  upon  the  citizens  to  take  time 
and  trouble  in  order  to  get  the  people  to 
sign  a petition.  It  should  not  be  up 
to  the  people,  and  it  should  not  be  so 
constructed  that  you  can  hardly  get  the 
opinion  of  the  people.  I want  to,  in  this 
connection,  to  compare  section  2,  on 
page  115  of  the  old  draft,  with  section 
8,  on  page  118  of  the  new  draft — page 
118  of  the  old  draft,  and  see  if  that 
doesn’t  make  a suggestion  as  to  why 
you  are  so  anxious  to  have  these  re- 
strictions here,  to  excuse  the  city  coun- 
cil by  a majority  or  the  mayor,  to  give 
away  public  franchises  to  try  the  indi- 
viduals. By  section  8,  the  people  them- 
selves cannot  take  over  the  public  ope- 
ration unless  the  council  not  only  passes 
the  ordinance,  but  the  council  itself 
provides  for  a referendum.  When  you 
are  dealing  with  the  question  of  whether 
we  shall  have  public  operation  or  not, 
you  allow  the  council  to  require  a 'ref- 
erendum, and  there  can  be  no  public 
operation,  unless  the  public  agree  and 
the  people  agree.  It  is  not  a question 
of  the  veto.  It  is  a question  of  affir- 
mants by  the  people.  Although  the  en- 
tire city  council  voted  for  municipal 
operation  of  public  franchise  they  could 
not  give  us  the  public  franchise;  though 
the  whole  council  and  the  mayor  were 
in  favor  of  it.  It  is  impossible  to  give 
it  away;  they  must  submit  it  to  a vote 
and  then  it  cannot  be  adopted  unless 
two-thirds  of  the  people  vote  for  it.  It 
does  seem  to  me  that  you  should  not 
place  so  many  obstructions  in  the  way 
when  you  come  to  giving  away  this 
property.  I think  we  should  break 
these  obstructions  down.  Why  should 
you  make  it  difficult  for  public  spirited 
citizens  to  go  out  and  get  these  petitions? 
Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  are  two 
points  involved  here.  In  the  first  place, 
the  council  should  not  be  allowed  by  a 
majority  or  otherwise  to  give  away  any 
public  franchises  without  having  the 
referendum  instituted  by  itself  appro v- 


March  1 


1146 


1J07 


ing  the  act.  That  is  the  first  point. 
Then  I shall  make  my  motion  upon  that 
and  if  my  amendment  should  be  voted 
down  I want  you  to  reduce  the  percent- 
age. I don’t  care  how  strict  the  re- 
quirements if  you  put  the  percentage 
in  a reasonable  form.  In  case  you  de- 
feat my  amendment,  I want  clean  pe- 
titions, as  well  as  you;  but  if  you  want 
strict  requirements,  then  I wish  you 
would  bring  the  percentage  down  to  a 
point  where  it  will  be  easy  for  public 
spirited  people  to  get  this  petition  and 
not  throw  the  great  burden  on  them. 
I shall  therefore  move,  with  the  right, 
if  I am  defeated  in  this  motion,  for 
myself  or  some  one  else  to  reduce  the 
amount  of  percentage.  I think  the  first 
vote  should  be  on  this. 

I move  to  strike  out  page  116  of  the 
old  draft.  Strike  out  all  the  words  be- 
ginning: “ Until  60  days  after  a,”  in 
the  fourth  line,  the  second  paragraph 
of  the  charter.  Strike  out  all  words 
beginning:  “ Until  60  days  after,”  and 
ending  at  “ Shall  not  be  affected”  in- 
clusive. The  effect  of  that  motion  if 
carried,  would  be,  tfiat  if  the  city  coun- 
cil gives  away  public  rights  of  this 
character  itself,  the  gift  shall  not  be 
effective  until  the  question  of  granting 
such  consent  shall  first  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  public,  and  so  on  and  so 
forth.  In  other  words  instead  of  leav- 
ing the  people  to  get  up  a petition  it 
requires  the  council,  if  it  wants  to  give 
away  public  property  to  secure  a ref- 
erendum vote  on  it  before  it  is  effective. 
I do  not  know  that  the  language  will 
key  in  exactly,  but  the  committee  can 
fix  that.  That  is  the  substance  of  my 
motion  that  I make  reserving  the  right 
to  make  a further  motion  as  regards 
percentage. 

MR.  FISHER:  What  is  your  mo- 

tion? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  matter  is 

printed  on  page  116  of  the  new  draft. 

THE  SECRETARY:  The  old  draft. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  116  of  the  new 

draft — no,  the  old  draft.  I beg  pardon. 
What  page  on  the  new  draft? 

THE  SECRETARY:  114  of  the  new 

draft. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  moves 

to  strike  out:  “ Until  60  days  after  the 
passage  of  the  ordinance  therefore — ” 
(reading).  Move  to  strike  out  those 
words.  Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

MR.  WHITE:  I ask  for  information. 

If  Mr.  Post  will  define  a little  more 
carefully  just  what  kind  of  properties 
he  refers  to.  Does  he  refer  to  the  grant- 
ing of  franchises  exclusively  or  is  it 
to  the  disposition  of  any  public  prop- 
erty? 

MR.  POST:  Property  mentioned 

under  Section  2:  “No  person  or  cor- 
poration shall  have  the  right  ” 

(reading).  And  if  it  is  for  a period  of 
longer  than  five  years  then  the  granting 
of  any  grant  of  that  kind  may  be  for 
five  years  or  less  without  a referendum. 
But  if  for  more  than  five  years  the 
council  must  not  only  pass  the  ordi- 
nance, must  not  only  secure  its  appro- 
val by  the  people.  Whereas  under  the 
section  as  it  is,  and  that  is  the  only 
change,  the  council  may  pass  the  ordi- 
nance, and  it  becomes  effective  in  60 
days  unless  the  people  get  up  a peti- 
tion. 

MR.  WHITE:  It  doesn’t  affect  the 

disposal  of  other  form  of  property,  be- 
longing to  the  school  board  and  so 
forth? 

MR.  POST:  It  only  affects  where  the 
burden  of  having  a referendum  shall 
lie. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Only  refers  to 

public  utilities. 

MR.  HARRISON:  Will  Mr.  Post 

answer  a question? 

MR.  POST:  I don’t  know  that  I can, 
but  I will  be  glad  to  try  to  answer  it. 

MR.  HARRISON:  Will  Mr.  Post 

have  this  apply  to  the  small  electric 
light  franchises  where  a wire  merely 


March  1 


1147 


1907 


runs  from  one  side  of  the  street  to 
another?  There  are  a number  of  eases 
of  that  sort  in  the  downtown  district. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  ask 

whether  there  is  any  necessity  for  such 
grant  being  for  longer  than  a period  of 
five  years? 

MR.  HARRISON:  In  the  old  days 

we  figured  ten  years  was  as  little  as  any 
man  would  put  in  a plant  of  that  sort 
and  get  the  benefit  he  ought  to  have 
for  the  risk;  we  thought  ten  years  was 
suitable  on  those  grants. 

MR.  POST:  I suppose  grants  of  that 
kind  are  really  not  public  grants.  On 
such  matters  it  should  be  understood 
that  a grant  of  five  years  should  be 
given  unless  new  conditions  arise,  that 
grant  would  be  renewable. 

MR.  HARRISON:  In  those  public 

grants  that  a man  gets  a franchise  for, 
he  has  the  right  of  selling  a surplus 
current  to  business  men  in  an  adjoin- 
ing block. 

MR.  POST:  They  are  very  limited. 

It  is  the  big  ones  that  I want  to  get 
after.  As  far  as  the  little  ones  are 
concerned  they  should  be  limited  to 
five  years.  I want  to  get  after  the  big 
grants  which  are  mere  evasion. 

MR.  WHITE:  I don’t  care  to  dis- 

cuss this  at  length,  but  I want  to  dis- 
cuss my  personal  agreement  with  the 
amendment  by  Mr.  Post.  There  is 
nothing  unfair  or  unreasonable  in  it. 
As  regards  public  utilities  it  imposes 
no  unnecessary  burden,  it  seems  to  me, 
upon  the  council  and  in  very  few  in- 
stances, if  any,  would  it  unnecessarily 
delay  such  disposition  of  the  public 
utilities.  Therefore,  I believe  it  would 
be  only  fair  to  leave  the  burden  of  this 
matter  with  the  city  council,  for  the 
passage  of  such  an  ordinance,  instead 
of  making  it  necessary  for  the  citi- 
zens, cither  organized  or  unorganized, 
to  take  the  initiative  in  this  rather  bur- 
densome proposition. 

But,  secondly,  Mr.  Chairman,  I want 


to  call  your  attention,  and  the  atten- 
tion of  this  convention,  to  something 
that  it  seems  to  me  is  rather  important 
for  us  to  consider.  We  have  now 
worked  a year  or  more  on  this  charter. 
We  hope  to  get  it  passed  in  Springfield 
in  some  form  or  another,  and  we  hope 
to  get  it  back  to  the  people  and  have  it 
passed  by  the  people. 

Now,  I think,  to  say  on  the  floor  of 
this  convention  in  the  form  of  a threat, 
to  state  what  the  people  of  this  city 
will  do  with  this  charter  if  this  or  that 
is  not  embodied  in  it,  is  bad  taste,  and 
that  is  not  in  accordance  with  my  posi- 
tion; but  you  do  want  to  take  into 
consideration  the  temper  of  the  people 
in  regard  to  this  particular  thing  and 
the  incidental  things  involved  with  it. 
The  sentiment  of  this  city  has  been 
shifting  very  rapidly  in  the  last  five  or 
ten  years  in  regard  to  this  matter  of  the 
referendum.  The  people  are  insisting 
more  strenuously  every  year,  that  they 
shall  have  the  means  and  motive  and 
opportunity  of  having  something  to  say 
upon  matters  of  great  public  import- 
ance. 

Now,  I really  believe  that,  that 
being  the  sentiment  of  the  city,  you 
will  find  it  pretty  difficult  to  pass  a 
charter  that  does  not  carefully  pro- 
vide for  that  thing  and  meet  the  new 
and  growing  demand;  and,  if  we  can 
make  any  change  in  this  charter  that 
does  not  in  any  way  necessarily  inter- 
fere with  the  expedition  of  city  busi- 
ness, that  will  meet  this  public  demand 
that  is  increasing  every  year  in  this 
city,  it  seems  to  me  as  a mere  act  of 
wisdom  on  the  part  of  this  convention, 
that  we  ought  to  do  it.  Some  of  us, 
perhaps,  ought  to  sink  our  personal 
feelings  about  the  matter  for  the  sake 
of  the  charter  itself. 

T believe  that  any  charter  in  this 
city,  and  T do  not  say  this  assuming 
that  I have  any  right  to  speak  for  the 
voters  of  the  city,  or  anything  of  the 


Mrrch  1 


1148 


1907 


sort,  certainly  nothing  in  the  way  of 
a threat  as  to  what  will  happen  if  cer- 
tain things  are  not  done;  but,  just  look- 
ing the  thing  squarely  in  the  face,  it 
does  seem  to  me  you  will  have  some 
difficulty  in  passing  a charter  in  this 
city  that  does  not  take  care  of  the  grow- 
ing demand  of  the  people  for  the  initia- 
tive and  for  the  referendum.  I think 
that  whatever  our  personal  opinions 
may  be,  perhaps  we  ought  to  subordi- 
nate them  to  the  larger  interests  of  the 
charter  itself. 

First,  I am  in  favor  of  this  on  princi- 
ple, personally,  and  I think,  as  a mat- 
ter of  policy  on  the  part  of  this  conven- 
tion, this  charter  ought  to  be  amended 
in  those  respects  mentioned,  and  per- 
haps some  others,  so  that  it  will  be  con- 
servative, and  the  people  of  the  city 
will  understand,  and  that  it  will  serve 
that  purpose  which  the  people  of  the 
city  desire,  and  which  it  seems  to  me 
are  so  strongly  demanded. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  “-Question. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  It  appears  to  me 

that  there  are  several  objections  to  Mr. 
Post’s  plan  presented  here.  In  the 
first  place,  it  seems  to  me  that  you  are 
absolutely  wrong  to  require  the  city 
council  to  submit  your  referendum  vote 
on  every  proposition  that  might  be  con- 
sidered as  a grant  to  a utility — to  a 
public  utility  corporation.  You  might 
have,  as  suggested,  the  mere  grant  of 
a privilege  to  stretch  a wire  under  or 
across  the  street,  or  might  have  a very 
fragmentary  extension  of  a gas  plant 
or  electric  light  plant,  or  might  possi- 
bly have  some  stub  end  of  a railway 
perhaps  only  a block  or  half  a mile,  or 
something  of  that  sort. 

Every  one  of  these  propositions  under 
this  scheme  would  have  to  be  submitted 
to  the  referendum  vote  of  the  people  of 


the  City  of  Chicago.  Now,  it  occurs  to 
me  that  this  would  really  be  defeating 
the  purposes  of  the  referendum  itself. 
The  chances  are  you  will  get  so  large  a 
number  of  propositions  presented  from 
year  to  year  that,  in  the  first  place,  the 
citizen  would  have  very  little  time  to 
consider  this  great  variety  of  questions; 
they  will  become  indifferent  and  per- 
haps disgusted  with  the  whole  propo- 
sition. 

The  people  are  anxious  to  and  ought 
to  have  their  rights  to  vote  on  the  broad 
questions  of  public  policy  that  are  in- 
volved in  any  franchise  of  any  consider- 
able purpose.  I do  not  think  they 
ought  to  have  the  right  to  vote  on  every 
franchise  grant,  whether  considerable 
or  inconsiderable,  whether  important  or 
unimportant,  and  I very  much  believe 
that  these  propositions  from  year  to 
year  would  throw  the  whole  idea  of  a 
referendum  into  discredit,  and  that  is 
the  very  purpose  you  do  not  want  to 
have  in  mind. 

In  the  second  place,  I think  a sharp 
distinction  ought  to  be  drawn  between 
optional  referendum  and  obligatory  ref- 
erendum. Optional  referendum  on  a cer- 
tain class  of  propositions,  it  seems  to 
me,  has  a rather  good  effect  on  a legis- 
lative body.  If  the  city  council  draw 
up  a proposition  that  is  endorsed  by 
the  people,  it  will  have  a good  effect  on 
them;  no  council  likes  to  draw  up  a 
franchise  grant,  with  considerable  labor 
and  trouble,  and  then  have  that  grant 
overwhelmingly  defeated  by  the  peo- 
ple; so  it  puts  them  on  their  good  be- 
havior never  to  draw  up  an  improper 
grant  and  have  it  presented  to  the  peo- 
ple. That  portion  of  the  referendum 
is  good,  that  it  gives  the  people  a right 
to  pass  on  that. 

An  obligatory  referendum  has,  it 
seems  to  me,  a decidedly  opposite  effect. 
The  city  council  says,  after  all,  this 
matter  comes  up  to  the  people,  and 
after  all  it  is  not  for  us  to  decide,  it 


March  1 


1149 


1907 


does  not  matter  what  we  say  about  it; 
the  law  requires  that  before  this  goes 
into  effect  the  people  should  pass  upon 
it,  and  then  in  a certain  way  the  re- 
sponsibility is  taken  away  from  them, 
and  they  believe  in  passing  anything, 
and  the  people  will  decide  that,  any- 
way, and  that  relieves  the  council  of 
that  responsibility,  and  the  council 
thinks  it  is  only  a subordinate  body. 

I am  very  strongly  of  the  opinion 
that  there  ought  to  be  an  optional  refer- 
endum, and  on  this  optional  referendum 
the  low  percentage  of  signatures  re- 
quired— that  it  ought  to  be  much  lower 
than  we  have  here.  I am  also  of  the 
opinion  that  Mr.  Post’s  proposition  will 
defeat  his  own  purpose  of  presenting  a 
referendum,  and  have  the  referendum 
have  a bad  effect  on  the  council  itself. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  ask  Mr. 

Merriam  a question.  I would  like  to 
know,  Mr.  Merriam,  with  reference  to 
piling  up  the  referendums  on  small 
grants  such  as  you  have  enumerated, 
whether  the  provision  here,  that  no 
grant  may  be  made  for  five  years  with- 
out a referendum  is  not  enough,  where 
it  is  necessary  that  such  grant  should  be 
made  for  only  the  five  years,  and  why 
it  is  not  right  that  they  should  be  sub- 
ject to  renewal  every  five  years,  in- 
stead of  being  made  for  twenty  years. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I see  no  reason, 

Mr.  Post,  why  the  city  council  should 
not  have  the  right  to  grant  an  electric 
light  privilege,  or  something  of  that 
sort,  for  a period  of  twenty  years.  In 
a very  important  matter,  a connecting 
link  of  a mile  or"so  in  a street  railway 
system,  or  a gas  or  electric  light  plant, 
where  it  is  of  sufficient  importance  to 
get  the  vote  on  it,  it  is  all  right.  If 
you  make  it  absolutely  obligatory  to 
have  a referendum  on  all  of  these  things 
you  will  certainly  throw  the  whole  mat- 
ter into  disrepute. 

MR.  POST : Well,  say  all  or  more 

than  five  years’  duration. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  1 1 Question.  ”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Post’s 

motion  to  strike  out,  the  Secretary  will 
call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Burke,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Lin- 
ehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  Michaelis, 
O’Donnell,  Owens,  Post,  Yopicka, 
White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer — 14. 

Nays— Badenoch,  Bennett,  Church, 
Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eck- 
hart,  B.  A.,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gans- 
bergen,  Harrison,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Merriam, 
Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow, 
Sunny,  Taylor,  Werno,  Young — 30. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR,  BEILFUSS:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Beilfuss. 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

came  in  late;  I am  not  quite  clear  on 
this. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Have  you  the 

new  or  the  old  draft  there? 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  I guess  I have.  I 

would  like  a distinction  made  between 
where  it  will  grant  a referendum — a 
distinction  certainly  should  be  had  by 
the  city  council.  We  have  had  a great 
many  of  those  similar  matters  men- 
tioned here,  and  I do  not  think  we  want 
any  referendum  on  that  at  all.  I am 
not  clear,  and  I therefore  do  not  care 
to  vote  at  this  time  until  that  is  cleared 
up. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIR:  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  I would  like  to  explain 

my  vote.  I am  a believer  in  the  refer- 
endum. I think  it  is  the  coming  way 
of  expressing  the  public  opinion,  and 
public  opinion  is  what  governs  this 
country  and  always  will;  but  I believe 
also  that  when  it  comes  to  an  applica- 
tion, you  have  got  to  take  into  consider- 
ation conditions.  This  charter,  and  all 
charters,  have  to  be  a matter  of  com- 


March  1 


1150 


1907 


promise.  We  have  got  to  have  a char- 
ter that  will  pass  at  Springfield  and 
also  will  he  passed  by  the  people  of 
Chicago,  because  it  has  to  come  to 
both  bodies  just  as  they  are,  and  I 
doubt  very  much  if  a majority  of  this 
convention,  I doubt  very  much  if  a 
majority  of  the  legislators,  and  possibly 
a majority  of  the  people,  stand  ready 
for  so  thorough  a referendum  as  is  sug- 
gested by  the  motion  of  Mr.  Post. 

I am  willing  to  accept  a compromise, 
and  while  I am  on  my  feet  I merely 
want  to  say,  further,  that  I believe  in 
safeguards  for  referendums.  If  we 
make  this  safeguard  for  referendums, 
we  must  make  a very  much  smaller  per- 
centage than  they  now  have.  That  is 
my  position  on  the  matters  in  con- 
troversy, and  why  I vote  no  on  the 
proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  Mr.  Post’s 

motion  to  strike  out  the  ayes  are  14 
and  the  nays  are  30,  and  the  motion  to 
strike  out  is  lost. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Greenacre. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I move  to 

amend  by  striking  out  one  word,  the 
word  1 ‘ twenty,  ’ ’ in  the  twentieth  line 
of  Section  2,  Article  XVI,  on  page  14, 
and  substitute  instead  of  the  word 
* twenty”  the  word  “two,  ” and  on  that 
I want  to  be  heard  for  a moment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

Mr.  Greenacre ’s  motion  to  substitute 
the  word  “two”  for  the  word  “twen- 
ty.” Mr.  Greenacre  has  the  floor. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chairman 

and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  This 
is  now  the  optional  referendum.  My 
reason  for  making  that  “two”  instead 
of  “twenty”  is  this:  Gentlemen,  with 
a vast  political  experience — and  I use 
the  word  “political”  in  no  derogatory 
sense  of  the  word;  it  is  the  most  ex- 
alted sense — men  whose  business  it  has 
been  to  handle  public  affairs,  and  to 
consider  the  question  of  how  and  of 


what  percentages  the  people  should  be 
heard,  by  an  act  of  the  legislature,  in 
fact,  have  two  as  the  proper  prcentage, 
and  I believe  that  if  two  per  cent  is 
enough,  as  is  provided  by  this  charter, 

and  by  the  on  recommendation  of 

the  committee  of  this  charter,  and  it 
evidently  has  been  the  sense  on  the 
part  of  the  members  of  this  Convention 
that  two  per  cent  of  the  Republican 
party  or  the  Democratic  party,  on  pe- 
tition for  nomination  at  a primary  elec- 
tion, is  sufficient  to  compel  eonsiderat- 
tion  for  a name  for  an  office,  then  I 
think  two  per  cent  of  the  citizens,  if 
that  is  held  a sufficient  per  cent  for 
consideration  of  a man,  that  should  be 
held  to  be  sufficient  percentage  for  con- 
sideration of  not  merely  a man  but  a 
principle,  which  in  our  organized  gov- 
ernment is  a larger  matter  than  a mere 
man.  If  a man  can  come  up  and  be  con- 
sidered, only  a name,  it  seems,  to  my 
mind,  that  is  subordinate  to  principles 
involved. 

Now,  if  you  can  force  a man’s  name 
upon  the  primary  ballot  by  a vote  of 
two  per  cent  of  his  party  or  of  his  dis- 
trict or  of  his  ward,  why  have  I not 
in  that  the  key  to  the  feelings  of  the 
members  of  this  Convention  and  those 
practical,  learned  men  who  have  given 
this  matter  so  much  consideration. 
Why  shouldn’t  it  be  a low  percentage 
on  a more  important  matter,  to  wit:  a 
principle;  nor  do  we  confine  ourselves 
on  primary  matters  to  two  per  cent. 

I find  that  in  all  larger  subdivisions, 
in  all  cities  or  organizations  of  states 
above  5,000,  that  two  per  cent  is  recog- 
nized as  the  proper  percentage  on  a pe- 
tition. In  organizations  of  less  than 
5,000,  that  is,  in  a city  of  less  than 
5,000,  or  a district  of  less  than  5,000, 
then  it  says  that  the  petition  shall  be 
signed  for  selecting  a man  or  submit- 
ting his  name  to  the  voters  at  election. 
The  question  is  then  submitted:  Shall 

he  or  shall  he  not  be  voted  for  or 


March  1 


1151 


1907 


against?  The  percentage  then  is  five 
per  cent. 

Now,  no  subdivision  of  this  city  ex- 
ists that  has  not  over  5,000;  no  ward 
or  district  that  I know  of  but  which 
contains  more  than  5,000  inhabitants, 
and  hence  rights,  in  the  matter  of 
voters,  which  is  the  matter  which 
should  govern,  especially  in  the  will 
of  the  people,  is  above  5,000,  either  in 
a city  or  a political  subdivision,  pro- 
vided for  in  our  old  law  of  5,000,  or  five 
per  cent;  therefore  the  five  per  cent 
provisions  of  our  state  do  not  seem  to 
apply  to  the  city  of  Chicago,  or  any  of 
its  subdivisions;  not  even  to  a ward. 
And  the  two  per  cent  which  they  have 
laid  down  as  the  percentage  to  a pe- 
tition, or  to  a question,  to  submit  it, 
as  being  the  proper  percentage  in  larger 
organizations,  applies  very  well  in  this 
city. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  people  who 
have  approved  and  acted  under  these 
statutes,  and  they  have  worked  well, 
have  shown,  and  their  representatives 
have  shown,  and  our  experience  has 
shown  us  that  the  whole  trend  of  our 
legislation  and  of  our  public  govern- 
ment indicates  that  two  per  cent  is 
the  proper  figure  to  be  considered  here. 
Now,  if  that  is  so,  I reason  from 
analogy  when  I insist  that  it  would  not 
be  well  for  us  to  depart  from  the  beaten 
path  which  they  have  laid  down  for  us 
in  the  matters  of  options,  referendum 
or  initiative. 

The  petition  to  put  a man ’s  name  on 
the  ballot  is  something  of  initiative. 
We  have  initiative  in  various  forms,  and 
have  had  it  for  years  in  our  laws  as  to 
compulsory  action,  according  to  the  pe- 
tition of  a certain  percentage.  In  the 
country  towns  the  public  parties  are 
compelled,  it  is  provided,  that  certain 
percentages  shall  present  petitions  for 
certain  matters.  We  now  have  before 
us  this  referendum,  and  it  seems  to  me 
to  be  the  whole  trend  of  our  legislation, 


as  far  as  we  can  gather  it  from  anala- 
gous  things,  that  two  per  cent  is  the 
proper  amount. 

Now,  then,  tell  me  why,  if  that  per- 
centage has  been  practical  heretofore, 
has  operated  well,  and  has  not  worked 
hardship  nor  become  a burden,  and  has 
not  disgusted  the  people,  if  they  are 
disposed  to  have  referendums  and  ex- 
pressed themselves  on  public  opinions, 
if  that  sentiment  has  not  decreased, 
but  has  increased,  we  can  see  that  two 
per  cent  has  not  flooded  them  with  a 
burden  of  referendums;  it  has  not 
proved  that.  It  has  not  been  proved  in- 
operative and  it  has  not  been  proved 
burdensome;  it  has,  according  to  our 
experience,  proved  the  justness  of  two 
per  cent. 

Those  are  my  reasons  for  selecting 
the  two  per  cent  as  the  basis  for  my 
amendment.  Many  of  you  have  ex- 
pressed yourselves  as  being  in  favor 
of  an  optional  referendum.  Here  it  is. 
There  is  a question  of  decrease.  Should 
there  be  any  subsequent  amendment  or 
suggestion  adopted  of  ten,  fifteen  or 
twenty  per  cent,  as  seems  to  be  indi- 
cated by  other  portions  of  this  charter 

in  one  I notice  fifteen  per  cent  pro- 
vided for,  and  in  another  twenty,  on 
questions  of  this  kind. 

Then  let  me  ask  you  why,  if  our 
legislation  provides  that  five  per  cent  * 
shall  only  be  required  in  small  com- 
munities and  the  two  per  cent  in  our 
larger  communities,  why  do  you  insist 
now  on  a larger  per  cent  in  a larger 
community?  Much  larger,  and  three  of 
four  times  larger.  It  is  four  times 
larger  than  the  state  provides  in  a 
smaller  community  as  it  is  now  writ- 
ten in  this  draft,  and  the  state  recog- 
nizes the  larger  the  community  the  less 
the  percentage. 

MR.  SHEPARD:  Mr.  Chairman, 

there  is  an  apparent  difference  in  this 
Convention  with  reference  to  the  refer- 
endum, and  the  terms  bv  which  refer- 


March  1 


1152 


1907 


endum  shall  be  provided  by  the  peo- 
ple, not  only  as  to  the  detail,  but  as 
to  the  principle. 

For  myself,  I believe  that  the  best 
service  is  obtained  for  the  public,  and 
the  best  thing  is  obtained  in  all  respects 
by  adhering  to  the  representative  form 
of  government,  by  placing  upon  a duly 
elected  and  qualified  public  official  the 
responsibility  for  his  official  acts. 

In  my  judgment  that  obtains  the  more 
for  good  government  than  divided  re- 
sponsibility; a shifting  of  responsibil- 
ity from  the  public  official  elected  to 
the  people  who  are  not  responsible,  to 
the  official  nor  to  anyone  else.  There 
are  those  who  believe  the  exact  oppo- 
site; that  school  is  probably  best  rep- 
resented in  the  address  given  by  Mr. 
Post,  the  logic  of  which  appears  to  me 
to  be  that  initiative,  in  the  referendum, 
the  ultimate  decision  must  come  to  the 
people,  whether  they  understand  the 
proposition  or  not,  and  the  duly  elected 
and  qualified  official  is  reduced  simply 
to  the  performance  of  a ministerial 
function.  We  must  recognize  this,  how- 
ever— at  least,  I bring  myself  to  recog- 
nize the  fact — that  there  are  two  di- 
vided schools  of  opinion,  not  only  in 
this  community,  but  in  this  Conven- 
tion. 

The  proposition  of  referendum  is  now 
a proposition  of  this  community — an 
established  proposition.  There  seems  to 
be  no  disposition  to  do  away  with  it 
entirely.  It  then  resolves  itself  into 
the  simple  question  as  to  the  restric- 
tions and  the  provisions  by  which  the 
referendum  shall  be  submitted  to  the 
people  and  upon  what  questions.  It 
seems  to  me  the  draft  of  this  charter, 
as  so  carefully  worked  out,  is  the  best 
result — that  it  could  bring  about  the 
best  result. 

But,  upon  this  question  of  percentage, 
it  might  be  wise  for  those  of  us  who 
stood  for  a higher  percentage  earlier 
in  the  proceedings  of  this  convention 


to  recede  somewhat  from  our  positions. 
I am  prepared  to  do  that,  in  view  of 
the  statement  that  the  petition  shall  be, 
so  far  as  possible,  verified  and  signed 
only  by  those  who  are  qualified  to  sign 
such  a petition. 

With  that  in  view,  I move  you,  Mr. 
Chairman,  as  a substitute  for  Mr. 
Greenacre ’s  motion,  that: 

The  word  “ten’*  be  substituted  for 
the  word  “two. " 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  motion  of  Mr.  Shepard, 
as  a substitute  for  Mr.  Greenacre ’s  mo- 
tion, that  “ten"  be  substituted  for 
“twenty"  instead  of  “two." 

MR.  POST:  This  is  not  a matter  for 
substitution  or  for  amendment.  As  I 
understand  parliamentary  procedure  in 
matters  of  this  kind,  this  is  simply  in 
the  nature  of  filling  a blank,  and  as 
many  motions  may  be  put  as  there  are 
differences  of  opinion  in  the  conven- 
tion, and  on  pntting  the  motion,  the 
motion  should  proceed  from  the  lower 
to  the  higher  figure,  seriatum. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  can- 

not agree  with  Mr.  Post.  The  matter 
was  printed  as  twenty,  and  Mr.  Post 
moved  to  amend  it  by  making  it  two, 
and  then  Mr.  Shepard  moved  as  a sub- 
stitute that  it  should  be  made  ten. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Greenacre. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Greenacre 

moved  to  make  it  two,  and  Mr.  Shep- 
ard now  brings  the  matter  up  as  an 
amendment  to  an  amendment,  and  that 
is  the  amendment;  that  would  be  in 
order,  until  the  matter  is  disposed  of. 

MR.  SNOW:  There  seems  to  be  some 
misapprehension  among  the  members  of 
the  Convention  as  to  the  object  of  the 
charter  provision  outlined  here,  cover- 
ing the  question  of  the  manner  in  which 
a petition  shall  be  secured  as  placing 
burdensome  restrictions  upon  the  secur- 
ing of  the  signatures.  That  apparently 
is  the  burden  of  Mr.  Post’s  argument. 
That  is  the  burden  of  the  argument 


March  1 


1153 


1907 


presented  by  Mr.  Greenacre,  and  even 
among  some  who  have  believed  in  a 
higher  percentage  there  seems  to  be 
an  opinion  that  there  are  additional 
provisions  here  safeguarding  the  hon- 
esty of  the  petitions. 

If  the  members  of  this  Convention 
will  examine  Section  9,  and  Chapter  2, 
page  21,  of  the  new  draft,  they  will 
find  that  for  all  practical  purposes  there 
is  no  additional  provision  for  safe- 
guarding the  honesty  of  petitions  that 
are  filed.  The  only  requirement  is  that 
each  signature  shall  be  signed  by  a per- 
son in  person,  or  that  there  shall  be 
an  affidavit  relating  either  to  the  indi- 
vidual signature  or  to  a group  of  signa- 
tures, if  you  please.  But  the  wording 
of  the  section  as  such  on  that  affidavit 
does  not  mean  anything.  It  does  not 
require  an  affidavit  that  it  is  signed 
by  the  man  whose  name  is  there.  It  is 
simply  an  affidavit  on  the  part  of  the 
man  circulating  the  petition  that  he  be- 
lieves the  signatures  are  genuine,  and 
that  he  verily  believes  that  those  names 
are  the  names  of  qualified  voters. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Read  it. 

MR.  SNOW:  Do  you  desire  to  ask  a 

question? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  No,  read  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  He  wants  you 

to  read  it. 

MR.  SNOW  (after  reading  the  pro- 
visions) : He  believes  the  signatures 

to  be  the  signatures  of  the  persons  who 
have  their  names  there,  and  that  they 
are  genuine.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
submit  to  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion that  the  purpose  of  the  optional 
referendum  is  to  enable  public  senti- 
ment to  find  expression  where  that  pub- 
lic sentiment  exists  to  any  considerable 
extent.  Under  our  form  of  govern- 
ment, representative  government,  the 
power  of  the  people  to  pass  legislation 
is  delegated  to  their  representatives.  I 
am  one  who  believes  that  the  optional 
referendum  is  desirable  and  is  a useful 


adjunctive  element,  because  it  enables 
the  people  themselves  to  check  any  hasty 
or  ill-considered  legislation;  but  I do 
not  believe  that  that  check  should  be 
put  into  effect  unless  there  is  a con- 
siderable public  sentiment,  or  public 
sentiment  considerable  enough  to  be  in- 
dicated by  a respectable  percentage  of 
the  voters  in  asking  for  that  privilege 
of  veto. 

The  impression  seems  to  prevail  in 
some  quarters  that  the  referendum  and 
the  petition  securing  it  is  for  the  pur- 
pose of  enabling  a small  coterie  of  pro- 
fessional agitators  to  foist  their  views 
on  the  public  and  demand  for  it.  I 
don’t  subscribe  to  that  belief.  I be- 
lieve that  percentage  should  represent 
a respectable  portion,  at  least,  in  num- 
bers of  the  total  vote.  If  the  percent- 
age is  cut  down  to  one  or  two  per  cent, 
or  a percentage  of  that  kind,  it  simply 
means  that  individuals  for  their  own 
personal  aggrandizement,  or  possibly 
with  motives  that  will  not  bear  the 
light  of  day,  will  insist  upon  putting 
before  the  people  a referendum  upon 
every  question  passed  by  the  represent- 
atives of  the  people,  or  the  council, 
or  by  the  legislative  body  under  dis- 
cussion. Mr.  Greenacre  points  to  the 
fact  that  we  only  require  two  per  cent 
in  some  cases  to  place  a man’s  name 
upon  the  ballot.  That  is  true,  and  that 
is  a desirable  provision,  because  it  en- 
ables the  people  to  secure  a larger 
number  of  names  upon  the  ballot,  in 
order  that  they  may  have  a wider 
choice  when  it  comes  to  choosing  their 
public  officers.  Personally  I think  it  is 
made  low,  therefore — that  it  is  made 
low  for  that  reason. 

Now,  as  a matter  of  fact,  in  those 
countries  in  which  the  referendum  has 
been  most  highly  developed,  and  where 
it  originated,  in  Switzerland,  in  the  va- 
rious cantons  of  Switzerland,  there  are 
provisions  safeguarding  the  rights  of 
the  petition  which  are  far  more  drastic 


March  1 


1154 


1907 


and  far  more  severe  than  any  sug- 
gested in  this  Convention  or  in  the  dis- 
cussion of  the  question  by  the  people  of 
the  City  of  Chicago. 

We  are  adopting  a plan  which  has 
been  worked  out  there,  but  we  are  fail- 
ing to  adopt  the  safeguards  which  they 
have  found  essential,  and  which  they 
have  worked  out.  The  number  of 
names  required  in  the  various  Swiss 
cantons  vary  from  one-twelfth  of  the 
vote  to  one-fifth;  and,  as  a rule,  those 
names  must  be  had  at  an  election  place 
or  before  an  election  official.  All  men 
desiring  to  sign  the  petition  must  prove 
their  right  to  sign  this  petition  as  quali- 
fied voters,  exactly  as  they  prove  their 
right  to  vote  at  any  election.  The 
whole  machinery  of  securing  petitions 
is  made  a governmental  function,  but 
as  you  have  left  it  here  it  is  a volun- 
tary act  of  individuals  or  associations 
of  individuals. 

ME.  POST:  May  I ask  a question? 

ME.  SNOW:  Certainly. 

ME.  POST:  Is  Mr.  Snow  willing  to 

have  this  charter  so  arranged  that  the 
getting  of  the  petition  shall  also  be  a 
governmental  function? 

ME.  SNOW:  I will  be  glad  to  have 

this  charter  so  arranged  that  the  sign- 
ing of  the  petition  must  be  done  before 
election  officials.  1 would  be  very  glad 
to  have  that  done. 

ME.  POST:  On  the  governmental 

supervision? 

ME.  SNOW:  Provided  it  would  be 

before  an  election  commissioner. 

ME.  POST:  That  was  the  purpose  of 
my  motion  which  Mr.  Snow  voted 
against. 

MB.  SNOW:  I fail  to  see  the  point. 

Youx  motion  was  that  there  may  be  a 
referendum  as  follows:  (Beading.)  With 
that  I fail  to  agree,  but  T believe  an 
optional  referendum  should  be  secured 
with  same  safeguards  under  govern- 
mental function  that  the  right  of  suf- 
frage is  secured.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman, 


just  for  a moment  speaking  of  the 
Swiss  methods.  When  the  signature 
method  is  adopted  there  is  another 
method  of  parole,  approving  of  the  pe- 
tition, before  an  election  official  in  an 
election  vicinity.  When  a person  re- 
quires to  sign,  the  provision  is  that 
there  shall  be  an  endorsement  of  the 
petition,  and  he  must  come  before  an 
officer,  or,  rather,  head  man,  in  the 
same  precinct.  He  must  prove  a right 
the  same  as  in  any  other  election. 
Now,  a safeguard  of  that  kind,  or  some- 
thing in  that  nature,  in  my  judgment, 
should  be  adopted  in  connection  with 
the  referendum  here.  I believe  that 
the  haphazard  method  of  securing  pe- 
tions,  as  a matter  of  fact,  tends  to  de- 
feat the  real  object  of  the  referendum. 
If  it  could  be  done  I would  be  very  glad 
to  see  this  section  or  this  provision  re- 
ferred back  to  the  drafting  committee, 
with  instructions  to  further  safeguard 
the  petition  than  they  have  done,  and 
to  put  it  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the 
public  officials,  or  the  public  election 
officials. 

ME.  EOBINS:  I ask  the  unanimous 

consent  that  Mr.  Snow  be  allowed  the 
privilege  of  continuing. 

(Cries  of  “Consent.”) 

ME.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  I do  not 
believe  there  is  anything  further  I care 
to  say  at  this  time.  I have  covered 
the  matter,  as  I see  it.  The  main  thing 
is  that  there  should  be  an  optional  ref- 
erendum; optional,  not  obligatory.  Sec- 
ondly, that  the  referendum  should  be 
brought  about  as  an  honest  expression 
of  the  desire  of  the  people  of  Chicago 
to  have  a referendum  on  that  subject, 
not  forced  upon  them. 

MB.  FISHEB:  Mr.  Snow  did  not  ex- 

press himself,  Mr.  Chairman,  as  to 
whether  he  was  for  or  against  the  pend- 
ing motion,  and  I had  hoped  that  we 
would  ascertain  that  fact,  because  it  is 
my  hope  that  this  amendment  of  ten 


March  1 


1155 


1907 


per  cent  would  be  adopted  unanimously 
by  this  Convention. 

In  a matter  of  this  kind  it  is  neces- 
sary to  make  compromises  between  peo- 
ple who  believe  in  percentages.  No 
percentage  would  be  adopted  which  the 
membership  of  this  Convention,  or  the 
membership  of  the  State  Legislature, 
or  the  people  of  Chicago  would  be  en- 
tirely' satisfied  with.  There  would  nec- 
essarily be  a difference  of  opinion  upon 
the  number  of  percentages  adopted.  It 
seems  to  me  than  ten  per  cent  is  a 
figure  upon  which  we  should  all  unite, 
and  that  we  should  do  it  unanimously, 
because  we  can  fairly  expect  that  the 
state  legislature  would  accede  to  your 
request  if  that  percentage  were  fixed. 
The  legislature  would  be  more  likely 
to  do  that  for  the  excellent  reason  that 
it  is  the  percentage  already  fixed  by 
that  body  in  the  Mueller  law,  which 
went  through  the  storm  and  stress  of 
political  and  popular  discussion  before 
it  became  a part  of  our  statutes. 

That  Mueller  law  provided  for  a ten 
per  cent,  and  if  we  propose  a larger  per 
cent  would  meet  very  stringent  consid- 
eration, under  the  belief  that  it  will  in- 
crease the  burden;  and  that  is  the  per- 
centage under  that  law  which  has  been 
overwhelmingly  approved  by  the  people 
of  this  city. 

Mr.  Greenacre’s  suggestion  of  two  per 
cent  is  wholly  fallacious  Mr.  Snow  has 
pointed  out  the  reason.  If  there  are 
five  candidates  there  must  be  a two  per 
cent,  both  at  primary  and  general. 
There  must  be  two  per  cent  of  voters 
who  have  signed  the  petition  to  put  a 
man  in  nomination.  Two  per  cent  of 
voters  must  be  sent  in  to  secure  the 
nomination,  and  unless  that  percent- 
age of  voters  sign  the  petition,  thev 
cannot  secure  a candidate.  So  that  five 
candidates  put  in  nomination  at  a pri- 
mary election  is  equal  to  ten  per  cent. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  How  about  the 

genera]  election? 


MR.  FISHER  : We  are  talking  about 

the  primary  elections.  Let  us  not  stop. 
Let  us  get  right  down  to  the  point  in 
question  of  the  primary  elections.  At 
general  elections  we  simply  follow  the 
rule  prescribed  before,  and  recognize 
the  fact  that  petitions  for  nominations 
should  be  made  extremely  easy.  You 
are  going  to  have  your  elections  any- 
way. It  requires  no  additional  expense; 
you  do  not  require  a separate  ballot.  It 
does  not  compel  anything. 

The  gentlemen  seem  to  wholly  misun- 
derstand the  character  and  intention  of 
the  optional  referendum,  and  that  is  a 
peculiar  difficulty  for  me  to  understand 
in  a man  who  believes  in  the  initiative; 
because  the  optional  referendum  is  the 
referendum  that  applies  to  the  theory 
of  the  initiative.  It  is  the  only  the- 
ory that  is  consistent  with  the  perma- 
nent maintenance  of  representative  gov- 
ernment. If  you  are  going  to  apply 
the  theory  of  representatives  of  the 
democracy  and  distinguish  between 
them,  you  debar  the  democracy.  You 
must  compel  the  legislature  to  go  to  the 
people  in  all  events.  You  must  give 
the  people  an  opportunity,  under  fair 
treatment,  to  exhaust  the  veto  power — 
the  popular  veto,  which  is  a power  pro- 
vided under  the  optional  referendum. 

I do  not  concur  at  all  with  Mr. 
Post’s  analysis  of  the  present  situation 
in  this  city,  and  I take  this  opportunity 
to  record  my  dissent  from  him  on  that 
point. 

I believe  in  the  referendum,  and  I 
signed  the  pending  petition  and  favored 
its  adoption  and  suggested  the  question 
which  was  put  upon  the  petition.  And 
yet  I believe  the  people  in  this  city 
will,  by  an  overwhelming  vote,  sustain 
the  traction  ordinances  that  are  now  be- 
fore them  for  consideration;  but  I be- 
I lieve  in  the  referendum.  I believe  in 
the  referendum  now;  I believe  in  a 
proper  referendum.  I believe  in  a per- 
centage of  a vote  which  will  not  be  bo 


March  1 


1156 


1907 


small  that  any  organized  body  can 
unite  and  agitate  for  motives  which 
may  not  have  anything  whatever  to  do 
with  the  particular  question  under  con- 
sideration, as  the  Parnellites  did  in  the 
English  parliament  for  purposes  of  agi- 
tation to  accomplish  some  object  which 
was  foreign  to  the  particular  bill  and 
purpose  under  discussion.  I believe  in 
a petition  which  will  be  sufficiently 
large  in  percentage  to  accomplish  the 
result  we  desire,  and  that  cannot  be 
done  on  less  than  ten  per  cent,  in  my 
judgment.  Ten  per  cent  will  be  ap- 
proximately 40,000  signatures — 35,000 
to  40,000  signatures — upon  the  petition, 
which  is  a sufficient  number  to  indi- 
cate that  a section  of  the  people  will 
not  get  together,  and  that  a sufficient 
number  will  get  together  to  agitate 
that  question  until  they  do  represent  a 
respectable  element,  and  represent  a 
considerable  proportion  of  the  com- 
munity. 

Now,  in  regard  to  the  point  made  by 
Mr.  Snow,  I think  he  has  failed  en- 
tirely to  meet  the  provisions  on  pages 
21  and  22,  in  regard  to  the  verification 
of  signatures.  It  would  be  all  right 
if  we  were  to  adopt  the  Swiss  system 
in  its  entirety,  with  the  provisions  for 
certain  compulsory  legislation,  and  up- 
on legislation  of  a certain  kind;  for  pe- 
titions orally,  referring  to  matters  and 
under  conditions  which  exist  there  and 
do  not  exist  here;  and  for  the  other 
requisitions,  such  as  they  work  out  in 
their  law,  where  it  is  easy  enough  for 
the  people  to  get  up  a petition  if  they 
care,  of  that  character,  signed  before 
an  election  commissioner.  As  easy  as  it 
is  for  men  to  circulate  among  the  Swiss 
cantons  and  hills  for  the  purpose  of 
getting  up  a petition.  But  that  is  not 
consistent  with  the  theory  we  have, 
and  the  machinery  which  we  have  in 
this  particular  city,  that  very  radically 
change  an  amendment  of  those  provi- 
sions. The  greater  permanency  of  elec- 


tion officials,  permanent  conditions; 
there  are  conditions  there  which  do  not 
exist  here.  If  we  had  greater  per- 
manency of  election  officials,  permanent 
conditions,  places  where  people  could 
go  ordinarily,  divisional  headquarters 
for  civic  activity;  when  those  things 
come  the  poliey  of  the  referendum 
could  be  adopted  to  them,  as  it  is  in 
the  Swiss  cantons.  But  today  we  must 
meet  conditions  as  they  exist.  Indi- 
viduals representing  organizations  cir- 
culate petitions  wherever  it  is  left  to 
the  people. 

Now,  under  those  circumstances  it  is 
obvious  that  the  men  who  circulate  the 
petition  can  only  know  one  of  two 
things:  He  should  know  whether  or  not 
the  signature  that  is  signed  to  the  pe- 
tition is,  in  fact,  genuine;  whether  he 
sees  it  signed,  or  whether  he  doesn’t 
see  it  signed.  If  he  makes  an  affidavit 
to  the  effect  that  it  is  the  genuine  sig- 
nature of  the  party,  he  is  open  to  where 
he  can  be  convicted  of  perjury  if  his 
affidavit  is  false, 'which  is  all  the  safe- 
guard anyone  has.  And  if  he  makes 
that  affidavit,  that  should  be  sufficient 
as  to  the  particular  signature.  He  must 
be  able  to  make  an  affidavit;  but  he 
may  not  be  able  to  make  an  affidavit  if 
he  has  not  seen  the  man  sign.  But  if 
he  has  seen  an  individual  sign  the  pe- 
tition and  swears  that  he  verily  be- 
lieves the  signature  is  genuine,  you 
will  then  have  all  that  you  can  proper- 
ly require  under  existing  conditions. 
And  you  will  have  this  safeguard,  that 
if  a man  has  not  seen  an  individual 
sign,  under  certain  circumstances,  it 
raises  the  presumption  that  it  was  false, 
and  he  can  be  convicted  of  perjury 
and  sent  to  state  prison. 

No  man,  if  he  has  seen  it — has  not 
seen,  the  circumstances  would  raise  a 
presumption  that  it  was  false.  We 
know  absolutely  there  are  signatures 
that  are  known  on  the  face  to  be 
fraudulent;  signatures  bv  boys;  signa- 


March  1 


1157 


1907 


tures  by  men  who  sign  under  circum- 
stances where  you  know  the  names  are 
not  genuine,  to  signatures  that  are 
signed  by  different  persons  in  a room 
where  there  are  a number  of  people 
that  sign — now  all  of  those  things  have 
been  done 

ME.  WHITE:  I rise  to  ask  a per- 

sonal privilege. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  first  ques- 

tion is  whether  Mr.  Fisher  shall  have 
leave  to  continue. 

ME.  MacMILLAN : Mr.  Chairman, 

I would  like  to  get  away  and  I would 
like  to  be  recorded  as  voting  nay  on 
the  ten  per  cent  proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  MacMillan 

asks  the  unanimous  consent  to  be  re- 
corded— I don’t  know  how  that  can  be 
done;  it  has  got  to  be  done  by  the 
house.  Has  Mr.  MacMillan  the  unani- 
mous consent? 

(Cries  of  “Consent.”) 

MR.  WHITE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I ask 

a similar  privilege;  that  is,  I rise  to 
vote  aye  on  Mr.  Fisher’s  motion  to 
make  it  ten  per  cent. 

(Cries  of  “Consent.”) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher  will 

continue. 

MR.  FISHER:  I have  nothing  fur- 

ther to  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  except  that 
it  seems  to  me  that  the  safeguards 
which  are  now  provided  in  this  section 
are  reasonable  safeguards  and  will  stop 
any  gross  abuse  of  the  propositions,  and 
are  as  fair  as  we  can  reasonably  ask 
under  the  circumstances  that  exist  in 
this  city  and  in  this  country. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  Just  a minute;  perhaps 

if  I can  speak  a minute  it  will  save 
time.  There  is  no  use  of  talking  any 
more  about  the  rights  or  wrongs  of  this 
question.  We  have  all  made  up  our 
minds  on  that  referendum,  the  referen- 


dum men  are  referendum  men,  and  the 
non-referendum  men  are  non-referen- 
dum men,  and  the  question  is,  be  prac- 
tical enough  to  get  together,  get  some- 
thing that  will  pass  with  reasonable 
men. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  with  these 
safeguards  to  the  referendum,  if  we 
take  the  twenty  and  cut  that  down  to 
ten  per  cent  then  we  will  have  some- 
thing— if  we  will  cut  from  twenty  to 
ten,  then  we  will  have  something  that 
may  go  through 

MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hill. 

MR.  HILL:  I am  very  much  in  fa- 

vor of  the  optional  referendum;  I be- 
lieve it  is  the  proper  check  upon  the 
legislature,  but  I believe  it  should  not 
be  exercised,  it  should  be  placed  in 
such  position  or  situation  that  it  will 
only  be  exercised  on  matters  of  great 
public  interest;  matters  of  such  interest 
that  the  whole  people  of  the  city  are 
reasonably  well  posted  upon  the  ques- 
tion, and  I think  whenever  we  happen 
to  have  half  a dozen  referendum  votes 
or  small  ballots  during  one  election  it 
will  cheapen  the  real  object  of  the  ref- 
erendum. 

We  have  some  wheat  among  a lot  of 
chaff  usually.  Now,  I have  seen  it 
often,  and  probably  every  gentleman 
here  has  seen  it  at  some  time  where 
there  have  been  referendum  votes  that 
people  have  come  to  a voting  place 
without  any  idea  whatever  on  the  ques- 
tion and  have  asked  the  first  person 
they  met  how  they  voted  on  this  or 
what  this  means. 

Now,  these  representatives  are  elect- 
ed by  the  people  and  they  necessarily 
assume  certain  rsponsibilities  to  their 
people,  and  they  have  to  give  careful 
thought  and  consideration  necessarily 
to  the  questions  that  are  brought  before 
them.  They  give  their  best  judgment, 
and  they  study  the  question  and  give  it 
their  time  and  attention  in  order  to  ar- 


March  1 


1158  - 


1907 


rive  at  a fair  conclusion  on  the  ques- 
tion, and  when  they  vote  they  assume 
that  responsibility. 

Now,  I think  if  we  are  going  to  have 
a referendum,  an  optional  referendum, 
it  ought  to  be  on  questions  of  great 
public  interest  that  will  be  taken  up 
and  discussed  by  the  people  generally, 
and  by  the  newspapers,  so  that  the  or- 
dinary voter  will  have  a fair  knowledge 
of  the  question  and  assume  a certain 
clegree  of  responsibility  when  he  votes 
upon  the  question. 

We  cannot  do  that  upon  the  whole 
number;  we  cannot  do  it,  if  we  know 
there  are  going  to  be  half  a dozen 
votes  every  election;  but  when  we  leave 
it  in  shape  that  questions  of  great  pub- 
lic interest — when  we  leave  it  in  that 
shape,  the  referendum  may  be  used  as 
a check  upon  the  legislature,  then  it 
will  be  discussed  generally,  then  the 
newspapers  will  discuss  it,  the  people 
■at  large  will  have  some  idea  on  these 
things,  and  will  assume  some  degree  of 
responsibility. 

The  question  that  Mr.  Fisher  illus- 
trates points  admirably  'to  the  present 
traction  ordinance;  it  has  been  discussed 
pro  and  con  by  the  people  and  by  the 
papers,  and  probably  there  are  very 
few  voters  in  the  city  of  Chicago  who 
have  not  heard  of  this  and  discussed  it 
with  their  neighbors  and  read  of  it  in 
the  papers,  and  know  of  it  and  know 
that  it  is  coming  and  assume  some  re- 
sponsibility. 

As  far  as  the  per  cent  is  concerned,  I 
would  like  to  say  from  my  personal  ex- 
perience— personally  I thought  fifteen 
per  cent  was  fair  on  a question  of  great 
public  interest.  I do  not  think  you 
will  have  any  difficulty  in  securing  fif- 
teen per  cent  on  those  questions,  and 
while  I think  an  optional  referendum 
is  the  right  thing,  I think  we  are  going 
backwards  instead  of  forwards  to  have 
several  referendums  at  every  election. 

I think  it  is  a mistake,  and  I think 


we  should  so  safeguard  it  that  only  the 
referendums  are  had  on  questions  of 
great  public  interest,  that  these  be 
presented  to  the  people  to  override  or 
concur  in  the  decisions  of  their  elected 
representatives  in  this  representative 
form  of  government,  where  the  repre- 
sentatives have  taken  the  time  and 
trouble  and  studied  the  question  and 
compared  conditions  in  other  cities  and 
states,  which  the  voter  generally  does  not, 
and  when  we  place  it  in  a position  that 
we  can  group  together  some  question  of 
great  public  interest  with  a lot  of  oth- 
ers the  people  know  nothing  about,  you 
are  cheapening  the  whole  proposition, 
and  T think  you  are  striking  a body 
blow  to  the  question  of  referendum. 

We  should  have  an  optional  referen- 
dum, but  I think  it  should  be  limited 
to  questions  of  great  public  interest, 
where  the  ordinary  voter  has  discussed 
the  question  and  assumed  some  degree 
of  responsibility. 

ME.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST:  I think,  Mr.  Chairman, 

we  have  drifted  somewhat  away 

MR.  T.  J.  DIXON:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Dixon. 

MR.  DIXON:  I would  like  to  have 

the  same  unanimous  consent  to  cast  my 
vote — I have  that  privilege,  and  I now 
ask  to  be  recorded  on  that  ten  per 
cent 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  Mr.  Dixon 

be  back  here  at  2 o’clock? 

MR.  DIXON:  Yes,  without  fail. 

MR.  POST:  As  I was  about  to  say, 

Mr.  Chairman,  we  seem  to  have  drifted 
away  from  the  point  at  issue.  This  is 
not  a question  you  are  about  to  vote 
upon  now,  it  is  not  a question  whether 
the  referendum  should  be  brought  up; 
this  question  is,  shall  we  make  a refer- 
endum easy  or  difficult  when  the  coun- 
cil proposes  to  give  away  great  public 
franchises. 

That  is  the  question;  it  is  not  whether 


March  1 


1159 


1907 


we  shall  have  a referendum  on  small 
things  and  all  sorts  of  things,  or  shall 
we  have  a low  petition — but  shall  we 
have  a low  petition  on  voting  when 
great  publie  franchises  are  to  be  given 
to  private  parties.  That  is  what  we  are 
voting  on  now,  and  I maintain  that  ten 
per  cent  is  too  much,  altogether  too 
much.  I,  too,  am  in  favor  of  an  op- 
tional referendum,  but  this  particular 
question  is  purely  a question  whether  or 
not  the  per  cent  to  be  made  on  all  kinds 
of  questions — not  on  all  kinds  of  ques- 
tions, but  two  per  cent  on  one  particular 
kind  of  question — and  you  yourselves, 
as  I have  already  indicated  in  the  sub- 
sequent provision  here,  stultified  your 
position  in  regard  to  the  optional  refer- 
endum. You  want  an  optional  referen- 
dum when  the  question  is  whether  the 
council  can  give  away  public  interests, 
but  you  don ’t  want  a referendum  when 
the  question  is,  shall  the  people  have 
a right  to  operate  the  property  them- 
selves? 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I am  as  much  a 
compromiser  as  anybody,  but  I do  not 
like  to  compromise,  as  an  illustration 
of  the  lion  and  the  lamb,  when  the  lion 
compromises  by  taking  the  outside  po- 
sition. You  put  an  intolerable  propo- 
sition of  twenty  per  cent,  and  then 
you  propose  to  cut  it  in  half.  You  might 
as  well  make  it  fifty  and  propose  to 
cut  it  in  half.  Upon  that  I rise  to  my 
point  of  order — is  it  good,  fair,  open? 
If  you  direct  this  as  an  amendment, 
then  you  have  no  choice  to  vote  except 
between  twenty  and  ten,  and  I think 
we  ought  to  have  a full  choice  to  vote. 
Page  68,  Mr.  Chairman — we  ought  to 
have  a full  choice  to  vote,  and  my  point 
is  in  voting  figures  like  this  is  similar 
to  filling  blanks,  and  that  rule  in  re- 
gard to  filling  blanks  should  prevail, 
so  that  as  many  different  figures  should 
be  presented  as  represent  the  different 
views  of  it.  In  the  Convention  we  are 


| governed  by  Roberts’  Rules  of  Order, 
page  68. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  In  view  of  that 

section,  the  Chair  once  more  must  hold 
that  the  gentleman’s  point  of  order  is 
not  well  taken;  that  means  the  filling 
of  blanks,  and  the  motion  is  to  amend 
figures  or  words  which  are  inserted. 

MR.  POST:  Just  one  word  on  that. 

It  is  just  as  important  to  compromise 
on  five  per  cent,  and  not  upon  ten,  and 
they  will  then  have  an  opportunity  to 
express  themselves.  Now,  I do  not  care 
for  the  point  of  order,  merely  as  a point 
of  order,  but  I do  want  this  Convention 
to  consider  the  question  of  referendums 
on  five  per  cent  and  not  force  us  in  the 
position  where  ten  per  cent  is  the  low 
point.  I am  willing  to  compromise  on 
five  per  cent,  and  might  compromise  on 
more.  I am  not  willing  to  compromise 
on  ten  per  cent  because  I do  not  regard 
it  as  a compromise  to  ask  us  to  go  out 
and  get  40,000  signatures  under  those 
provisions,  and  when  we  vote  here  you 
ought  to  give  us  an  opportunity  to  vote 
for  a compromise. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

read  the  section: 

“To  fill  blanks  are  usually  treated 
somewhat  differently  from  other  amend- 
ments. ” * * * 

The  Chair  is  not  aware  that  this  is  a 
blank. 

te  * * * May  propose,  without  a 

second,  any  number  of  votes  for  filling 
a blank.” 

In  view  of  the  reading  of  that  point, 
the  Chair  rules  the  point  is  not  well 
taken. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I think,  as  Mr. 
Post  says,  it  is  not  a question  of  com- 
promise, and  I,  therefore,  move  for  the 
substitution  of  the  pending  proposition, 
the  original  motion. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

out  of  order.  The  Secretary  will  now 
call  the  roll  on  Mr.  Shepard’s  amend- 
ment to  Mr.  Greenacre’s  motion. 


March  1 


1160 


1907 


Yeas — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G. 
W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart,  B.  A.„  Eid- 
mann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Harrison, 
Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  MeGoor- 
ty,  Merriam,  Michaelis,  0 ’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Baymer,  Bobins, 
Sethness,  Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow, 
Sunny,  Taylor,  Yopicka,  Werno,  White, 
Wilkins,  Young,  Zimmer — 42. 

Nays — Greenacre,  Guerin,  Post,  Bo- 
senthal — 4. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MB,  GBEENACEE:  A word  of  ex- 

planation. I would,  in  the  spirit  of 
compromise,  be  willing  to  rise  above  two 
per  cent,  but  I am  not  willing  to  go  to 
ten.  I,  therefore,  vote  no. 

MB.  POST:  For  the  reason  given  by 

Mr.  Greenacre,  I vote  no. 

MB.  BOfllNS:  Believing  that  this  is 
the  most  important  feature  of  this  char- 
ter, and  the  one  that  will  most  de- 
termine its  adoption  or  rejection  by  the 
people,  and  in  view  of  that,  to  me,  the 
substantial  compromise  that  has  been 
made  in  this  Convention  by  the  gentle- 
men who  differ  from  myself,  and  be- 
lieving that  five  per  cent  is  sufficient, 
and  for  the  further  reason  that  I be- 
lieve when  there  is  a full  statement 
made  upon  the  provisions  shown  upon 
pages  21  and  2 of  the  new  draft,  or 
old,  I do  not  know  which,  that  there 
will  be  a change  made  in  that  draft, 
which,  in  my  judgment,  is  a fair  change, 
and  I vote  aye. 

MB.  BOSENTHAL:  I rise  to  explain 
my  vote.  I believe  that  referendums 
should  be  used  simply  as  a check  upon 
vicious  legislation.  I think  we  have 
here  a matter  of  principle  and  not  a 
matter  to  be  compromised.  If  we  are 
going  to  have  efficient  legislative  bod- 
ies, according  to  our  former  govern- 
ment, it  seems  to  me  that  we  must  lodge 
that  responsibility  in  the  legislature  or 
in  the  city  council  and  elect  men  to 


those  positions  who  will  take  care  of 
those  responsibilities. 

Now,  with  a twenty  per  cent  referen- 
dum privilege,  we  have  a sufficient 
check  upon  the  viciousness  of  the  legis- 
lature. I do  not  think  the  individual 
voter  is  at  all  suited  to  pass  upon  Con- 
crete measures,  and  while  the  present 
traction  ordinances  have  been  voted  on 
as  a sample  of  the  things  that  ought  to 
be  presented  to  the  people,  I venture 
to  say  that  in  the  case  of  the  present 
traction  ordinances  90  per  cent  of  the 
people  that  will  vote  on  that  measure 
will  know,  as  a matter  of  fact,  what 
they  are  voting  about.  I,  therefore, 
vote  no  on  this  proposition,  because  I 
am  in  favor  of  the  original  proposition 
of  twenty  per  cent. 

ME.  TAYLOB:  Mr.  President,  I 

would  like  to  explain  my  vote.  While 
I favor  a lower  percentage,  I think  this 
is  the  lowest  percentage  we  can  get; 
and  I,  therefore,  vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Shep- 

ard’s motion  the  ayes  are  42  and  the 
nays  are  4.  The  motion  is  carried. 

The  Secretary  will  proceed  to  read 
from  that  section,  from  that  article. 

MB.  POST:  On  page  21  of  the  new 

draft  there  is  a matter  which  we  passed, 
in  consideration  of  taking  up  this  mat- 
ter. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  On  page  22  of 

the  new  draft. 

MB.  POST:  I do  not  make  it  as  a 

point  of  order.  I only  thought  it  was 
overlooked. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  That  should 

come  before  the  Convention  now. 

MB.  COLE:  I move  you,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, that  22  be  passed  as  read  here. 

THE  CHAIBMAN:  It  has  been 

moved  and  seconded  that  this  paragraph 
be  passed  as  printed. 

MB.  BOBINS:  That  per  cent  is  not 

an  impossible  number,  or  an  unreason- 
able number,  if  there  is  a fair  provision 
for  securing  signatures. 


March  1 


1161 


1907 


“Each  signer  shall  add  to  his  signa- 
ture, which  shall  be  in  his  own  hand- 
writing. ’ ’ 

There  is  no  man  on  the  floor  of  this 
Convention  who  has  had  any  experience 
in  securing  signatures  but  who  knows 
that  in  the  working  men ’s  districts  of 
Chicago  more  than  three-fourths  of  the 
men  you  speak  to  say  1 1 That  is  all 
right;  I am  in  favor  of  that.  Put 
down  my  name.  ’ ’ 

And  if  the  man  has  got  to  sign  it 
himself,  many  times  he  will  refuse; 
especially  if  there  are  two  or  three 
persons  there — because  he  writes  a bad 
hand;  he  feels  ashamed  about  it;  it 
puts  him  under  a difficulty  and  a disad- 
vantage which  should  not  exist. 

More  than  that,  there  are  not  a few 
voters  in  the  City  of  Chicago  whom 
you  consider  sufficiently  qualified  to 
say  who  shall  be  mayor,  or  shall  pass 
upon  all  the  important  issues  of  public 
government,  who  cannot  write  their 
names. 

There  is  no  requirement  in  the  elec- 
tion laws  of  this  state  that  require  that 
a man  shall  write  his  name,  and  there 
should  be  no  requirement  in  a people’s 
petition  that  the  signer  should  sign  his 
name  himself.  All  that  you  can  ask, 
or  that  is  reasonable  or  fair,  is  that 
the  signature  should  express  the  intent 
of  that  person  to  make  this  declaration 
as  to  the  public  policy,  and  his  desire 
to  get  a vote  upon  this  question.  That 
is  all  that  can  be  demanded. 

Are  not  the  words  “shall  be  in  his 
own  handwriting”  — I want  that 
changed  to  conform  to  the  statement  I 
have  made.  Then,  Mr.  Chairman 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  state 

it? 

MR.  ROBINS:  I wish  to  state  the 

whole  case  first  and  then  I will  make 
the  motion  afterward. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Very  good. 

MR.  ROBINS:  (Reading.)  “Each 

signature  to  the  petition  shall  be  veri- 


fied by  a statement  * * * or  that 

he  believes  the  signer  to  be  a qualified 
voter,  and  either  that  he  knows  the  sig- 
nature to  be  genuine,  or  that  the  same 
was  made  in  his  presence,  and  that  he 
thoroughly  believes  the  same  to  be  gen- 
uine. ’ 1 

Now,  I want  to  ask  a question  of  the 
law  committee  in  regard  to  that.  Does 
that  mean  that  the  signer  must  sign 
in  the  presence  of  this  person  who 
makes  this  verification? 

MR.  FISHER:  While  the  question  is 
not  directly  addressed  to  me,  I am  a 
member  of  the  law  committee,  and  if 
the  gentleman  desires  to  direct  his  ques- 
tion to  me,  I should  say,  if  I should  un- 
derstand it,  it  means  either  one  of  two 
things;  either  the  signer  knows  it  is 
genuine 

MR.  ROBINS:  Or  that  he  believes 

it  is  genuine. 

MR.  FISHER:  Knows.  Or  that  it 

has  been  signed  in  his  presence  and  he 
knows  it  is  genuine.  If  he  can  make 
an  affidavit  that  that  is  a genuine  signa- 
ture, that  is  all.  If  he  cannot  do  that, 
he  must  say  that  it  was  signed  in  his 
presence  and  he  believes  it  to  be  genu- 
ine. 

M*R.  BOBI  NS:  In  my  ward  there 

happens  to  be  a man  who  is  very  much 
interested  in  the  referendum,  and  he 
has  done  as  much  as  anybody  I know 
of  in  the  City  of  Chicago.  He  has  a 
boy,  sixteen  years  of  age,  who  is  a 
bright,  honorable  child,  in  my  judg- 
ment. This  boy  goes  out  for  the 
father;  the  father  stays  in  his  little 
store  at  night  and  cannot  leave  the 
home  or  the  store.  He  sends  this  boy 
out,  and  this  boy  has  gotten,  to  my 
personal  knowledge,  on  the  last  referen- 
dum, 900  signatures  in  that  ward  alone. 

Now,  every  one  of  those  signatures 
were  genuine.  Every  one  of  those  sign- 
ers had  a perfect  right  to  have  the  pe- 
tition brought  to  him  in  that  form  and 
signed,  and  all  that  was  necessary  was 


March  1 


1162 


1907 


that  this  boy’s  father,  who  was  trust- 
ing his  child,  should  be  able  to  make  an 
affidavit  on  the  back  of  that  petition 
that  he  verily  believes  each  one  of 
those  signatures  to  be  genuine. 

Now,  you  disqualify  every  boy  in 
the  City  of  Chicago,  the  son  of  the  most 
responsible  man,  as  well  as  the  son  of 
the  irresponsible  man,  if  you  please — 
you  disqualify  every  woman  in  the  City 
of  Chicago  from  securing  signatures  to 
a petition. 


MR.  FISHER:  No. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Don’t  you? 

MR.  FISHER:  No. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Then  I am  wrong. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  words  “quali- 

fied voter.  ’ ’ The  women,  I believe,  are 
allowed  to  vote  for  trustees,  and  they 
are  qualified  voters. 

MR.  POST:  Qualified  to  vote  on  the 

petition?  Wouldn’t  that  be  necessarily 
inferred? 

MR.  FISHER:  I do  not  think  so.  I 
think  it  would  be  simply  a question  as 
to  whether  the  phrase  “qualified,”  etc., 
would  mean  a qualified  voter  generally. 
I know  of  no  decision  on  the  question. 
If  it  does  mean  a qualified  voter,  she 
would  be  competent. 


MR.  GREENACRE:  Doesn’t  it  mean 
a qualified  voter  who  can  vote  on  that 
matter  presented  by  the  petition? 


MR.  FISHER:  No. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Gentlemen  of  the 

Convention:  You  are  only  interested  in 

the  petition  being  an  honest  petition. 
I am  absolutely  certain  that  that  is 
the  only  interest  Alderman  Snow,  for 
one  person,  has  in  this  matter.  Now, 
some  of  us  who  have  been  intimately 
associated  in  this  work  are  as  eager  as 
you  are  to  get  a real  honest  protection 
to  the  petition,  but  we  do  not  want  to 
get  anything  that  would  disqualify  the 
people  from  taking  action  on  these  mat- 
ters. 

Now,  if  these  two  changes  were 
made,  if  it  were  made  possible  for  any 


person  who  is  circulating  a petition  to 
sign  the  name  of  the  person  on  that 
person’s  request  that  he  should  do  so, 
which  is  the  present  law — and  Alderman 
Snow  said  he  did  not  wish  to  give  ad- 
ditional prohibitions  or  make  additional 
hardships  that  were  not  necessary  to 
protection;  and  if  the  circulator  can  be 
a person  who  can  be  sought  out  and 
verified;  now,  that  is  the  point. 

Here,  for  instance,  on  the  back  of 
your  petition  is  signed  that  the  circu- 
lator, as  in  the  instance  that  I am 
thinking  of — James  Johnson — and  that 
boy  is  16  years  old,  and  he  is  just  as 
bright  and  intelligent  as  many  a per- 
son that  is  21,  and  he  is  doing  this 
thing  because  he  is  asked  to  do  it  by 
his  father,  who  is  a qualified  voter. 

Now,  if  he  signs  that  statement,  and 
his  father  signs  that,  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge  and  belief,  each  one  of  those 
signers  was  a qualified  voter — I would 
like  to  know  if  that  will  not  give  you 
men  the  protection  you  really  want,  and 
at  the  same  time  permit  the  circulation 
of  petitions  in  the  working  men’s  dis- 
tricts in  the  way  petitions  have  to  be 
circulated  to  a great  degree? 

Now,  one  thing  further.  In  many  of 
the  petitions  that  I have  had  some- 
thing to  do  with  we  have  distributed 
the  petitions  around  in  the  drug  stores 
and  in  other  places  of  common  resort 
in  the  locality.  Now,  no  one  person  is 
there  all  the  time. 

It  was  put,  in  a number  of  cases, 
under  the  cigar  light,  and  it  was  just 
left  there,  and  the  people  who  came  in 
and  bought  cigars  looked  it  over  and 
signed  it — and  signed  their  names  and 
their  residences. 

Now,  all  we  want  to  get  is  an  honest 
petition.  Why,  if  that  blank  were 
turned  over  and  signed  by  the  person 
who  is  here  in  this  drug  store — or  the 
clerk  as  well — that  to  the  best  of  his 
knowledge  and  belief  those  were  signed 
by  the  persons  who  purported  to  sign 


March  1 


1163 


1907 


them,  now,  is  not  that  the  protection 
vou  want? 

I know  something  about  forged  sig- 
natures. In  the  last  petition  there  was 
evidently  a petition  somewhere,  and  I 
wish  to  say  I did  not  wish  to  accuse 
anyone,  because  I do  not  know.  But  I 
was  advised  on  the  Sunday  before  we 
Hied  the  petition  that  a plot  to  make 
the  petition  fraudulent  was  entered 
into. 

I saw,  on  a special  petition  that  had 
been  handed  in  at  several  police  sta- 
tions in  the  city,  one  that  had  been  held 
out  by  the  captain  because  he  believed 
it  was  fraudulent.  I took  that  and 
looked  it  over,  and  found  they  were 
fraudulent.  That  was  the  reason  I 
thought  it  was  my  duty,  as  a citizen,  to 
go  through  that  petition  before  it  was 
Hied. 

I took  out  something  over  300  sheets, 
and  there  were  three  well  defined  key 
marks  on  those  sheets.  One  of  those 
key  marks  was  just  over  the  word 
^Name,”  and  it  was  a little  dash; 
that  dash  ran  through  a series  of  sheets, 
and  on  investigation  I discovered  that 
persons  had  sent  out  those  petitions, 
and,  further,  on  investigation  from 
sending  out  to  the  men  whose  names 
and  addresses  appeared  on  those  pe- 
titions, we  discovered  from  them  that 
those  names  and  addresses,  as  written, 
were  fraudulent;  the  names  on  it  were 
fraudulent. 

The  purpose  was  to  be  able  to  go 
through  the  petition  at  random,  take 
nut  two  or  three  sheets,  and  prove  they 
were  fraudulent,  and  prove  every  pe- 
tition was  fraudulent.  Having  gone 
nver  four  petitions,  I want  to  make  this 
personal  testimony  for  what  it  is 
worth:  It  was  the  best  petition  ever 

filed  in  the  city. 

There  were  a few  fraudulent  names, 
but  they  bore  more  earmarks  of  being 
genuine,  most  of  them.  On  every  pe- 
tition there  will  be  men  who,  in  a spirit 


of  joke,  wall  sign  foolish  names  and 
give  impossible  addresses;  that  is  just 
in  the  spirit  of  a joke,  and  you  cannot 
get  away  from  it.  So,  in  every  peti- 
tion on  which  the  people  of  the  City 
of  Chicago  are  to  act,  we  should  know 
that  there  are  a sufficient  number  of 
these  signatures  on  them. 

I think,  if  you  do  not  do  this  you 
will  have  an  argument  made  against 
your  charter  which  wall  cost  you  a great 
many  votes  wrhen  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple of  this  city,  which  is  ill  advised  and 
unnecessary,  in  defeating  the  purpose 
to  wilich  the  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion wish  to  agree. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish  to  move, 
first : 

That  the  drafting  committee  be  in- 
structed to  redraft  Section  2-9,  so  as 
not  to  provide  that  it  should  be  neces- 
sary for  each  signer  to  sign  in  his  own 
handwriting;  that  each  signature 
should  be  made  in  the  handwriting  of 
the  person  signing  it. 

I wrant  it  redrafted  in  the  proper 
form  to  secure  that,  and  they  may  do 
anything  to  secure  that  which  would 
produce  the  proper  result.  I so  move 
it,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  heady 

for  the  question? 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  are 

in  favor  of  Mr.  Robins  ’ motion  will 
vote  aye;  those  opposed,  no.  The  mo- 
tion is  lost. 

What  is  your  next  amendment? 

MR.  POST:  I think  we  ought  to  have 
a roll  call  on  that? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes.  The  Secre- 
tary will  call  the  roll  on  Mr.  Robins 1 
motion. 

Yeas — Beilfuss,  Burke,  Greenacre, 
Guerin,  Linchan,  McGoorty,  Merriam, 
Owens,  Robins,  Sethness,  Taylor,  Zim- 
mer— 12. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart, 


March  1 


1164 


1907 


B.  A.,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen, 
Harrison,  Hill,  Hoyne,  Hunter,  Jones, 
Kittleman,  Lathrop,  Michaelis,  O’Don- 
nell, Pendarvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Rosen- 
thal, Shanahan,  Shepard,  Snow,  Sunny, 
Vopicka,  Werno,  Wilkins,  Young — 31. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  COLE:  I wish  to  explain  my 

vote  briefly:  I am  in  sympathy  with 

Mr.  Robins’  argument,  but  I am  not  in 
sympathy  with  his  application  of  it.  I 
think  now  is  the  time  to  compromise, 
and  we  are  asking  some  people  to  vote 
for  something  they  don ’t  believe  in,  and 
it  seems  to  me  we  can  get  along  with 
those  provisions  as  we  have  them  there. 
For  that  reason  I vote  no. 

MR.  FISHER:  I think  Mr.  Robins 

has  made  one  point  that  has  merit  in 
it:  that  a man  who  cannot  sign  his 
name  shall  be  allowed  to  make  his 
mark;  that  there  ought  not  to  be  a dis- 
franchisement on  the  petition 

MR.  COLE:  That  is  signing  his 

name  legally,  isn’t  it? 

MR.  SNOW:  Isn’t  it  a legal  signa- 

ture, signing  his  mark? 

MR,  FISHER:  It  says:  “Each 

signer  shall  add  to  the  signature,  which 
shall  be  in  his  own  handwriting,” — 
that  each  signer  shall  add  to  his  sig- 
nature his  place  of  residence.  Now, 
if  he  cannot  write  his  name,  he  cannot 
add  his  signature,  in  the  sense  of  writ- 
ing it  himself.  I think  that  sentence 
should  be  changed.  I think  that  the 
people  who  are  qualified  to  vote  should 
be  permitted  to  sign  the  petition.  On 
the  other  hand,  it  seems  to  me  that  Mr. 
Robins’  amendment  would  throw  the  | 
petition  open  without  any  restriction 
whatever  as  to  what  kind  of  children 
should  circulate  the  petition.  It  seems 
to  me  that  is  going  too  far  in  that  di- 
rection. A reasonable  provision,  if  one 
might  be  proposed,  would  be  all  right; 
but  if  we  are  going  to  rely  on  criminal 
prosecution  to  see  whether  these  are  | 
correct,  it  seems  to  me  some  other  sug-  | 


gestion  than  that  suggested  by  Mr. 
Robins  should  be  made. 

MR,  ROBINS:  I want  it  simply 

made  to  cover  that  point.  That  is  all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  does  Mr. 

Fisher  vote? 

MR.  FISHER:  On  the  motion,  as  it 

stands,  I shall  have  to  vote  no. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 

know  if  it  were  shown  whether  parties 
who  were  disfranchised  were  not  per- 
mitted to  sign,  the  signature  would  not 
be  any  good;  whether  that  would  not 
be  jeopardized  in  the  courts?  As  to  the 
fact  whether  a man  that  could  not  write 
would  not  be  permitted  to  make  his 
mark.  Now,  if  we  had  the  words  “or 
his  mark,”  it  would  simplify  that  mat- 
ter, and  not  disfranchise  a fellow  that 
cannot  write. 

MR.  HUNTER  : That  is  the  law  now, 
Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  It  is  not  so  stated 

here. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I understand  Mr. 

Robins’  motion  is  to  make  it  legally 
possible  for  a man  that  cannot  write  to 
come  in  on  one  of  these  petitions? 

MR.  ROBINS:  Precisely. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I understand  that 

is  not  the  case  with  this  draft  here.  I 
was  thinking  it  would  be  a pretty  hard 
thing  on  the  man  who  cannot  write  not 
to  allow  him  to  sign  the  petition.  I 
vote  aye. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I believe  that 

the  signature  of  a cross  is  a signa- 
ture; it  probably  would  have  to  be 
written,  whether  this  law  says  so  or 
not.  I vote  no. 

MR.  POST:  These  provisions  in  here 
make  it  practically  impossible  to  get  a 
veto  on  the  giving  away  of  public  utili- 
ties. 

I do  not  think,  however,  that  Mr. 
Robins’  motion  covers  the  point  of  the 
question.  I do  not  think  that  the  main 
question  is  the  fact  that  we  do  not  suc- 
ceed in  getting  the  signatures  of  people 


March  1 


1165 


1907 


who  cannot  write  their  names.  I think 
the  suggestion  is  such  that  we  cannot 
prove  the  signatures  of  those  who  sign 
their  names,  who  do  sign  their  names. 
For  that  reason  I am  opposed  to  the 
section  as  it  stands.  I also  see  no  rea- 
son for  a change  in  making  this  par- 
ticular amendment.  I,  therefore,  vote 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  Mr.  Rob- 

ins’ amendment  the  ayes  are  12  and  the 
noes  are  31.  The  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  But  the  words 

each  signer  shall  add  to  his  signature, 
which  shall  be  in  his  own  handwrit- 
ing, his  place  of  residence,  giving  the 
street  and  the  number  of  the  house.  I 
want  to  send  to  the  desk  an  amendment 
that  will  cure  the  ambiguity. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 

tary read  it. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal: 

“There  shall  be  added  to  the  signa- 
ture of  each  signer,  which  shall  be  in 
his  own  hand,  his  place  of  residence, 
giving  the  street  and  the  number  of  the 
house.4’ 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  shall  be  in 

his  own  hand,  that  is. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Strike  out  the 

word  “writing.” 

THE  SECRETARY:  I haven’t  it 

here;  I didn’t  read  it. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  does  not  seem  to 

me  that  that  quite  clears  it  up.  I 


think  it  would  be  much  better  to  insert 
a separate  sentence  which  would  say 
that  persons  who  are  qualified  to  sign 
a petition,  but  who  are  not  able  to 
write  their  names,  shall  be  authorized 
to  make  their  mark  and  authorize  the 
signing  of  their  residence,  giving  the 
street  number  and  the  house. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any 

objection  to  that  amendment? 

MR.  HILL:  It  does  seem  to  me  that 

a man  educated  enough  to  vote,  should 
not  be  put  in  that  position;  it  seems  to 
me  that  a matter  that  is  not  of  suffi- 
cient public  interest  for  qualified  voters 
to  take  in  hand,  should  not  be  con- 
sidered. I think  we  have  gone  far 
enough  in  the  compromise  of  this,  and 
I think  we  should  stop  right  here. 

MR.  CHURCH:  Is  there  a motion 

pending  before  the  house?  If  not,  I 
move  that  we  take  a recess  to  2 o ’clock. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  on  the 

amendment  of  Mr.  Fisher,  all  those 
in  favor  of  the  motion  will  signify  by 
saying  aye;  all  those  opposed  no.  It  is 
carried. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I move  you, 

Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  adjourn  to  2 
o ’clock. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  It  is  carried. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
to  meet  Friday,  March  1,  1907,  at  2 
o’clock  p.  m. 


March  1 


1166 


1907 


AFTERNOON  SESSION,  2 O’CLOCK  P.  M. 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Convention 

will  he  in  order  pursuant  to  recess. 

Present — Foreman,  Chairman,  and 
Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Clettenberg,Cole, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Dixon,  T.  J.,  Eckhart, 
B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher, 
Gansbergen,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harri- 
son, Hill,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McCor- 
mick, McGoorty,  McKinley,  Merriam, 
Michaelis,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Pen- 
darvis,  Post,  Raymer,  Robins,  Rosen- 
thal, Shanahan,  Snow,  Taylor,  Yopicka, 
Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zim- 
mer— 48. 

Absent — Baker,  Beebe,  Carey,  Crilly, 
Dever,  Erickson,  Graham,  Haas,  Hoyne, 
Lundberg,  Oehne,  Paullin,  Powers, 
Rainey,  Revell,  Rinaker,  Ritter,  Seth- 
ness,  Shedd,  Shepard,  Smulski,  Sunny, 
Swift,  Thompson,  Walker,  Wilson — 26. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  may  I 

have  the  ear  of  the  Chair  for  a min- 
ute? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  it,  Mr. 

Post? 

MR.  POST:  I have  got  so  much  to 

answer  for  in  this  record,  what  I did 
say,  and  what  I didn’t,  I have  got  so 
much  that  I have  to  apologize  for,  that 
I don’t  want  any  body’s  else  speech  at- 
tributed to  me.  I ask  to  have  the  rec- 
ord corrected  on  page  1080  in  the  7th 
line  by  striking  out  my  name  there  be- 
fore the  speech  that  follows.  I didn’t 
make  the  speech,  it  is  contrary  to  my 
sentiments.  I don’t  know  who  made 
the  speech  and  I would  like  to  have  my 
name  taken  out  there. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 

objection  it  is  so  ordered.  I believe  Mr. 
Robins  had  another  amendment  to  the 
section  under  consideration. 


MR.  ROBINS:  That  was  on  the 

subject  of  the  qualified  voter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  not,  those  in 

favor — 

MR.  PENDARYIS:  What  is  the 

question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  not,  it  will 

be  adopted  as  amended. 

•MR.  McGOORTY:  I wish  to  offer 

an  amendment  to  that. 

THE  SECRETARY:  My  Mr.  Mc- 
Goorty: Amend  Section  9,  Chapter  2, 

by  striking  out  after  the  word: 
“Voter,”  in  line  3,  page  22,  of  said 
section,  the  words,  “and  either  that  he 
knows  the  signature  to  be  genuine  or 
that  the  same  was  made  in  his  pres- 
ence.” 

MR.  McGOORTY : Now,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, striking  out  the  words  after 
“Voter,”  page  22:  “and  either  that 
he  knows  the  signature  to  be  genuine  or 
that  the  same  was  made  in  his  pres- 
ence,” that  would  leave  the  section  so 
that  the  party  circulating  the  petition, 
if  his  verification  is  to  the  effect  that 
he  believes  the  signer  to  be  a qualified 
voter,  and  that  he  thoroughly  believes 
his  signature  to  be  genuine,  that  would 
substantially  meet  all  the  require- 
ments. Now  when  the  law  was  passed, 
known  as  the  School  Bill,  or  the  Gard- 
ner law,  it  was  considered  as  a blow 
at  the  independent  voters.  That  law 
required  2 per  cent,  of  the  voters  on  a 
petition  to  nominate  by  petition.  It 
was  considered  a joke,  and  the  press  of 
this  city  commented  upon  the  fact  of 
how  impossible  it  would  be  in  a man 
for  a party  to  swear  that  he  knows  the 
signature  of  the  party  or  parties;  that 
they  are  genuine,  or  that  the  same  is 
made  in  his  presence,  or  verily  believes 
the  same  to  be  genuine.  Now  under 
the  public  policy  act  there  is  no  require- 


March  1 


1167 


1907 


ment  at  all  as  to  verification.  It  seems 
in  fairness  that  if  there  is  a require- 
ment that  that  party  circulating  it  and 
attending  to  the  petition,  swears  that 
he  verily  believes  that  this  party  is  a 
qualified  voter,  and  that  signature  is 
the  signature  of  this  party,  why  that 
meets  every  substantial  requirement  in 
the  spirit  of  the  act.  But  it  is  quite 
obvious  on  careful  consideration  that 
this  law,  section  5,  of  elections  regard- 
ing nominations  was  put  in  for  the  pur- 
pose, as  it  was  construed  at  that  time, 
namely,  to  attract  the  independent 
voters. 

Now  by  analogy  it  certainly  can  be 
fairly  said  that  this  will  attack  the 
people  who  desire  a referendum  upon 
any  proper  question.  Now  this  conven- 
tion has  gone  on  record  as  saying,  as 
a matter  of  policy,  that  a franchise 
shall  become  a law  when  passed  by  the 
council,  unless  there  is  a petition  for 
a referendum  vote.  And  upon  the 
policy  of  the  convention,  and  perhaps 
it  is  a wise  one,  although  I am  not 
entirely  in  accord  with  it,  but  it  does 
seem  to  be  an  undue  burden  to  add  the 
restriction  attached  in  this  section, 
that  the  party  must  know — must  swear 
that  he  knows  the  signature  of  the 
voter,  and  if  the  voter  has  not  signed 
in  his  presence,  he  goes  on  record,  say- 
ing under  oath  that  he  believes  his  sig- 
nature, that  it  is  the  signature  of  the 
party,  that  seems  to  me  fair  and  reason- 
able. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  have  here 

the  amendment  of  Mr.  McGoorty  to 
strike  out  the  words  “that  he  knows 
the  signature  was  genuine  or  that  the 
same  was  made . in  his  presence,  and 
that  he  verily  believes  the  same  to  be 
genuine — is  that  the  purport  of  it,  Mr. 
McGoorty? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Yes. 

MR.  SNOW:  What  is  that  that  is  to 

be  stricken  out,  Mr.  McGoorty? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  page  22  of 


the  new  edition,  the  words,  ‘ 1 that 
either  he  knows  the  signature  to  be 
genuine  or  the  same  was  made  in  his 
presence,  and  he  verily  believes  the 
same  to  be  genuine.  ’ ’ 

MR.  McGOORTY : I want,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  section  should  read,  “he 
verily  believes  the  signature  to  be  gen- 
uine, ” it  only  strikes  out  that  part 
“that  he  knows  it  was  genuine,”  or 
that  it  was  made  in  his  presence  and 
that  he  believes  it  to  be. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Either  that  he 

knows  the  signature  to  be  genuine  or 
that  the  same  was  made  in  his  pres- 
ence? 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Yes. 

MR.  SNOW:  In  other  words,  Mr. 

Chairman,  the  proposition  is  to  strike 
out  what  little  is  left  in  the  way  of 
safe-guarding  that  petition.  Now  I 
would  like  to  ask  Mr.  McGoorty  as  a 
lawyer,  how  he  would  ever  convict  a 
man  of  perjury  who  verily  believes 
something. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  That  question  is 

directed  to  me  Mr.  Chairman.  I will 
state  that  is  the  only  form  of  oath  that 
is  usual  in  many  of  these  cases  in  bills 
for  chancery  except  in  a prayer  for  in- 
junction or  some  other  things  where  a 
man  has  to  say  he  knows  of  his  own 
knowledge,  but  still  this  will  require 
that  man  under  oath  to  say  that  he 
verily  believes  the  signatures  appearing 
upon  that  sheet  or  petition  to  be  true 
and  genuine  signatures. 

MR.  SNOW:  That  does  not  answer 

the  question  as  to  how  he  would  ever 
controvert  a man ’s  oath  that  believes 
something. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Of  course — but 

it  is  quite  different  from  the  present 
public  policy  act  which  has  no  require- 
ment at  all. 

MR.  SNOW:  It  is  exceedingly  dif- 

ferent and  from  my  stand  point  it  is 
even  more  different  than  the  public 
policy  act.  If  that  amendment  is 


March  1 


1168 


1907 


adopted  it  leaves,  the  petition  without 
the  slightest  effort  at  safe-guarding  it 
or  securing  an  honest  petition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  question.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 
favor — 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I ask  for  a roll 

call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well,  there  is 
no  use  of  having  a roll  call,  Mr.  Mc- 
Goorty,  because  there  is  less  than  a 
quorum  present,  and  we  will  have  to 
hold  the  meeting  then  until  a quorum 
arrives;  it  is  a matter,  however,  that 
was  thoroughly  thrashed  out  at  this 
morning  ?s  meeting.  , 

MR.  McGOORTY:  I do  not  care  to 

hold  the  meeting,  I do  not  wish  to  raise 
the  point  of  a quorum — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McGoorty, 

what  is  that? 

MR.  McGOORTY : I say,  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I do  not  wish  to  obstruct  the 
progress  of  this  meeting,  and  simply 
suggest  that  this  matter  be  left  in 
abeyance  until  we  have  a quorum,  and 
let  the  Convention  proceed. 

MR.  SNOW : Mr.  Chairman,  I would 

like  to  ask  Mr.  McGoorty  if  he  would 
be  satisfied  to  simply  have  a standing 
vote. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Yes. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  of  Mr.  McGoorty  ?s  motion,  please 
rise. 

MR.  POST:  I would  like  to  be  rec- 

orded for  it,  Mr.  Chairman,  for  the  rea- 
sons which  I have  previously  given. 

(All  those  in  favor  of  the  motion 
rose.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  op- 

posed to  Mr.  McGoorty ’s  amendment, 
please  rise. 

(Those  opposed  to  the  amendment 
rose.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

lost,  proceed  to  the — 


MR.  POST:  Before  taking  up  the 

next  section,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  a 
resolution  that  I have  left  in  the  hands 
of  the  secretary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  secretary 

will  read  the  resolution. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Post: 

“Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention 
adjourns  after  action  upon  the  final 
draft  of  the  charter  now  under  consid- 
eration, it  adjourns  subject  to  the  call 
of  the  Chair.  ” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  would 
suggest  that  that  resolution  might 
as  well  lie  over,  saving  rights  until 
we  see  where  we  get  today. 

MR.  POST:  As  long  as  the  rights 

are  saved  I am  satisfied. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 

will  proceed  with  article  16,  No.  2. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Page  114  of 

the  new  draft,  No.  2. 

MR.  HUNTER:  That  was  disposed 

of. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Number  3. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Number  3,  the 

words,  “No  grant  made  by  the  city  for 
any  public  utility  shall  be  leased  or  as- 
signed without  the  consent  of  the 
city.  ” That  does  not  cover  at  least 
implied  consent.  I ask  to  have  all  of 
the  words  stricken  out  after  the  word, 
“utility,”  and  these  words  substituted 
in  the  last  line  on  page  115. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Please  read  the 

amendment. 

THE  SECRETARY:  (Reading 

amendment.)  By  Mr.  Rosenthal, 
amendment  to  16-3:  “Shall  be  leased, 

assigned  or  otherwise  aliened  without 
the  expressed  consent  of  the  city,  and 
no  dealings  with  the  lessee  or  assign  on 
the  part  of  the  city,  or  requiring  the 
performance  of  any  act  or  the  payment 
of  any  compensation  by  the  lessee  or 
assign  shall  be  presumed  to  affect  such 
consent.  * ’ 


March  1 


1169 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN : Any  discussion 

upon  this  amendment? 

(Cries  of  question.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  not,  all  of 

those  in  favor  signify  it  by  saying  aye, 
those  opposed  will  signify  by  saying 
nay — the  Chair  didn't  get  that,  will  the 
secretary  read  that  again  please. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal, page  115 — amendment  to  16-3: 
* 1 shall  be  leased,  assigned  or  otherwise 
aliened  without  the  express  consent  of 
the  city,  and  no  dealings  with  the  lessee 
or  assign  on  the  part  of  the  city,  or  re- 
quiring the  performance  of  any  act  or 
payment  of  any  compensation  by  the 
lessee  or  assign  shall  be  presumed  to 
affect  such  consent." 

(Cries  of  question.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

(Cries  of  question.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  contrary 
no — all  those  in  favor  will  signify  by 
rising. 

(The  secretary  announced  25  as  ris- 
ing-) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  op- 

posed will  rise. 

(The  secretary  announced  one  as  ris- 
ing-) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  is 

carried — the  amendment  is  carried — 
proceed. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  we  should  be  provided  with  a 
Webster  Dictionary  if  we  are  to  have 
scuh  propositions  thrown  in  here;  I 
say  that  half  the  men  here  don't  know 
what  the  language  means.  There  is  a 
section  in  there  that  can  be  so  read, 
easily,  and  somebody  comes  along  with 
a jungle  of  adjectives  and  adverbs  and 
we  don 't  know  what  it  means.  We 
don’t  know  what  is  in  it.  It  ought  to 
go  in  writing,  we  should  have  some- 
thing in  writing,  so  that  we  could  un- 


derstand it.  I don't  take  any  lawyer's 
word  for  anything. 

MR.  RAYMER:  I would  suggest, 

Mr.  Chairman,  so  that  there  is  no  feel- 
ing over  the  matter,  that  Mr.  Rosenthal 
explain  the  sense  of  his  amendment. 

THE  CHIARMAN:  The  Chairman 

would  be  very  glad  also  to  have  him  do 
that. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  The  last  line 

here  provides  that  no  grant  made  by  the 
city  or  any  public  utility  shall  be  had 
without  the  consent  of  the  city.  I will 
say  for  Mr.  Linelian's  benefit,  that  up 
to  that  point  I haven't  had  anything 
to  do  with  this  particular  section.  All 
that  nefarious  work  that  he  accuses  me 
of  being  guilty  of  in  the  section,  is  sub- 
sequent; the  word  lease  might  not  be 
sufficient.  Alienation  might  not  include 
lease,  and  the  company  might  resort  to 
a subterfuge,  that  if  we  simply  used 
the  word  lease  the  company  might 
escape  under  the  other  heading.  In  re- 
gard to  the  consent  of  the  city,  that 
might  mean  expressed  consent  or  it 
might  mean  implied  consent.  What  I 
wanted  to  express  was  both  expressed 
and  implied  consent.  So  if  the  city 
should  deal  with  a lessor  or  an  assignee 
or  an  alienee,  it  would  not  be  held  to  be 
consent,  but  when  we  came  to  a law 
suit,  the  grant  might  be  urged  by  the 
attorney  to  be  forfeit;  it  would  not  be 
set  up  on  the  part  of  the  lessee;  you 
have  dealt  with  me  in  regard  to  the 
matter,  and  you  are  estopped  or  pre- 
vented; I don't  want  to  use  legal  lan- 
guage; you  are  prevented  in  that  way 
from  setting  up  a claim  that  the  title 
is  invalid,  because  you  have  dealt  with 
me.  I composed  this  language  for  Mr. 
Linehan 's  benefit  and  in  accordance 
with  his  view,  and  I hoped  he  would 
express  his  approval. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  The  explanation  is 

entirely  satisfactory,  but  I think  all 
such  amendments  in  future  should  have 
a translation  sent  with  them. 


March  1 


1170 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 

will  proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  3,  4,  5,  6;  page 

116-7. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  sec- 

tion 7,  beginning  with  the  third  line, 
“nor  shall  the  city  itself  lay,”  this 
section  reads  (section  read).  Now,  this 
language  inserted  here,  “nor  shall  the 
city  itself  lay,”  would  require  the  city 
to  get  the  consent  for  the  laying  of  a 
water  pipe  or  erecting  a telephone  pole, 
or  laying  a telephone  conduit,  and  the 
charter  would  limit  the  right  of  the 
city  to  carry  on  its  operations  and  con- 
trol the  streets.  I do  not  think  the  city 
should  be  limited  on  any  of  those  mat- 
ters. I therefore  move  to  strike  out, 
“nor  shall  the  city  itself  lay.” 

MR,  FISHER  : I second  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  motion  be- 

fore the  house  is  to  strike  out  the 
words: 

“Nor  shall  the  city  itself  lay.” 

The  motion  is  to  strike  that  out. 

MR.  B.  A.  ECKHART:  I call  your 

attention  to  section  16-15,-  there  is  noth- 
ing in  this  that  applies  to  water  works 
in  the  City  of  Chicago. 

MR.  BENNETT:  My  attention  has 

been  called  to  the  language,  but  I do 
not  think  that  any  of  us  can  foresee 
at  this  time  just  what  the  city  will  want 
to  do  with  the  streets  in  the  way  of 
public  utilities,  and  it  is  not  for  me  to 
limit  the  city;  we  are  apt  to  leave  out 
some  matter,  and  then  our  hands  would 
be  tied.  I think  the  better  way  to 
reach  it  would  be  in  the  manner  which 
I have  directed  in  my  motion. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I second  it. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I want  to  sec- 

ond one  thing  that  Mr.  Bennett  has 
said:  As  to  the  cost  of  lighting;  if  we 

ever  have  gas  lighting  municipally,  we 
will  have  it  tied  up  and  won’t  be  able 
to  get  frontage  for  the  city  to  extend 
its  lighting  plant.  I know  of  no  better 
plan  for  a private  monopoly  to  hold  up 


a city,  and  I second  Mr.  Bennett’s 
motion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  seems  to  me 

this  whole  section  ought  to  be  more 
carefully  redrafted  than  we  can  redraft 
it  here  on  the  floor  of  this  convention. 
As  a matter  of  fact,  it  ought  to  be 
drafted  in  such  a way — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question  is 

upon  Mr.  Bennett’s  amendment. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I know,  Mr. 

Chairman,  and  that  is  why  I am  op- 
posing that  amendment  in  that  form,, 
and  speaking  to  it.  That  is  why  I do- 
not  believe  we  ought  to  adopt  Mr.  Ben- 
nett’s amendment  in  the  form  in  which 
it  was  made  by  him,  because  it  may 
be  desired  at  some  future  time,  either 
on  the  part  of  some  company  with  or 
without  the  city’s  consent,  to  lay 
sewer  pipes  under  the  street  or  to  ex- 
tend conduits  under  the  street,  or  to  ex- 
tend cables  under  the  street,  which 
would  in  no  way  interfere  with  any 
property  owners.  I therefore,  move,  as 
a substitute,  that  this  section  be  re- 
referred to  the  drafting  committee  to- 
redraft  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  You  have  heard 

the  substitute  of  Mr.  Rosenthal.  As 
many  as  are  in  favor  of  that  will  sig- 
nify by  saying  aye;  opposed,  no. 

The  motion  is  lost. 

The  question  now  reverts  to  Aider- 
man  Bennett’s  amendment.  As  many 
as  favor  that  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  Carried.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  7,  8,  9,— 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I now 

move  to  strike  out,  beginning  with  the 
second  line  on  page  117, — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  second  line 

on  page  117  of  the  new  draft. 

MR.  POST:  I move  to  strike  out  the 

words,  unless  the  proposition  to  operate, 
— and  down  to  and  including  the  words 
in  the  fourth  line,  “Those  voting 
thereon”;  and  to  substitute  in  place  of 
those  words, 


March  1 


1171 


1907 


Until  60  days  after  the  passage  of 
the  ordinance  therefore  by  the  city 
council;  and,  if  within  such  60  days 
there  shall  be  filed  with  the  city  clerk 
of  the  said  city  a petition  signed  by  10 
per  cent,  of  the  registered  voters  of 
the  city,  as  shown  by  the  last  preceding 
election  for  mayor,  requesting  that  such 
proposition  be  submitted  to  popular 
vote  ’ ’ — 

Such  proposition  shall  not  be  effec- 
tive until  the  question  of  granting  such 
proposition  shall  be  effective. 

I will  explain,  and  if  the  verbiage  is 
not  sufficient  in  this  case,  in  case  it  is 
adopted,  that  can  be  made  so. 

There  are  two  points  involved: 

In  the  first  place,  to  make  the  popular 
vote  a majority  instead  of  three- 
fifths;  and, 

In  the  second  place,  to  place  the 
question  of  allowing  the  city  to  operate 
on  precisely  the  same  basis  that  you 
have  already  placed  the  question  of  the 
granting  away  of  the  franchise. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  you 

have  heard  the  amendment. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  a roll  call  on 

that,  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Certainly. 

MR.  FISHER:  I call  for  a division 

of  the  question. 

MR.  POST:  I will  second  that  mo- 
tion. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Post,  I think  we 

should  insist  on  two  questions;  that  is, 
whether  there  is  to  be  an  affirmative 
proposition;  and,  second,  as  to  the  ma- 
jority. 

Now,  addressing  myself  to  the  first 
proposition:  I think  there  is  a funda- 

mental difference  between  the  require- 
ments of  the  vote  in  this  case,  and  the 
requirement  as  to  the  case  of  a peti- 
tion or  referendum,  in  the  case  of  a 
grant  of  an  ordinary  franchise. 

The  provision  with  regard  to  fran- 
chise, and  the  petition  for  a referendum 
is-  intended  to  reach  a great  variety  of 


cases,  and  for  franchises  which  might 
sometimes  be  for  a block  in  extent,  or 
less  than  a block,  and  may  extend  from 
that  up  to  an  entire  system.  In  each 
case  the  referendum  vote  is  required. 

Now,  in  this  particular  case  a single 
vote  settles  all  details  to  the  City  of 
Chicago,  and  submits  that  bare  question 
to  the  vote  of  the  people;  and,  on  a deci- 
sion in  the  affirmative,  no  further  ref- 
erendum votes  are  required  to  operate 
that,  or  any  extensions  or  additions 
to  it. 

The  general  question  as  to  whether  or 
not  the  city  shall  proceed  to  operate 
street  railways  having  been  decided,  it 
is  decided  every  time,  so  far  as  the  re- 
quirements of  the  law  are  concerned; 
it  seems  to  me  under  those  circum- 
stances that  the  city  council  should 
have  the  power  to  submit  that  proposi- 
tion to  a referendum  vote  without  the 
necessity  of  a petition. 

There  is  a radical  difference  as  I see 
it,  and,  on  the  other  question,  when 
you  come  to  that,  I am  of  the  opinion 
that  we  should  change  the  three-fifths 
to  a majority  vote. 

It  seems  to  me  there  iSja  fundamental 
difference.  I can  conceive  of  no  more 
ingenious  device  to  beat  the  public  out 
of  municipal  ownership  or  municipal 
operation.  I understand  there  are  some 
gentlemen  who  think  municipal  owner- 
ship without  operation  is  a desirable 
thing,  and  say  they  are  in  favor  of 
ownership  but  not  in  favor  of  opera- 
tion; their  theory  being  that  they  could 
get  along  with  the  operation  of  a lessee 
company  in  some  better  manner  than  in 
the  operation  by  the  town  itself.  I do 
not  think  there  is  anything  whatever  in 
that. 

The  form  of  public  utility  ordinances, 
will  accomplish  everything  that 
is  intended  to  be  accomplished,  without 
involving  the  municipality  in  the  use  of 
its  credit  for  the  financing  of  the 
scheme.  No  better  example  can  bo  had 


March  1 


1172 


/ 


1907 


than  that  of  the  New  York  subway, 
which  has  been  built  on  the  credit  of 
the  town,  and  has  been  used  as  one  of 
the  most  profitable  watered-stock  enter- 
prises that  has  been  seen  in  that  city 
for  years. 

There  is  no  conceivable  argument  in 
favor  of  it  on  principle,  except  a bare 
possibility  that  is  advocated  by  some 
people,  on  the  theory  that  it  could  be 
more  easily  handled.  At  one  time  I, 
myself,  thought  there  were  some  ad- 
vantages in  that  direction,  but  as  I 
have  analyzed  it,  and  as  you  see,  and 
have  studied  the  history  of  utilities 
here  and  elsewhere,  I have  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  there  is  absolutely 
nothing  whatever  in  that  proposition. 
There  is  no  reason  why  the  credit  of 
the  City  of  Chicago  should  be  used  to 
build  an  enterprise  which  you  are  going 
to  turn  over  to  another  corporation,  a 
private  corporation,  to  run  as  lessee. 

All  the  difficulties  that  arise  with  ref- 
erence to  equipment,  repairs,  the  ad- 
vancing of  money,  all  those  questions, — 
you  are  going  to  handle  all  the  situa- 
tions of  administration,  and  they  are 
increased,  and  some  of  them  in  very 
serious  ways,  by  the  policy.  Now,  it 
seems  to  me,  that  being  so,  that  a 
municipality  ought  not  be  put  in  a posi- 
tion such  as  this  city  is  now  placed  in, 
where  a majority  of  voters  are  in  favor 
of  municipal  operation,  and  where 
10,000  votes  more  for  municipal  opera- 
tion were  voted  than  were  voted  for 
municipal  ownership  alone.  And,  yet 
we  are  unable  to  accomplish  municipal 
ownership,  because  of  that  limitation  in 
the  law. 

Now,  I want  to  call  your  attention  to 
the  deadlock  which  may  easily  arise 
under  those  circumstances.  Let  us  sup- 
pose that  at  the  succeeding  election,  or 
at  any  succeeding  election  of  the  City 
of  Chicago,  the  people  by  a majority 
vote,  should  be  in  favor  of  municipal 
ownership,  but  it  would  be  impossible 


to  secure  the  60  per  cent.  vote.  Th© 
majority  that  would  be  in  favor  of 
municipal  ownership  would  successfully 
block  on  that  referendum  any  attempt 
to  carry  out  that  policy,  and  yet,  being 
unable  to  secure  the  operation,  will  not 
do  anything.  That  situation  might  be 
extremely  serious,  and  my  own  opinion 
is  that  the  majority  vote  should  control 
in  both  cases. 

MR.  ROBINS:  May  I ask  what  is 

the  question  before  the  house  at  this 
time — before  the  Convention? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 
is  Mr.  Post’s  motion  to  strike  out  in 
the  revised  copy  of  the  Charter  on  page 
117,  the  words:  “Unless  the  proposi- 
tion to  operate  shall  first  have  been 
submitted  to  the  electors  of  the  city  as 
a separate  proposition,  and  approved  by 
three-fifths  of  those  voting  thereon.” 
And  insert  in  lieu  therof:  “Until  sixty 
days,  etc.,”  the  same  as  in  Section  2. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Mr.  Chairman,  was 

that  motion  divided  so  that  we  have 
the  opportunity  of  voting  on  changing 
the  words  in  the  section  from  three- 
fifths  to  a majority? 

MR.  FISHER:  It  was  divided. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 
can  be  divided. 

MR.  POST : I understand  it  was, 
Mr.  Chairman.  I think  it  was. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Then,  is  that  the 
motion  now  before  us,  to  change  the 
words  from  three-fifths  to  a majority? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  a majority. 

MR.  ROBINS:  On  that  motion  I 
would  like  to  say  a few  words : It 

seems  to  me  that  we  are  facing  here 
a question  that  we  have  considered  once 
before  in  this  Convention — the  advisa- 
bility of  giving  the  control  of  the  city, 
of  the  policy  of  the  city  in  its  most 
important  aspect  possible,  and  one 
which  is  of  growing  importance  from 
year  to  year,  into  the  hands  of  a mi- 
nority. 


March  1 


1173 


1907 


. Anything  less  than  a majority  always 
means  minority  control. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  it  is  unnecessary 
to  state  that  truism  in  this  Convention, 
and  yet  certain  gentlemen  have  pro- 
ceeded upon  it  in  preparing  the  educa- 
tional scheme,  and  it  is  not  being  pro- 
ceeded upon  in  this  draft. 

As  I understand  the  excuse  for  the 
three-fifths  vote  in  the  Mueller  law, 
the  provision  requiring  the  three-fifths 
vote  for  municipal  operation : that  was 
conceived  as  a political  necessity  at  that 
time,  some  years  back,  to  get  the  act 
through  at  all.  All  of  us  familiar  with 
the  facts  in  regard  to  the  passage  of 
the  Mueller  law  are  inclined  to  believe 
that  is  a sound  statement,  inasmuch  as 
it  took  a riot  to  pass  the  Mueller  law 
at  all. 

Personally,  I believe  that  the  action 
of  the  Charter  Convention,  by  this  pro- 
vision, will  have  more  to  do  with  the 
vote  of  the  franchise  ordinance  now 
before  the  people  for  votes  than  any 
other  provision  in  this  charter,  and  than 
any  other  one  fact  in  relation  to  the 
whole  matter. 

Those  franchise  ordinances  provide 
for  municipal  purchase,  as  the  language 
on  the  petitions  suggest.  I believe  that 
they  were  prepared  in  good  faith,  and 
that  the  wording  is  a good  faith  word- 
ing; that  those  ordinances  are  offered 
by  the  people  who  do  offer  them,  as 
ordinances  providing  for  municipal  pur- 
chase, because  the  city  has  already 
voted  for  municipal  purchase,  and  have 
taken  the  only  steps  open  to  the  city  to 
take  legally,  to  provide  the  means  for 
that  purchase. 

One  of  the  reasons  why  I personally 
should  oppose  those  ordinances,  would 
be  the  reason  that  it  takes  three-fifths 
vote  before  the  people  of  the  City  of 
Chicago  can  take  another  step  in  the 
declaring  of  a public  policy  upon  which 
it  has  been  launched  by  the  official  vote 


of  the  people  of  the  City  of  Chicago, 
and  by  the  official  action  of  the  City 
Council  of  Chicago. 

I believe  that  it  does  not  lie  in  the 
power  of  any  group  in  the  city,  less 
than  the  whole  people,  who  have  de- 
termined that  policy,  and  have  declared 
by  a vote  to  establish  that  policy,  to 
turn  back  upon  that  policy,  or  to  put 
any  bar  in  the  way  of  either  realizing, 
by  such  steps  are  necessary,  the  poli- 
cy they  have  determined  to  be  the  policy 
which  they  do  want. 

Now,  in  this  three-fifths  bar  to  mu- 
nicipal operation,  you  put  your  finger 
upon  the  shrewdest  scheme  that  can  be 
invented  to  bring  municipalities  under 
the  pending  traction  ordinances. 

I take  it  by  the  vote  here  in  this  Char- 
ter Convention  this  afternoon  we  will 
know  as  far  as  the  members  voting 
thereon  are  concerned  whether  they  re- 
gard this  ordinance  and  wish  to  make 
these  ordinances  municipal  ownership 
ordinances,  or  whether  they  regard  them 
as  private  franchise  grants  for  a long 
period  and  so  desire  that  they  should  be. 

I speak  not  only  for  myself,  but  I 
speak  also  the  language  of  a number 
of  persons  with  whom  I have  conversed 
on  this  question  of  the  ordinances,  and 
the  point  at  which  they  question  is : 
Whether  or  not  municipalization  would 
ever  be  possible  under  the  ordinance  as 
this  two-thirds  vote  requires,  to  really 
get  municipalization  under  this  ordi- 
nance, because  the  ordinance  incorpor- 
ates the  provisions  of  the  Mueller  law 
and  that  provision  becomes  in  turn  an 
ordinance. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  only 
one  answer  to  be  made  to  people  that 
raise  that  objection,  and  that  is  that 
the  legislature  is  willing  to  allow  the 
people  of  Chicago  to  carry  out  the  poli- 
cy that  the  people  of  Chicago  have 
voted  for  and  have  passed  an  ordinance 
upon,  and  are  now  attempting  in  the 


March  1 


1174 


1907 


Supreme  Court  of  the  State  to  secure 
the  necessary  money  required  to  adopt 
that  policy.  With  the  three-fifths  pro- 
vision retained  by  this  Convention  and 
retained  by  the  legislature.  And  the 
vote  in  this  Convention  will  be  a fair 
indication  of  what  the  legislature  will 
do  in  the  opinion  of  some  of  us.  We 
will  have  clearly  before  us  the  attitude 
of  people  favoring  municipal  ownership 
upon  these  ordinances  at  the  spring  elec- 
tion. 

Therefore,  I simply  suggest,  first,  that 
the  policy  of  good  government  every- 
where, good  administration  everywhere, 
whether  it  be  in  business  groups,  in 
educational  groups,  or  in  political 
groups,  is  to  provide  that  a majority 
shall  control;  that  the  policy  that  puts 
control  in  the  minorities  everywhere  is 
being  discredited  in  practice  as  it  is  un- 
tenable in  theory;  that  to  the  general 
abstract  qualities  of  the  discussion  is 
added  an  inimical  practical  quality  of 
the  situation  before  the  voters  of  this 
city.  And  in  considering  and  voting 
upon  it,  I suggest  the  consideration  that 
the  issue  of  that  one  clause  in  the  or- 
dinances for  municipal  operation  only 
when  that  one  clause  is  backed  by 
three-fifths  requirement  before  you  can 
municipally  operate — if  that  policy  is 
maintained  by  this  Convention  it  will 
have  more  to  do  with  the  defeat  follow- 
ing upon  this  vote  than  anything  else  in 
my  judgment  affecting  the  ordinances; 
or  anything  that  can  happen  within  now 
and  the  next  thirty  days. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  Mr.  Chairman, 
the  question  of  municipal  operation  is  a 
very  radical  question.  It  proposes  a 
radical  change  from  the  present  condi- 
tion. It  seems  to  me  that  one  moment’s 
reflection  would  show  you  that  there  is 
a large  percentage  of  the  unthinking 
part  of  the  population  that  would  al- 
ways be  ready  to  vote  on  anything  that 


would  change  the  existing  conditions. 
Taking  that  into  proper  consideration 
it  seems  but  a fair  requirement  that 
something  more  than  a mere  majority 
should  be  required  to  effect  so  impor- 
tant a change  as  municipal  operation. 
Those  who  are  present  would,  in  my 
humble  judgment,  and  I think  the  great 
majority  of  the  representatives  of  the 
city  today  would  agree  that  everything 
that  was  operated  by  the  city  costs  more 
and  is  much  more  inefficiently  operated 
than  those  same  things  that  are  opera- 
ted by  private  ownership.  Now,  an  ex- 
ample could  be  had  in  this  council 
room,  look  at  these  lights  today;  there 
is  no  excuse  for  the  lights  not  being 
burning  except  that  they  are  municipally 
operated  lights,  the  rest  of  the  lights  in 
the  city  are  burning 

MR.  LINEHAN : They  are  Edison 
lights. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Badenoch 
has  the  floor. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  The  other  day 
nobody  could  sit  in  here  without  their 
overcoats  because  there  was  no  heat, 
there  is  an  abundant  supply  of  coal  in 
the  basement  but  the  city  employes  did 
not  fire  up  the  furnaces  sufficiently  to 
keep  us  warm. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  when  the 
government  shall  have  advanced  to  that 
point  of  efficiency  that  will  recommend 
it  in  the  operation  of  things  like  this, 
the  things  which  it  already  has  to  oper- 
ate, and  it  shall  be  found  to  be  desira- 
ble to  have  it  operate  the  further  things, 
it  will  not  be  very  difficult  to  secure 
sixty  per  cent  of  the  voters  to  vote  for 
it. 

I think  it  would  be  a serious  mistake 
from  this  point  of  view.  But,  Mr. 
Chairman,  and  gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, there  is  another  serious  con- 
sideration. We  know  that  the  senti- 
ment of  the  people  of  the  state  is  pretty 
solidly  fixed  on  this  point,  and  that  the 
representatives  of  the  people  in  this 


March  1 


1175 


1907 


state,  to  whom  we  have  to  look  for 
the  adoption  of  this  charter  are  pretty 
solidly  standing  on  the  proposition  that 
for  municipal  operation  sixty  per  cent 
of  the  vote  will  have  to  be  required,  and 
it  seems  to  me  that  we  should  not  put  in 
anything  at  this  time  that  is  almost  sure 
to  be  defeated.  For  the  reasons  I have 
stated  briefly,  and  for  this  reason,  I 
think  it  would  be  a serious  mistake  at 
this  time  to  change  it  to  be  less  than 
a three-fifths  vote. 

MR.  WERNO:  Mr.  Chairman. 
THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Werno. 
MR.  WERNO : Mr.  Chairman,  I be- 
lieve in  the  majority  rule,  and  there- 
fore I hope  that  this  amendment  will 
prevail.  I desire  to  say  on  that,  that 
some  two  years  ago,  when  a committee 
on  state  legislation  in  the  city  council 
was  working  on  a draft  of  the  Mueller 
bill,  so-called,  some  of  us  on  that  com- 
mittee favored  a majority  instead  of 
three-fifths,  but  when  it  passed  through 
the  legislature,  it  passed  with  this  three- 
fifths  requirement,  and  personally,  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  ought  to  take  a ma- 
jority, especially  if  we  are  in  favor  of 
the  ordinances  that  are  now  pending  in 
the  city. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman. 
THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Linehan. 
MR.  LINEHAN:  I would  like  to 
state  that  when  the  foundations  were 
pulled  out  of  the  building  here  the  dyna- 
mos were  removed  from  this  building. 
Since  that  time  the  Edison  company 
have  been  supplying  the  electric  lights 
on  the  south  end  of  the  building,  and 
the  lights  are  not  connected  with  mu- 
nicipal ownership  at  all.  I would  also 
like  to  state  this,  that  it  was  negli- 
gence on  the  part  of  the  Convention 
not  notifying  the  janitor  of  the  build- 
ing to  have  heat  here  on  Washington’s 
birthday,  and  not  freezing  out,  and 
that  -s  no  reason  for  favoring  private 
ownership 


MR.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chair- 

man. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Green- 

acre. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  It  seems  to 

me  that  a vote  on  this  question  is  prac- 
tically a vote  that  will  show  whether 
the  persons  in  favor  of  the  traction 
ordinances  are  in  good  faith  or  in  bad 
faith,  as  to  the  whole  of  the  ordinances. 

I take  it  that  they  were  in  good  faith 
and  meant  to  grant  a franchise  to  the 
street  car  companies  temporarily  until 
t the  street  car  properties  could  be 
bought,  and  to  provide  by  the  ordi- 
nances a means  for  purchasing,  and 
the  ordinances  are,  as  they  pretend  to 
be,  the  Only  practicable  method  of 
acquiring  the  street  car  properties  un- 
der the  existing  conditions. 

And,  as  I understand  it,  that  is  the 
claim  of  those  in  favor  of  the  ordi- 
nances. This  is  the  test  of  their  good 
faith  in  that  claim.  A few  moments 
ago,  in  considering  the  last  paragraph, 
where  the  section  as  drawn  made  it 
equally  hard  for  the  city  as  for  the  pri- 
vate owner  or  company  to  obtain  an 
ordinary  utility  grant,  on  the  motion 
of  Alderman  Bennett,  very  properly 
made,  the  city  was  preferred,  and  it  was 
made  easier  for  the  city  to  install  a 
utility  than  for  a private  company. 

The  question  is  in  almost  the  same 
breath,  within  the  same  ten  minutes  by 
the  clock,  and  shall  we  reverse  the 
principle  involved  in  that  vote,  and  now 
turn  and  make  it  harder  for  the  city 
than  for  the  private  company?  Ten 
minutes  ago  we  said  that  instead  of  be- 
ing equal  the  city  should  have  a prefer- 
ence. Now  then,  Mr.  Post’s  motion  is 
not  that  in  this  case  the  city  should 
have  a preference,  but  taking  the  very 
words  of  the  act  iu  regard  to  the  refer- 
endum, passed  at  the  session  this  morn- 
ing and  adopted,  about  the  require- 
ments and  burdens  imposed  on  a pri- 


March  1 


1176 


1907 


vate  company  on  a referendum  on  its 
franchise — taking  those  very  words  here 
and  substituting  them  for  this  section. 

The  question  is,  have  you  gone  so  far 
within  ten  minutes  when  you  were  in 
favor  of  favoring  the  city,  that  now 
you  are  not  willing  to  give  the  city 
even  a fair  shake,  a square  shake,  but 
want  to  impose  upon  it  more  conditions  ? 

Let  me  put  it  to  you  plainly:  When 

a private  franchise  is  to  be  granted,  say 
you  this  morning,  then  there  shall  not 
be  a compulsory  referendum,  but  only 
an  optional  referendum  on  a referen- 
dum vote.  When  there  is  to  be  a public 
operation  by  a municipality  this  after- 
noon, does  the  alderman  who  last  spoke 
-contend  that  then  the  difference  is  that 
there  must  be  a compulsory  referendum 
and  that  there  must  be  a three-fifths 
vote? 

In  other  words,  is  it  a fact  that  this 
morning  we  were  in  favor  of  the — of  a 
square  balance,  whether  it  was  a public 
or  private  grant?  This  afternoon,  ten 
minutes  ago,  we  were  in  favor  of  giving 
the  city  a preference  and  making  it  less 
burdensome,  to  the  city,  and  now,  be- 
cause there  is  a street  franchise  opera- 
tion question  before  us,  we  are  in  fa- 
vor of  the  private  company  and  of  bur- 
dening the  city  and  the  people  with 
greater  burdens  than  a private  com- 
pany would  have  on  a similar  fran- 
chise. 

If  you  should  vote  down  this  resolu- 
tion and  vote  aye  for  this  amendment 
of  Mr.  Post’s,  that  means  then  you 
stand  where  you  stood  ten  minute  ago ; 
it  means  that  you  have  faith  or  intend 
to  have  faith  at  least  in  your  own  be- 
lief that  the  ordinances  which  you  pre- 
tend to  say  are  the  only  municipal  or- 
dinances under  the  conditions  now. 

Now,  then,  what  -are  you  going  to 
do?  To  vote  no  on  this  proposition  is 
to  say  two  things  plainly;  it  is  to  say: 
I am  not  in  favor  of  municipal  owner- 


ship, under  any  circumstances,  and  the 
ordinances  pending  before  the  people 
are  simply  a confidence  game,  pretend- 
ing to  be  municipal  ordinances,  and  sim- 
ply a confidence  game,  that  they  are, 
in  fact,  private  franchises  for  20  years 
and  they  are  nothing  else 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentle- 

man’s time  has  expired. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I want  one 

more  minute,  if  you  please. 

(Cries  of  proceed.) 

MR.  GREENACRE:  If  that  is  so, 

it  is  simply  a confidence  game,  intend- 
ing to  befog  the  people,  and  not  what 
they  should  be. 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Bennett. 

MR.  BENNETT:  When  I came  to 

this  Convention  this  afternoon,  I un- 
derstood I was  coming  to  consider  a 
charter  for  the  City  of  Chicago  which 
should  apply  to  the  general  subject  mat- 
ter, and  I did  not  understand  that  I 
was  coming  here  to  discuss  the  traction 
question. 

Now,  the  attempt  to  modify  this  pro- 
vision by  the  inuendo  that  we  place 
ourselves  upon  record,  if  we  pass  this 
motion,  I say  is  too  narrow  for  con- 
sideration. The  fact  of  the  city  acquir- 
ing the  ownership  of  public  utilities  is 
a far  larger  question  than  the  traction 
question ; it  is  a far  larger  question  if 
the  traction  question  at  this  election 
should  fail,  than  that  the  city  should 
go  blindly  into  this  new  venture  with- 
out mature  reflection  or  mature  consid- 
eration. 

I say  to  you  gentlemen,  that  it  is 
inherently  fitting  that  safeguards 
should  be  thrown  around  this  question 
and  to  say  that  more  than  a majority  of 
the  voters  should  be  required  upon  this 
question  so  as  to  require  an  agitation 
sufliciently  to  educate  the  people  as  to 
what  they  are  entering  upon. 

Now  I wish  to  say  that  the  question 
whether  the  majority  are  required  to 


March  1 


1177 


1907 


pass  these  ordinances,  does  not  change 
the  language  of  those  ordinances,  and 
they  can  stand  for  a majority  vote  or  a 
three-fifths  vote  and  have  municipal 
ownership. 

We  have  heard  what  occurred  before 
this  council,  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee and  Mr.  Fisher  agreeing  on  the 
majority. 

Now,  I have  never  been  one  of  those 
who  believed  in  the  city  entering  upon 
municipal  ownership  until  such  a time 
as  it  was  reasonable  to  do  so.  From 
my  experience  in  the  city  work  I am 
convinced  that  no  greater  trouble  could 
come  upon  us  than  to  place  these  things 
immediately  into  operation  under  our 
present  methods  of  running  city  affairs. 

However,  in  the  consideration  of  these 
ordinances,  I have  in  good  faith  at- 
tempted to  assist  in  placing  in  them 
the  right  to  take  over  upon  the  terms 
of  the  ordinances,  which  are  perfectly 
clear  and  which  no  fair-minded  man 
will  controvert,  and  in  order  to  bring 
this  matter  squarely  before  the  house 
I move  that  the  section  stand  as  pro- 
posed. 

MR.  POST : A point  of  order,  Mr. 
Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  I think  there 

will  be  no  objection  to  putting  Mr. 
Post’s  motion  as  he  put  it. 

MR.  POST:  I should  like  a word 

or  two  to  close  the  discussion,  if  there 
is  nothing  more  said  on  the  other  side. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Chair  will 
be  very  happy  to  hear  from  some- 
body— 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I do  not  know, 
Mr.  Chairman,  I do  not  think  it  was 
intended  that  I should  not  say  anything, 
but  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have  come 
to  a very  vital  section  in  our  whole 
charter,  and  a point  upon  which  many 
of  us  disagree. 

I think  it  involves  in  a large  measure 
a question  as  large  as  any  other  section 
in  this  utility  act.  I,  myself,  am  not 


one  of  those  who  believe  that  the 
people  themselves  need  no  restraint.  I 
believe  there  is  on  the  other  side  of 
tljis  question  many  who  think  that  any- 
thing that  comes  from  the  people,  or 
is  done  by  a majority  of  the  people,  is 
necessarily  good. 

It  seems  to  me  there  is  some  real 
foundation  to  draw  a distinction  here, 
where  we  are  going  out  to  do  some- 
thing the  city  has  not  done  before.  In 
other  words,  where  we  are  entering 
upon  a radical  departure  in  our  govern- 
ment of  the  city,  in  our  municipal  gov- 
ernment of  the  city,  why  we  should 
not  require  a larger  vote  than  is  re- 
quired in  other  cases. 

In  the  history  of  this  country  there 
has  been  comparatively  little  harm  done 
by  the  minority,  but  there  has,  in 
times  past,  and  history  is  full  of  it, 
there  has  been  great  harm  frequently 
done  by  the  majority,  and  the  major- 
ities are  unthinking  at  times,  they  are 
unwise,  they  are  hasty,  they  rush  into 
things,  and  before  the  city  starts  out 
with  a certain  venture  which  is  a 
business  venture,  they  should  wait  until 
the  people  say  we  want  to  undertake 
this  particular  thing. 

That  is  not  giving  the  minority  of 
the  people  any  power,  but  that  is  mak- 
ing the  whole  people  calmer  and  more 
deliberate,  and  requiring  a more  sen- 
sible judgment  and  a larger  number  of 
people. 

Now  I do  not  see  anything  wrong  to 
that ; it  is  not  defeating  the  majority. 
In  ordinary  matters  they  can  do  as  they 
please,  they  can  elect  their  own  officers, 
and  all  that,  but  if  it  is  a difference  of 
one  vote,  or  a difference  of  two  votes, 
and  two  more  should  be  in  favor  of 
municipal  operation  than  against  it,  it 
seems  to  me  it  would  be  rather  wrong 
for  the  city  itself  to  take  what  might 
be  called  a business  venture,  and  that 
is  why  I am  opposed  to  this  particular 
amendment. 


March  1 


1178 


1907 


I might  say,  when  it  comes  to  such 
questions  as  the  operation  of  gas  works 
or  the  operation  of  electric  light  plants, 
I think  I would  be  in  favor  of  allowing 
the  city  to  take  that  over  without  re- 
quiring a majority  vote.  But  when  it 
comes  to  dealing  with  huge  traction 
system,  or  doing  something  of  that 
character,  I think  it  would  be  rather 
rash  to  allow  the  city  by  a mere  ma- 
jority vote  to  take  over  a venture  of 
that  sort  and  enter  upon  the  experi- 
mental field. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post  will 

close  the  debate. 

MR.  POST : And  I will  close  it  very 
briefly,  Mr.  President,  which  I have  no 
doubt  will  be  to  the  gratification  of  the 
Chair. 

Pardon  one  word  in  reply  to  Mr. 
Rosenthal.  If  you  will  look  over  your 
history  again  it  will  throw  some  ad- 
ditional light  upon  it  for  you.  The 
minority  in  France  for  centuries  did 
more  harm  than  was  done  by  the  ex- 
cesses of  the  majority  when  they  got 
a chance,  and  that  is  typical  of  all  his- 
tory. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I said  Amer- 

ican history. 

MR.  POST : It  is  typical  of  all  his- 

tory, whether  American  or  any  other. 
Now,  we  heard  from  Alderman  Ben- 
nett that  the  attempt  or  possibility  of 
creating  municipal  operation  should  be 
safeguarded.  Safeguarded  from  whom? 
From  the  city  council?  That’s  all. 
Under  this  provision,  as  amended,  if  my 
amendment  should  pass,  nothing  could 
be  done  unless  the  city  council  passed 
the  ordinances.  And  if  the  city  agreed 
to  that,  then  everything  was  safeguard- 
ed; in  fact,  the  only  way  to  safeguard 
the  public  interests  is  to  have  the  repre- 
sentatives of  the  city  council  safe- 
guarded. 

Now,  my  repjly  to  Alderman  Bennett, 
Mr.  Chairman,  is,  that  if  the  city  coun- 
cil cannot  be  trusted  to  safeguard  the 


rights  of  the  people  against  Wall  street 
manipulators,  it  can  be  trusted  to  safe- 
guard the  rights  of  the  people  against 
themselves.  That  is  the  position  I have 
tried  to  make  understood  here.  So  far 
as  the  first  part  of  the  motion  is  con- 
cerned, I fail  to  see  the  distinction  made 
by  Mr.  Fisher,  that  he  draws.  He  says 
that  the  proposal  for  municipal  opera- 
tion is  a general  proposition.  I reply 
that  the  proposition  for  granting  a 
franchise  is  a general  proposition,  and 
that  the  same  conditions  ought  to  pre- 
vail with  reference  to  both.  I voted  this 
morning  to  have  a clause  in  regard 
to  making  a franchise  resting  upon  the 
same  conditions  you  are  now  trying  to 
make  this  clause  rest  upon,  as  to  the 
question  of  three-fifths. 

Gentlemen  have  . spoken  about  com- 
promise. I am  willing  to  compromise 
with  you,  gentlemen.  But  the  com- 
promisers have  put  us  on  the  inside 
of  the  compromise,  and  you  take  a 
line  on  the  outside.  I am  willing  to 
compromise  now.  You  have  insisted 
we  should  be  put  in  this  position,  tied, 
sewed  up.  If  great  franchise  interests 
come  here  to  corrupt  the  city  council, 
you  compel  us  to  go  out  and  get  40,000 
signatures  to  defeat  that  action.  But 
if  we  want  municipal  operation,  then 
yon  don’t  want  thst  requirement.  Now. 
I will  compromise  with  you,  by  making 
the  requirement  in  both  cases. 

I say  it,  gentlemen,  and  I say  it  most 
solemnly,  that  if  you  draw  this  dis- 
tinction that  will  be  drawn  if  you  co 
not  adopt  this  amendment,  it  will  be 
an  indication  both  as  to  the  three- 
fifths,  and  as  to  the  question  of  the 
petition,  that  you  mean  to  make  sub- 
stantial distinctions  between  the  rights 
of  the  people  of  the  City  of  Chicago, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  privileges  of 
the  vested  interests  that  organize  in 
New  York  and  Chicago,  on  the  other. 

I don’t  make  that  as  a threat.  I 
make  it  as  a simple  statement  of  what 


March  1 


1179 


1907 


seems  to  me  will  apical  to  the  peop^ 
of  the  City  of  Chicago  as  an  obvious 
fact  that  has  characterized  the  purpose 
of  this  Convention. 

MR.  JONES : Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  speak  just  a minute.  I 
understand  this  section  8 relates  only 
to  the  question  of  operation. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes,  sir. 

MR.  JONES : Of  public  utilities.  I 
understand  that  section  1 of  the  pro- 
posed article  gives  the  power  to  the 
city  to  own,  maintain  and  operate.  But 
there  is  no  specific  provision  in  the 
charter  that  requires  anything  more 
than  a majority  to  acquire  municipal 
ownership.  My  understanding  of  the 
charter  is  that  if  the  city  wishes  to  own 
any  public  utility,  it  will  require  o?:ly 
a majority  vote,  provided  the  matter 
is  put  before  the  people  for  a vote. 
But  in  the  case  of  the  operation  of  a 
public  utility,  under  this  provision,  as 
now  drawn,  it  would  require  a three- 
fifths  vote.  That  is  the  charter  and 
the  laws  of  the  state  will  supplement 
the  charter  and  draw  a distinction  be- 
tween municipal  ownership  and  mu- 
nicipal operation. 

I believe  in  the  minds  of  the  public 
generally  there  are  two  schools : one 

school  which  is  willing  to  go  to  the 
extent  of  municipal  ownership,  but  is 
unwilling  to  go  to  the  extent  of  mu- 
nicipal operation,  because  the  latter 
brings  in  the  human  intellect ; the  em- 
ployes that  would  be  subject  to  politi- 
cal manipulation. 

Now,  I personally  believe  that  it 
would  be  proper  to  permit  the  city  to 
take  over  certain  public  utilities  for 
ownership  by  a majority  vote,  but  I 
am  one  who  believes  that  it  would  be 
very  unwise  for  this  city  at  this  time 
to  trust  that — to  do  that,  for  some 
years  in  the  future,  to  undertake  and 
operate  the  street  car  lines.  So  that  I 
would  be  opposed  to  permitting  the  city 
to  acquire  these  lines  for  operation  as 


easily  as  they  might  acquire  them  for 
ownership.  I believe,  therefore,  that 
this  provision,  as  drafted,  should  re- 
main. 

I believe  it  should  be  made  more 
difficult — very  much  more  difficult — for 
the  city  to  operate  public  utilities  of  this 
kind,  than  should  be  required  if  the 
city  should  merely  acquire  the  title  to 
the  property  and  then  lease  it,  or  make 
it  a matter  of  contract  provision,  if 
you  wish. 

MR.  POST : Will  you  permit  a 

question  ? 

’ AIR.  JONES  : Certainly. 

AIR.  POST : Do  you  think  it  would 

also  be  more  difficult  for  the  city  in 
their  own  operation  than  for  the  city 
to  give  away  on  any  basis  that  a major- 
ity of  the  council  choose,  operating 
privileges  to  private  corporations? 

MR.  JONES : That  has  nothing  to 

do  with  the  question. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Jones  may 
answer  that,  if  he  wishes  to,  but  the 
Chair  thinks  that  has  nothing  to  do 
with  it. 

MR.  JONES:  I am  not  talking 

about  franchises  or  private  rights. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll  on  Mr.  Post’s  amend- 
ment, to  a majority  for  three-fifths  in 
line  4,  page  117. 

Yeas  — Beilfuss,  Brosseau,  Burke, 
Cole,  Eckhart,  B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W., 
Fisher,  Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harrison, 
Linehan,  MacMillan,  McGoorty,  AIc- 
Kinley,  Merriam,  Michaelis,  Owens, 
Post,  Robins,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno, 
White,  Wilkins,  Zimmer. — 25. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Church,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eidmann,  Gans- 
bergen,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  McGoorty,  Pendarvis,  Raymer, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Snow,  Young. — 
18. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  LATHROP:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

am  in  a situation  in  which  a vote  of 


March  1 


1180 


1907 


350.000,  or  a vote  for  operation  of 

176.000,  a vote  against  of  174,000, 
would,  with  a bare  majority  of  control, 
put  the  power  in  2,000  people  of  Chi- 
cago, over  350,000.  Outside  the  ques- 
tion that  it  would  bankrupt  this  city. 
I therefore  vote  no. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

can  see  the  situation  arising  in  this 
city  in  which  a majority  of  70,000  might 
favor  operation,  and  might  be  opposed 
to  ownership,  and  yet  be  absolutely 
tied  hand  and  foot.  They  might  be 
unwilling  to  grant  any  franchise.  I 
therefore  vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  On  that  ques- 

tion, the  yeas  are  25,  and  the  nays  18, 
and  the  motion  is  carried. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

unless  Mr.  Post  has  another  motion 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Just  a minute. 

There  is  another  part  of  Mr.  Post’s  mo- 
tion. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I will  delay  my 
motion. 

MR.  POST : Let  me  explain.  You 
will  have  to  take  the  entire  language, 
a part  of  the  section,  in  order  that  the 
language  of  the  section  would  be  ex- 
plicit, you  would  have  to  stop  off  at 
the  middle  to  make  it  complete. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  question 

is,  as  the  Chair  understands  it,  to  in- 
sert practically  the  same  words  in  the 
other  section. 

MR.  POST : With  such  adjustment 

as  is  necessary. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  signify  the  same  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no.  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman, 
may  we  have  the  question  read? 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I would  like 

to  have  the  question  stated. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  Chair  will 
try  to  state  the  amendment.  Mr.  Post 
moves  to  strike  out  as  follows : 

(Reads  amendment.) 


You  have  changed  the  three-fifths  to 
a majority,  and  he  moves  to  insert  in 
lieu  therefor : “Until  60  days  after  the 
passage  of  the  ordinance  therefor” 

MR.  POST : If  the  Chair  will  allow 
me  the  privilege  of  interruption,  as  he 
allowed  Mr.  Rosenthal,  I will  say  that 
the  whole  purport  of  this  is  to  make 
the  same  requirements  exactly  with 
reference  to  the  question  of  municipal 
operation,  as  we  have  already  made 
with  reference  to  the  question  of  grant- 
ing private  franchises.  That  is  the 
whole  thing. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question?  As  many  as  favor — 

MR.  POST:  Roll  call,  Mr.  Chair- 

man. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Call  the  roll. 

Yeas  — Beilfuss,  Brosseau,  Burke, 
Greenacre,  Guerin,  Harrison,  Linehan, 
MacMillan,  McGoorty,  Owens,  Post, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  White,  Wilkins,  Zim- 
mer.— 16. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Bennett,  Brown, 
Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart, 
B.  A.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher, 
Gansbergen,  Hill,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kit- 
tleman,  Lathrop,  McCormick,  McKin- 
ley, Merriam,  Michaelis,  Pendarvis, 
Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Shanahan, 
Snow,  Werno,  Young. — 28. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  BENNETT:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

desire  to  change  my  vote  from  aye  to 
no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  M,r.  Bennett 

desires  to  change  his  .vote  from  aye  to 
no. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I desire  to 

change  my  vote  from  aye  to  no. 

MR.  HILL:  I would  like  to  be  re- 

corded as  voting  no. 

MR.  BROWN  : I vote  no. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Upon  the  mo- 

tion to  adopt,  the  yeas  are  16  and  the 
nays  28.  and  the  motion  is  lost. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman, 

section  16,  paragraph  7 : I move  to 


March  1 


1181 


1907 


amend  by  inserting  after  the  word 
“city”  on  the  last  line,  “or  the  sanitary 
district  of  Chicago.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  We  have  gone 

through  that  section  once. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  We  have,  Mr. 

Chairman,  but  I want  to  go  back  to  it. 

I will  explain  it  in  a few  words,  and  it 
will  be  passed  unanimously,  I believe. 
Page  116,  last  line  from  the  bottom: 
“The  city  shall  not  itself  proceed  to 
operate  any  such  public  utility.”  I 
think  I can  explain  it  to  your  satisfac- 
tion. 

MR.  POST : Is  that  in  the  new  one 
or  the  old  one? 

MR.  McCORMICK:  In  the  new.  I 

think  I can  explain  it  to  everybody’s 
satisfaction.  This  ordinance  provides 
that — this  paragraph  provides — that  no 
ordinance  be  passed  giving  to  any  pri- 
vate corporation  the  right  or  privilege 
to  lay  upon  or  under  the  surface  of  any 
street,  alley  or  public  place,  etc.  The 
last  sentence  of  this  paragraph  provides 
that  this  section  shall  not  apply  to  poles, 
cables  and  wires  needed  for  the  opera- 
tion of  any  electric  lighting  plant  owned 
by  the  city  and  established  for  its  own 
use.  I desire  to  allow  the  sanitary  dis- 
trict to  lay  electric  light  wires  without 
requiring  frontage  consents.  It  was 
attempted  at  one  time  to  have  such 
contract  for  the  water  power  plant 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Does  the  san- 

itary district  need  the  consent  of  the 
city  to  lay  its  wires? 

MR.  McCORMICK:  There  is  a dif- 
ference of  opinion  upon  that  question, 
between  the  sanitary  district  and  the 
city,  and  I think  it  would  be  well  to 
have  it  cleaned  up  in  the  charter. 

There  was  an  attempt,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, at  one  time,  to  have  the  city  de- 
velop this  electric  light  power,  and  if 
the  city  had  been  able  to  do  so,  it  would 
have  saved  many  complications  and  a 
great  deal  of  trouble  for  me.  The 
court  held  it  was  beyond  the  power  i 


of  the  city,  and  thereupon  the  act  of 
1903  was  passed,  authorizing  the  san- 
itary district  of  Chicago  to  develop 
electric  power,  which  will  be  ready  in 
the  near  future.  This  power  will  be 
sold,  as  much  as  can  be  sold,  to  the 
city  for  lighting,  and  to  the  parks,  and 
the  operation  of  the  municipality.  There 
is  a balance  which,  for  several  years, 
will  not  be  required  for  municipal  pur- 
poses, and  if  the  taxpayers  are  to  de- 
rive their  revenue  from  the  taxes  paid, 
there  must  be  facilities  for  the  selling 
of  this  power.  There  are  four  million 
dollars  of  money  invested,  and  I am  sure 
the  trustees  of  the  sanitary  district 
would  not  be  able  themselves  to  do  this 
to  any  advantage  if  they  were  required 
to  get  frontage  consents  to  lay  them. 
The  sanitary  district  of  Chicago  is  as 
much  a municipal  corporation  as  the 
City  of  Chicago.  It  is  elected  by  the 
people,  and  kept  up  by  taxes  paid  by 
the  people.  It  therefore  should  have 
every  privilege  within  the  scope  of 
its  authority,  and  I ask,  therefore,  for 
the  amendment. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

think  the  principle  of  the  general  prop- 
osition Mr.  McCormick  advocates  is 
unobjectionable,  but  I think  it  should  be 
expressly  provided  that  you  should  have 
to  have  the  consent  of  the  city.  The 
very  point  is  raised  that  there  is  a dif- 
ference between  the  city  and  the  san- 
itary district,  and  as  a substitute  for 
the  motion,  I ask  that  we  have  a sen- 
tence whereby  the  sanitary  district 
should  obtain  the  consent  of  the  city. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I don’t  see  the 

meaning  of  that  amendment. 

MR.  FISHER:  The  meaning  of  the 

amendment  is  that  it  would  apply  that 
the  poles,  cables  and  wires  needed  for 
the  operation  of  the  electric  light 
plant  owned  by  the  sanitary  district, 
should  be  laid  only  with  the  consent  of 
i the  city  council. 


March  1 


1182 


1907 


MR.  McCORMICK:  There  is  no 

question  but  what  the  sanitary  district 
has  been  constructing  its  lines  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  provisions  laid  down 
by  the  city;  but  it  was  unfortunate  for 
the  sale  and  disposal  of  this  power,  that 
it  should  be  governed  by  two  separate 
bodies.  It  would  double  the  difficulties. 
Municipal  operation  is  objected  to  by 
many  people  as  being  too  complicated 
for  public  bodies  to  attack.  I don’t 
know  at  this  time  that  it  was  discussed 
on  that  question,  but  I say  it  is  suf- 
ficiently complicated  and  sufficiently  dif- 
ficult to  go  into  the  commercial  busi- 
ness of  selling  electric  power,  and  that 
this  work  should  not  have  any  impedi- 
ment put  in  the  way,  but  we  should  have 
every  assistance.  I think  the  provisions 
of  the  present  law  should  not  be  made 
more  arduous,  but,  if  anything,  less 
so;  therefore,  my  amendment. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  it 

would  be  a much  more  unfortunate 
situation  for  the  City  of  Chicago  if  con- 
trol of  the  streets  was  divided  between 
the  city  council  and  the  sanitary  dis- 
trict. The  question  of  the  location  of 
these  poles  and  wires,  and  the  placing 
them  on  the  public  streets,  should  cer- 
tainly be  under  the  control  of  the  mu- 
nicipal authorities : so  far  as  their  con- 
sent is  concerned.  And  inasmuch  as 
the  whole  matter  comes  out  of  the 
city,  and  is  not  provided  by  the  sanitary 
district,  it  makes  the  case  stronger. 
There  should  be  no  difficulty  in  get- 
ting the  consent  of  the  city  council  on 
the  main  proposition,  but  they  should 
be  compelled  to  get  the  consent  of 
the  city  council  as  to  the  location  and 
the  manner  of  the  poles  and  wires, 
which  may  take  dangerous  courses.  It 
should  not  be  left  entirely  to  the  con- 
trol of  the  sanitary  district.  There 
should  be  no  division  of  authority  over 
the  control  of  the  streets,  and  that  is 
of  more  importance  than  the  other. 


MR.  McCORMICK:  What  is  the 

nature  of  your  amendment? 

MR.  FISHER:  That  it  should  be 

with  the  consent  of  the  city.  The 
section  will  therefore  read  so  that  it 
should  include  the  words  “with  the 
consent  of  the  city.” 

MR.  McCORMICK:  As  to  the  lo- 

cation of  it? 

MR.  FISHER:  The  location  of  it. 

MR.  BENNETT:  I offer  a further 

amendment  to  that  section: 

I would  also  ask  to  have  this  para- 
graph stricken  out,  for  the  reason  that 
you  will  see  by  reading  it,  by  leaving 
this  section  in,  this  paragraph  here,  it 
limits  the  city  to  the  particular  items 
named  in  the  paragraph.  If  it  is  the 
desire,  the  point  made  by  Mr.  McCor- 
mick, and  this,  might  be  referred  to 
the  drafting  committee  to  re-draft  this 
provision,  so  that  the  city  will  not 

have  to  obtain  frontage  consents,  and 
that  it  would  simply  require  the  sanitary 
district  to  get  the  consent  of  the  city 
council.  I think  it  is  important  that 
the  city  should  retain  its  control  over 
the  streets.  The  disposition,  of  course, 
is  to  afford  every  facility  to  deliver  this 
electricity.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  not 
wise  to  turn  over  the  streets  to  the 

sanitary  district  in  toto. 

I therefore  move  a substitute  that 

the  drafting  committee  redraft  the  sec- 
tion, with  that  view  in  mind. 

MR.  FJSHER:  I withdraw  my 

amendment  in  favor  of  that.  I think 
the  point  is  well  taken. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  matter  be- 
fore the  house  is  Alderman  Bennett’s 
motion. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  I withdraw  my 
amendment  in  favor  of  Alderman  Ben- 
nett’s motion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Before  this  is 

sent  to  the  drafting  committee,  I have 
an  amendment  which  I have  submitted 
to  Mr.  Fisher  and  also  Mr.  Bennett, 


March  1 


1183 


1907 


covering  one  point  not  covered  by  this 
section. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Let  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal’s amendment  be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal : 

Before  the  city  shall  itself  lay  or 
place  any  track,  rail  or  structure  over 
and  upon  (but  not  below  the  surface 
of)  any  street,  alley  or  public  place 
for  purposes  of  transportation  or  the 
operation  of  any  tramway,  carline  or 
railroad,  it  shall  itself  be  required  to 
secure  the  consent  of  owners  as  in 
this  section  required,  subject  to  all  the 
conditions  and  provision  of  this  sec- 
tion ; but  in  no  other  case  shall  the 
city  itself  be  required  to  secure  such 
consent  for  its  purposes. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I think  that  covers  the  point 
raised  by  Mr.  Bennett,  and  it  eliminates 
this  particular  thing  which  ought  to  be 
eliminated,  and  at  the  same  time  it  is 
a safeguard  to  have  the  city  itself — 
if  the  city  itself  operates  any  car  lines 
or  railroad  on  any  street  on  which 
there  is  no  track,  that  the  city  itself 
can  secure  that  consent.  That  is,  it 
does  not  apply  as  is  specifically  stated 
in  the  amendment,  to  any  track  under 
the  street,  or  under  the  surface  of  the 
street. 

MR.  ZIMMER:  I would  like  to  have 
that  stated  specifically  in  the  amend- 
ment, that  it  doesn’t  apply  to  streets 
where  tracks  are  not  laid. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  It  is  in  the 

section  already. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question  on  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
amendment?  All  those  in  favor  of  the 
motion  signify  by  saying  aye;  opposed, 
no.  Carried.  Proceed,  Mr.  Secretary. 
THE  SECRETARY:  8,  9,  10,  11. 

MR.  McGOORTY  : Referring  to  sec- 
tion 8 — the  section  which  we  have  been 
discussing,  the  last  clause  in  that  sen- 
tence, commencing  on  line  4 thereon, 


reads  as  follows : “But  this  provision 
shall  not  prevent  the  city,”  etc. 

I have  two  objections  to  offer  to  this 
section;  first:  Section  1,  of  this  article, 
gives  the  City  of  Chicago  the  right  to 
acquire,  maintain  and  operate  all  public 
utilities,  including  those  specifically 
mentioned.  Now,  it  seems  to  me,  from 
the  speeches  of  some  members  of  this 
Convention,  that  while  there  were  some 
objections  on  the  street  car  proposition, 
that  those  objections  did  not  apply  to 
the  proposition  of  lighting,  and  when 
the  present  enabling  act  passed  the  legis- 
lature, it  was  a compromised  measure, 
as  far  as  municipal  operation  of  the 
electric  light  plant  is  concerned.  And 
therefore  the  word  “surplus”  was  in- 
serted, and  the  words,  “not  needed  for 
municipal  purposes.”  And  it  was  fre- 
quently predicted  at  that  time  that  the 
City  of  Chicago  would  suffer,  as  far 
as  the  using  of  lights  for  private  pur- 
poses were  concerned,  and  that  it  is 
ambiguous,  and  that  it  could  also  al- 
ways be  contended  that  the  city  never 
would  have  any  surplus  electric  light, 
or  the  clause,  “not  needed  for  munici- 
pal purposes,”  should  be  stretched  to 
such  an  extent  as  to  mean  “not  needed 
for  private  purposes.”  I think  the 
city  should  be  given  a free  hand. 

We  are  passing  a matter  which  de- 
clares the  city  council  should  be  the 
governing  body  on  many  matters  that 
are  now  controlled  by  the  legislature, 
and  if  the  city  council  says  in  its 
judgment,  that  the  electric  lighting  plant 
of  this  city  has  reached  such  a con- 
dition that  it  can  furnish  light  for  pri- 
vate use,  either  for  lighting,  heat  or 
power,  it  ought  to  have  that  right  with- 
out having  these  limitations  that  are 
now  in  there. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

motion? 

MR.  McGOORTY : The  motion  is 

that  the  words  “surplus,”  “not  needed 
for  municipal  purposes,”  be  stricken  out. 


March  1 


1184 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have 

heard  the  motion,  gentlemen.  As  many 
as  are  in  favor  will  signify  by  saying 
aye;  opposed,  no.  The  motion  is  car- 
ried. Proceed,  Mr.  Secretary. 

THE  SECRETARY  : 9,  10,  11. 

MR.  ROBINS:  The  Secretary  will 

be  instructed  to  make  the  corrections 
between  20  per  cent  and  10  in  section 
9? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Yes.  That  will 
be  taken  care  of.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY : 12 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  In  the  sixth 

line  of  section  12,  on  page  118,  it  reads, 
“What  shall-  be  payable  only  out  of  a 
specified  portion  of  the  recenue.”  That 
would  make  it  necessary  for  the  city 
council  to  designate  the  portion.  I 
now  move  to  strike  out  the  words, 
“specified  portion,”  which  would  simply 
make  it  payable  out  of  the  revenue. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  there  any 

objections?  If  not,  all  those  in  favor 
will  signify  by  saying  aye.  All  those 
opposed,  no.  It  is  carried.  Proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY : 13. 

MR.  McGOORTY : In  section  9, 

the  20  per  cent 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  is  already 
done. 

MR.  McGOORTY : Yes.  Well  now, 
in  section  10,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  provides 
that  any  bond — any  proposition  provid- 
ing for  a bond  issue  can  only  be 
adopted  by  a two-thirds  vote;  it  needs 
a two-thirds  vote.  Well  now  that  the 
faith  that  the  credit  of  the  city  is 
pledged  on  other  propositions,  that  the 
majority  vote  is  on,  leads  me  to  think, 
it  seems  to  me  to  be  evident  that  a 
two-thirds  vote  would  make  it  very 
near,  and  often  impossible  to  carry 
any  proposition,  because  there  are  always 
enough  people  in  a community  like  Chi- 
cago to  muster  more  than  one-third  at 
least  against  any  proposition. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  This  only  ap- 


plies to  bonds.  It  does  not  apply  to 
certificates. 

MR.  McGOORTY : I make  the  mo- 
tion, Mr.  Chairman,  to  get  it  before 
the  Convention,  that  the  words  “two- 
thirds,”  be  stricken  out  and  the  word 
“majority”  be  substituted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : You  have 

heard  the  motion? 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  MERRIAM : It  seems  to  me 

there  is  a different  principle  involved 
here.  In  the  case  of  the  bond  issue 
you  are  pledging  the  credit  of  the  city; 
therefore  it  might  not  seem  unjust  to 
require  an  extraordinary  vote  for  that 
purpose.  In  the  case  of  street  railway 
companies,  that  are  not  involving  the 
credit  of  the  city,  but  they  are  merely 
securing  the  certificate  issue;  there  it  is 
different. 

All  bond  issues  required  under  the 
charter,  that  will  require  a bond  issue, 
must  be  approved  by  a majority. 

A bond  issue  as  such,  I think,  might 
as  well  require  the  approval  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  voters. 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 

will  call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Greenacre,  McGoorty,  Post, 
Robins,  Vopicka. — 5. 

Nays — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brosseau,  Brown,  Burke,  Church,  Cole, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eid- 
mann,  Fisher,  Gansbergen,  Harrison, 
Hill,  Hunter,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Lath- 
rop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  Merriam, 
Michaelis,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Raymer, 
Rosenthal,  Shanahan,  Snow,  Taylor, 
Werno,  White,  Wilkins,  Young,  Zim- 
mer.— 35. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  ROBINS:  I understand  that 

the  bonds  that  should  be  issued  under 
this  provision  would  have  to  be  ap- 


March  1 


1185 


1907 


proved  by  the  city  council  by  a majority 
vote  issue? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  section 

that  is  sought  to  be  amended  is  number 

10. 

MR.  ROBINS:  Yes;  I know  the  sec- 
tion, Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  ROBINS:  I just  asked  the 

question,  if,  previous  to  the  submission, 
the  question  would  have  to  be  passed 
on  by  the  city  council  by  a majority 
vote? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Yes. 

MR.  ROBINS : I vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  vote  is: 

Ayes,  5;  nays,  35;  and  the  motion  is 
lost.  The  Secretary  will  proceed. 

THE  SECRETARY:  11,  12,  13, 

14,  15. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : That  concludes 
the  section. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I desire  to  have 

a correction  made  in  article  4,  sec- 
tion 7. 

4 — 7.  The  section  was  amended  at 
our  last  session  to  include  the  word 
“county.”  I want  to  have  included 
also  the  words  “sanitary  district.”  The 
word  “county”  was  left  out,  and  I want 
to  add,  in  addition  to  the  word  “coun- 
ty” the  words  “sanitary  district.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  section  is 
that? 

MR.  MERRIAM : Section  7,  of  article 
1,  page  63.  That  applies  to  the  mem- 
bers of  the  city  council  not  holding  any 
other  position  in  these  various  parties, 
excepting 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  Question? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  will  vote  aye 

MR.  FISHER:  I wish  to  offer  an 

amendment  to  section  2 — on  page  55, 
as  follows: 

MR.  ROBINS:  What  page? 

MR.  FISHER:  Fifty-five;  section  57 
on  that  page;  the  last  section  of  that 


article.  I wish  to  add  the  following 
item: 

“And  no  person  who  has  already 
voted  at  a primary  election  held  to 
nominate  a candidate  or  candidates  for 
any  municipal  office  or  offices,  to  be 
voted  upon  at  any  certain  election,  shall 
be  disqualified  thereby,  from  signing  a 
petition  of  nomination  for  a candidate 
or  candidates  for  the  same  office  or 
offices,  to  be  voted  upon  at  the  same  cer- 
tain election.” 

I want  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  the  fact  that  the  argu- 
ment has  been  repeatedly  made  in  this 
Convention  in  favor  of  the  mainten- 
ance of  the  party  column  and  of  the 
party  designation. 

And,  that  there  was  freedom  of  ac- 
tion with  regard  to  independent  nomi- 
nations, and  that  space  could  be  taken 
under  the  law  to  put  that  independent 
candidate  in  nomination  if  the  voter 
was  not  satisfied  with  the  regular 
nomination. 

However,  the  law  as  it  now  stands,  by 
that  celebrated  Gardner  statute  or  amend- 
ment, provides  that  no  party  that  has 
"Voted  at  a primary  election  shall  have 
the  right  to  sign  a petition  for  an 
amendment. 

I know  of  no  amendment  to  the 

election  law  ever  adopted  by  the  state 
legislature  that  aroused  more  opposi- 
tion of  the  intelligent  portion  of  this 
community  than  that  part  of  that  par- 
ticular section  of  that  particular  statute. 

I am  in  accord  with  the  doctrine  that 
a man  who  signs  a petition  ought  not 
to  be  permitted  to  vote  at  a primary 
election,  he  having  decided  that  he 
wants  another  man  not  put  in  nomina- 
tion. 

But,  the  contrary  proposition  is  sub- 
versive of  all  independence  of  voting, 
and  will  drive  all  men  of  mind  or  of 
opinion  in  regard  to  political  matters 
out  of  the  party. 


March  1 


1186 


1907 


It  is  having  that  effect  here  to  a 
certain  extent  in  the  nominations  for 
alderman,  and  has  had  that  effect  since 
the  Gardner  law  was  adopted. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  while  the 
proposition  upon  the  man  that  has 
signed  a petition,  that  he  should  not  be 
permitted  to  vote  at  a primary  is  right, 
it  does  not  apply  that  a man  who  has 
voted  at  the  primaries  shall  not  have 
the  right  to  sign  a petition  thereafter, 
if  he  is  dissatisfied  with  the  party. 

You  all  remember  the  convention,  or 
most  of  you  will  at  any  rate,  the  con- 
vention held  in  this  city  which  was  a 
marked  historical  episode,  in  the  his- 
tory of  the  Republican  party,  and  which 
partly  defeated  the  renomination  of 
General  Grant  when  the  delegates  of 
the  state  of  West  Virginia  absolutely 
protested  against  the  application  of  the 
gag  rule,  binding  them  to  abide  by 
the  result  of  the  convention,  and  a 
leader  of  that  delegation  who  had 
fought  for  the  republican  party  in  the 
state  of  West  Virginia  when  it  was 
worth  a man’s  life  to  do  so,  who  had, 
to  my  knowledge,  introduced  a negro 
on  the  platform,  when  it  was  worth  his 
life  to  do  it,  and  who  had  been  a re- 
publican under  circumstances  which 
very  few  men  in  that  convention  could 
have  claimed  to  have  undergone,  and 
that  man  said  he  absolutely  repudiated 
the  doctrine  that  a man  should  be 

bound  by  his  participation  in  the  ma- 
chinery of  a political  party  so  that  he 
could  not  exercise  his . independent 
choice  thereafter,  if,  in  his  judgment 
the  candidate  of  that  party  was  abso- 
lutely unfit  for  him  to  support,  and 
when  he  wanted  to  maintain  his  man- 
hood to  that  extent;  That  was  Roscoe 
Conklin,  and  that  convention  nominated 
James  A.  Garfield  for  president. 

Now,  from  that  time  down  I have 
not  seen  any  man  advocate  the  proposi- 
tion that  a man  should  be  bound  by 


his  participation  in  the  machinery  of 
a party,  providing  his  conscience  re- 
vplts  lagainst  the  proposition  of  the 
supporting  nominee. 

You  cannot  put  up  a name  of  a sole 
candidate,  and  the  other  party,  with 
whose  ideas  he  is  absolutely  at  vari- 
ance, is  not  going  to  observe  any  in- 
dependence whatever. 

If  the  petition  is  going  to  be  worth 
anything  and  not  merely  to  do  the 
thing  that  will  be  most  deplored,  but 
we  shall  provide  that  a man  shall  have 
a right  to  sign  the  petition  if  he  desires 
and  only  that  he  shall  be  barred  from 
voting  at  the  party  primaries,  if  pre- 
vious to  that  time  he  shall  have  signed 
a petition.  I move  the  adoption  of  the 
amendment. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  question  is 
upon  Mr.  Fisher’s  amendment. 

MR.  FISHER:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Secre- 
tary call  the  roll. 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W.,  Eckhart, 
J.  W.,  Fisher,  Greenacre,  Harrison, 
Jones,  Lathrop,  Linehan,  McCormick, 
McGoorty,  Merriam,  Michaelis,  O’Don- 
nell, Owens,  Post,  Robins,  Rosenthal, 
Snow,  Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno,  White, 
Young,  Zimmer.— 29. 

Nays  — Brown,  Church,  Eidmann, 
Gansbergen,  Hill,  Hunter,  Kittleman, 
MacMillan,  Raymer,  Shanahan. — 10. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Ayes  29,  and 

nays  10. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Merriam. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  On  page  58  I 

would  like  to  move  to  strike  out  num- 
ber 8. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  re- 

quire reconsideration,  Mr.  Merriam. 

MR.  MERRIAM:  Well,  I move  to 

reconsider  them. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  page  is 

that? 

MR.  MERRIAM : Page  58,  No.  8— 


March  1 


1187 


1907 


I would  like  to  have  the  unanimous  con- 
sent for  reconsideration. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  How  did  you 

vote  on  the  proposition? 

MR.  MERRIAM:  I voted  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Section  8 of 

article  4,  Corrupt  Practice,  Mr.  Mer- 
riam  moves  to  reconsider  that  section. 
All  those  in  favor  signify  by  saying 
aye;  all  those  opposed,  no.  Carried. 

MR.  MERRIAM : And  the  reason, 

Mr.  Chairman,  is  there  might  be  some 
doubt  as  to  how  that  would  work  out 
in  the  practice,  which  reads,  “No  po- 
litical committee  and  no  person  acting 
under  its  authority  or  in  its  behalf,  shall 
demand,  solicit,  ask  or  invite  from  a 
candidate  for  nomination  or  election, 
while  in  the  office,  the  payment  of 
money  or  promise  of  payment  of  money 
to  be  used  in  such  election.” 

While  this"  section  is  found  in  most 
of  the  laws  regarding  corrupt  practice, 
I am  inclined  to  think,  on  more  ma- 
ture consideration,  that  that  is  hard 
to  grasp,  and  if  a candidate  not  directly 
solicited,  the  chances  are  if  he 
indirectly  solicited  in  some  roundabout 
circuitous  way  which,  in  the  long  run, 
would  amount  to  about  the  same  sort 
of  thing. 

We  have  trimmed  the  law  down  as 
far  as  possible  to  those  provisions  that 
are  actually  carried  out,  and  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  there  is  some  doubt 
about  that  I think  it  better  be  omitted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  is  a mo- 
tion— 

MR.  MERRIAM : To  strike  out  sec- 
tion 8. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Merriam 

moves  to  strike  out  section  8 — are  you 
ready  for  the  question?  All  those  in 
favor  signify  by  saying  aye;  those  op- 
posed, no.  Carried. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman,  now  I 

would  like  to  move  an  amendment 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post. 


MR.  POST : On  page  130—19—2,  as 
I understand  the  vote  at  the  time,  we 
required  the  appointment  of  school  trus- 
tees for  three  years.  I do  not  under- 
stand that  we  authorized  a prior  ap- 
pointment for  one  year  as  it  is  in  the 
draft,  and  I would  like  to  make  a mo- 
tion to  restore  that  to  the  condition  of 
the  vote,  namely,  that  these  appointees 
shall  be  for  three  years — for  the  first 
three  years 

MR.  BEILFUSS : What  page  is  that? 

MR.  POST:  Page  130. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Number  2 of 

article  19. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman,  I am 

told  we  are  up  against  a problem  of 
mathematics  when  we  are  up  against 
that. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  the 

motion,  Mr.  Post  ? 

THE  SECRETARY : The  motion  is 
withdrawn. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  motion  is 
withdrawn — there  are  a number  of 
things 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I had  a mo- 

tion to  reconsider,  I think  it  is,  section 
14  15  6 and  7 

MR.  POST  : Just  give  me  a moment, 
Mr.  Chairman ; we  have  been  misin- 
formed ; this  is  not  a mathematical 
proposition;  the  proposition  I am  op- 
posing is  that  when  the  first  seven  mem-  , 
bers  are  through  there  shall  be  five  ap- 
pointed in  its  place,  not  for  one  year 
but  three ; when  the  second  seven,  not 
for  one  year  but  for  three,  and  so  with 
the  third  seven.  Now  I don’t  see  any 
mathematical  doctrine  there.  In  the 
draft  you  have  it  one  year  the  first,  and 
then  the  successive  three.  I move  to 
make  it  three  years  from  the  beginning; 
that  is  the  way  we  decided. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Gentlemen,  you 
have  heard  the  motion. 


March  1 


1188 


1907 


MR.  POST : It  is  simply  a correc- 

tion, and  that  is  the  motion  as  we 
passed  it. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  It  is  simply 

corrected  so  that  when  the  first  five 
terms  expire 

MR.  POST : So  when  the  first  seven 
— when  their  term  expires,  five  will  be 
appointed  in  their  place,  not  for  one 
year  as  the  draft  has  it,  but  for  three 
years  as  we  voted  it,  and  so  with  the 
second  and  so  with  the  third. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : The  correction 

will  be  made  as  requested  unless  there 
is  objection — now,  Mr.  Rosenthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I give  notice  to  move  the  recon- 
sideration of  section  14 — S — 6 and  7,  that 
is  on  page  109  and  page  110,  and  the 
more  I considered  those  particular  sec- 
tions, the  more  confusion  I think  there 
will  be  caused.  I would  like  to  say 
something  about  the  motion  when  the 
motion  to  reconsider  is  carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Gentlemen,  you 
have  heard  the  motion  to  reconsider; 
all  those  in  favor  of  the  motion  say 
aye;  those  opposed,  nay.  Carried. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Now,  Mr. 

Chairman,  I have  a substitute  for  all  of 
those  three  sections 

MR.  BEILFUSS:  What  page? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Pages  109  and 
110  in  the  revised  draft. 

THE  SECRETARY  (reading  mo- 
tion) : By  Mr.  Rosenthal:  “Any  map, 

plat  or  subdivision  of  land  lying  within 
the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall, 
before  being  entitled  to  record  in  the 
office  of  the  recorder  of  Cook  county, 
be  submitted  for  approval  to  the  city 
council  or  to  some  officer  designated 
by  it  in  order  to  secure  the  conformity 
of  such  map,  plat  or  subdivision  to  the 
system  or  plan  of  streets,  alleys  and 
public  places  established  by  or  under 
any  statute,  ordinance,  and  to  any  other 
lawful  requirements.” 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Now,  Mr. 


Chairman,  that  is  a substitute  to  sec- 
tion 6. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Will  you  gen- 

tlemen pay  attention ; this  is  section  6. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  The  purpose  of 
that  is  that  the  recorder  of  deeds  has 
stated  that,  as  a matter  of  practical 
experience,  it  is  impossible  for  the  men 
in  their  office  to  tell  whether  any  plat 
or  subdivision  does,  in  reality,  affect 
any  street  or  alley  or  other  highway 
or  some  public  regulation,  and  they 
seem  to  think  that  they  are  the  persons 
who  are  best  posted  on  this  proposition, 
that  it  is  a mistake  to  allow  a plat  af- 
fecting city  property  and  which  may 
directly  involve  some  street  or  other 
public  property  or  some  public  regula- 
tion, to  be  recorded  without  first  hav- 
ing had  it  approved. 

It  does  not  seem  there  is  any  par- 
ticular hardship  to  designate  some  of- 
ficer to  approve  the  plat.  That  is  the 
object  of  that  particular  provision  moved 
in  the  substitution  of  section  6. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 
for  the  question? 

MR.  McGOORTY : Mr.  Chairman, 

I would  like  to  know  whether  this  is 
just  a substitution  for  section  6. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  For  section  6, 

I want  to  be  heard  on  the  other. 

MR.  McGOORTY : There  is  no  mo- 
tion now  to  strike  out  4 and  5? 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : Not  at  present. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  in  fa- 
vor of  the  substitution  say  aye;  those 
opposed,  nay.  Carried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Now,  Mr.  Ros- 
enthal. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, we  have  a statute  that  has  been  in 
force  for  quite  a number  of  years,  and 
which  section  2 of  the  statute  of  dedi- 
cation of  streets,  alleys  and  highways  is 
found  on  page  39  to  77  of  Star  & Cur- 
tis— 39  to  78,  and  that  provides  that 
when  any  plat  is  vacated  that  the  title 
of  the  owner  shall  extend  to  the  center 


March  1 


1189 


1907 


of  the  street,  and  that  refers  to  the 
statutory  plat. 

We  have  also  another  statute  in  re- 
gard to  plats,  which  attempts  to  cover 
this  matter  quite  fully.  Now  here  we 
are  endeavoring,  by  adopting  section 
5 and  7,  to  have  some  special  law  ap- 
plicable to  the  City  of  Chicago.  The 
Supreme  Court  has  held  that  if,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  it  be  vested  in  the  city, 
then  it  is  impossible  for  the  legislature 
to  invest  property  with  a title,  but 
what  I mean  to  say  in  regard  to  this 
particular  section  it  does  not  seem  to 
me  it  has  anything  to  do  with  the 
charter;  it  is  a matter  of  general  law 
which  ought  to  be  covered  by  a general 
law,  and  we  ought  not  to  signal  out  a 
section  on  dedication  or  a section  on 
plats  of  particular  provisions  and  in 
fact  an  amendment. 

I stated  the  other  night  I thought  it 
was  a rather  slipshod  way  of  doing; 
I meant  no  insult  to  this  assembly  or 
anything  of  that  sort;  but  I do  think 
we  made  a mistake  in  the  adoption  of 
the  special  section  relating  to  particular 
principles  of  law  instead  of  handling 
the  whole  question  and  doing  it  in  a 
way  that,  instead  of  being  cleared  up, 
the  City  of  Chicago  will  be  more  con- 
fused than  they  are  at  the  present  time. 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman. 

MR.  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW : I cannot  agree  with 

Mr.  Rosenthal  on  this  proposition  to 
amend  section  5 as  indicated.  Condi- 
tions do  arise,  and  arise  very  frequently, 
in  a city  such  as  Chicago,  where  it  is 
necessary,  in  order  that  industrial  estab- 
lishments may  be  established,  that 
streets  and  alleys  which  have  been 
platted  and  which  are  no  longer  of 
use  to  the  public,  should  be  vacated.  It 
does  not  appear  that  the  public  interest 
in  the  city  council  is  in  favor  of  that 
vacation. 

Now  the  intention  of  section  5,  as  I 
understand  it,  is  that  where  the  city 


council  or  the  city  shall  see  fit  to  va- 
cate a street  or  an  alley  they  shall 
be  able  to  pass  title  to  the  parties  for 
whom  it  is  vacated,  and  at  the  same 
time  there  shall  be  a provision  to 
charge  for  that  property  at  the  full 
value.  It  seems  to  me  that  is  a prop- 
osition that  should  be  left  in  the  char- 
ter. 

1 HE  CHAIRMAN  : Are  you  ready 
for  the  question  upon  Mr.  Rosenthal’s 
substitution?  The  Secretary  will  call 
the  roll — the  Secretary  will  read  the 
substitution  of  Mr.  Rosenthal  for  sec- 
tion. 7. 

MR.  HUNTER:  For  section  7? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Rosen- 

thal’s substitution  for  section  7. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : No,  my  mo- 

tion is  to  strike  out  sections  5 and  7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  strike  out 

5 and  7 and  substitute  your  motion. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Might  I be 

permitted  to  say  just  a word  in  relation 
to  what  Alderman  Snow  said. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Gentlemen,  if 

you  will  come  to  order  we  will  get 
through  quicker. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  I just  want  to 
say  one  word  in  relation  to  Alderman 
Snow.  The  subdivisions  that  can  at 
the  present  time  be  affected  are  only 
the  subdivisions  in  outlying  territory, 
because,  as  far  as  the  subdivisions  down 
town  are  concerned,  or  the  subdivisions 
in  the  main  portion  of  the  city,  their 
rights  are  already  vested  and  fixed,  and 
you  cannot,  by  your  charter,  transfer 
those  rights  at  the  present  time ; they 
are  vested,  and  that  has  been  held. 

Now  just  for  the  sake  of  collecting 
rents  in  a few  outlying  subdivisions,  it 
seems  to  me  it  is  a great  mistake  to 
pass  a general  law  of  this  sort,  to  af- 
fect the  general  doctrine  at  the  present 
time. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : Are  you  ready 
for  the  question — let  the  Secretary  read 


March  1 


1190 


1907 


the  amendment — the  substitution  for  5 
and  7. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL:  Well  just  strike 
out  sections  5 and  7. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  To  strike  out 

5 and  7 — the  Secretary  will  call  the 
roll. 

Yeas  — Badenoch,  Brown,  Burke, 
Church,  Cole,  Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann, 
Greenacre,  Hill,  Jones,  Kittleman, 
Lathrop,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  O’Don- 
nell, Owens,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Rosen- 
thal, Shanahan,  Taylor,  Young. — 22. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Dixon,  G.  W.,  Fisher,  Harrison,  Hunter, 
McGoorty,  Merriam,  Post,  Robins, 
Snow,  Vopicka,  Werno,  Zimmer. — 15. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : On  Mr.  Rosen- 
thal’s resolution  the  ayes  are  22  and 
the  nays  15,  and  the  motion  is  carried. 
That  completes  the  discussion  of  the 
charter,  gentlemen. 

MR.  COLE  : Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

the  charter  be  adopted  as  read. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : There  is  a mo- 
tion that  the  charter  be  adopted 

MR.  McCORMICK:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  McCor- 

mick. 

MR.  McCORMICK:  There  is  a 

matter  before  the  Charter  Convention  of 
section  6 that  I was  speaking  about; 
the  matter  is  still  pending  before  the 
Convention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What  is  that? 

MR.  McCORMICK:  All  right. 

MR.  PENDARVIS : Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Pendarvis. 

MR.  PENDARVIS : I wanted  to  ask 
a question,  Mr.  Chairman,  about  the 
language  of  section  1,  article  6. 

MR.  RAYMER:  What  page? 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Page  69.  In 

the  second  paragraph  of  that  section, 
“Any  power  by  this  charter  conferred 
or  duties  imposed  upon  any  officers 
created  by  ordinance,  shall,  if  the  office 


designated  by  the  charter  shall  be  abol- 
ished by  the  city  council,  be  performed 
by  the  officer  or  officers  upon  whom  the 
powers  and  duties  of  the  office  abolished 
are  devolved.” 

The  question  is,  whether  that  lan- 
guage is  as  clear  as  it  ought  to  be.  I 
think  there  might  be  a serious  question 
there,  Mr.  Chairman,  whether  or  not 
you  are  not  attempting  by  implication 
to  confer  upon  the  council  the  power  to 
abolish  charter  offices. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Well  I think 

the  only  objection  to  that  is  that  the 
officer  substituted  the  duties,  and  the 
Secretary  will  make  a note  and  the 
language  will  be  so  cleared  up  as 
to  make  the  intention  perfectly  clear. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  my  resolution  now,  I 
think  this  is  the  proper  time  for  that 
to  be  presented. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  One  moment, 
there  seems  to  be  some  reconsidering 
propositions — what  is  it  Mr.  Snow? 

MR.  SNOW:  Mr.  Chairman,  I sim- 
ply desire  to  call  the  attention  of  the 
Convention  to  Section  14,  Article 
16,  I should  have  done  that — 

THE  SECRETARY:  What  page? 

MR.  SNOW:  Page  120.  Under 

that  the  authority  is  given  the  city  to 
go  into  the  business  of  maintaining, 
operating  and  constructing  elevators, 
warehouses  and  vaults,  whatever  that 
may  mean. 

Now  I for  one,  believe  there  should 
be  some  lines  of  industry  left  for 
private  parties  to  pursue,  and  for  that 
reason  I would  like  leave  to  strike 
out  the  words  “And  in  connection 
therewith  elevators,  warehouses  and 
vaults.” 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  would 

be  a motion  to  reconsider  Mr.  Snow. 

MR.  SNOW:  I make  the  motion 

to  reconsider  then. 


March  1 


1191 


1907 


THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  of  the  motion  signify  by  say- 
ing, aye;  all  those  opposed,  no.  Car- 
ried. 

MR.  SNOW:  Section  14,  Article 

16.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  I move  to 
strike  out,  “And  in  connection  there- 
with, elevators,  warehouses  and 
vaults.”  leaving  the  city  authority  to 
own  and  operate  wharfs,  docks  and 
levees,  but  not  the  business  of  going 
into  the  business  of  grain  elevators, 
coal  bunkers  or  anything  of  that  kind, 
which,  in  my  opinion  would  be  private 
enterprises. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Secretary 
will  call  the  roll. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Post. 

MR.  POST:  If  we  are  going  to 

reconsider  this  charter  all  of  the  way 
through  we  will  have  to  take  another 
day  to  do  it.  Here  is  a proposition 
that  reaches  a vital  point,  the  city  is 
given  control  of  wharves,  docks  and 
levees  and  in  connection  therewith 
elevators,  warehouses  and  vaults.  In 
other  words,  if  you  reconsider  this 
you  are  authorizing  the  establishment 
of  the  operation  of  elevators  in  con- 
nection with  a city  enterprise, 
wharves,  and  so  forth  and  we  are  go- 
ing to  tear  this  all  to  pieces  again 
then  let  us  understand  that  we  are 
going  to  do  it  in  other  respects.  I 
did  not  suppose  we  were  to  have  a 
reconsideration  of  anything  like  this 
when  the  vote  was  taken,  and  I hope, 
Mr.  Chairman,  that  this  will  be  voted 
down. 

MR.  ROBINS:  The  question  be- 

fore us  is  not  to  strike  out  these 
words  or  whether  the  proposition  is 
going  to  be  made  practical  or  not; 
whether  or  not  the  city  is  going  to 
be  in  position  to  do  this,  if  it  passes  it, 
taking  into  consideration  the  mod- 
ern industrial  requirements  in  the 
operation  of  docks,  and  so  forth, 
whether  they  would  be  able  to  do 


these  other  things.  Wherever  the 
city  does  work  of  this  kind,  it  car- 
ries vaults  and  warehouses  in  con- 
nection with  that.  Now,  if  you  want 
to  do  that  thing,  all  right,  but  some 
of  us  want  to  know  whether  the  other 
question  will  apply. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  the  Sec- 

retary call  the  roll. 

Yeas  — Badenoch,  Brown,  Hill, 
Hunter,  Lathrop,  McCormick,  Pen- 
darvis,  Post,  Rosenthal,  Snow — 11. 

Nays — Beilfuss,  Bennett,  Brosseau, 
Burke,  Church,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  Eidman,  Fisher,  Greenacre, 
Harrison,  Jones,  Kittleman,  Linehan, 
MacMillan,  McGoorty,  Merriam, 
Michaelis,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Robins, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno,  White, 
Young,  Zimmer — 28. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  result  of 
the  vote  is  as  follows:  The  yeas  are, 

11;  the  nays  are,  28,  and  the  mo- 
tion is  lost. 

MR.  YOUNG:  It  seems  to  me  we 

have  spent  much  time  and  much  ef- 
fort, and  have  arrived  at  what  seems 
to  me  to  be  a conclusion. 

We  might  go  over  all  this  ground 
again.  No  doubt  some  of  us  have 
had  to  give  up  some  of  our  own  ideas 
in  order  that  we  may  bring  out  a 
charter  that  would  be  entirely  satis- 
factory to  everyone. 

Now,  I think  we  ought  to  stop  at 
once  bringing  up  these  questions,  and 
adopt  the  charter  as  a whole.  T be- 
lieve we  should  accept  the  resolution 
of  this  Convention,  and  do  what  we 
can  to  secure  the  adoption  of  this 
charter. 

I move  that  we  accept  the  charter. 
THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  is  the 

motion  of  Mr.  Cole,  which  is  before 
the  house. 

MR.  McMILLAN:  In  order  that 
we  may  come  to  a direct  vote  on 
that  question,  I move  the  previous 
question. 


March  1 


1192 


1907 


MR.  BADENOCH:  In  the  article 

on  the  Board  of  Education  there  is 
just  one  word  that  has  been  left  out. 

Inasmuch  as  all  kinds  of  schools  are 
specified  except  night  schools,  I now 
move  to  insert  night  schools  after  the 
words  “including  normal  schools  and 
night  schools.”  Because  the  night 
schools  are  not  specified. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  If  there  is  no 
objection  it  will  be  inserted. 

MR.  BADENOCH:  That  will  be 

inserted? 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That  will  be 

inserted. 

MR.  MACMILLAN:  Let  us  vote 

on  the  previous  question  and  stop  all 
this  other  business. 

If  you  are  going  over  the  question, 
I will  stay  here  until  fall,  but  I want 
to  see  this  Convention  dispose  of  the 
mater  before  it  gets  very  dark.  It 
has  been  very  dark  all  the  afternoon, 
— to  some  of  us. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  Mr.  Chair- 

man:— 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair 

will  put  the  previous  question  as 
soon  as  Mr.  Pendarvis  yields  the  floor. 

MR.  PENDARVIS:  You  have  here 
a provision  that  this  act  shall  be 
cited  as  the  charter  of  the  city  of 
Chicago. 

That  matter  has  not  been  discussed 
on  the  floor,  and  it  seems  to  me  this 
provision  will  not  sufficiently  avail,  be- 
cause this  act  is  not  to  be  the  charter 
of  the  City  of  Chicago,  and  it  will  be 
incorrect  to  cite  this  as  a charter  of 
the  City  of  Chicago. 

It  adds  nothing  to  it,  and  it  seems 
to  me  we  are  making  a mistake  by  in- 
cluding any  such  provision  as  that,  and 
that  we  ought  not  to  bring  it  out.  It 
is  not  material. 

It  may  tend  to  confusion  in  the  fu- 
ture, and  I now  move  that  that  article 
be  omitted. 

THE  CHAIRMAN  : Gentlemen,  you 


have  heard  the  motion.  As  many  as 
are  in  favor  will  signify  by  saying  aye; 
opposed,  no ; it  is  carried.  Shall  the 
main  question  be  put? 

THE  CHAIRMAN : As  many  as  are 
in  favor  will  signify  by  saying  aye;  op- 
posed, no.  Carried.  The  question  is: 
Mr.  Cole’s  motion,  that  the  charter  be 
approved  and  adopted. 

All  those  in  favor  will  signify  by 
saying  aye 

MR.  POST:  Roll  call. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  there  be  a 
roll  call. 

THE  SECRETARY: 

Yeas — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brosseau,  Burke,  Cole,  Dixon,  G.  W., 
Eckhart,  J.  W.,  Eidmann,  Fisher,  Green- 
acre,  Harrison,  Hunter,  Lathrop,  Line- 
han,  MacMillan,  McCormick,  Merriam, 
Michaelis,  O’Donnell,  Owens,  Pendar- 
vis, Raymer,  Robins,  Rosenthal,  Snow, 
Taylor,  Vopicka,  Werno,  White,  Young, 
Zimmer. — 32. 

Nays — 0. 

Present,  but  not  voting — Foreman 
(chairman),  Brown,  Church,  Hill, 
Jones,  Kittleman,  McGoorty,  Post,  Shan- 
ahan— 9. 

(During  roll  call.) 

MR.  CHURCH : In  explanation  of 

my  position,  I simply  want  to  say  that, 
as  a member  of  the  general  assembly, 
I expect  to  do  all  in  my  power  to  aid 
the  advancement  of  this  charter  sub- 
stantially, as  it  is  presented  here,  and 
yet  there  are  some  provisions  in  it 
which  I cannot  commend,  and,  in  view 
of  that  fact,  and  in  order  that  my  vote 
on  this  matter  now  might  be  taken  as 
indicating  my  position  on  it  later  on,  I 
desire  to  be  recorded  as  present  and 
not  voting. 

MR.  GREENACRE:  Mr.  Chairman, 
I desire  to  say  this  much  in  explaining 
my  vote : 

Of  course  none  of  us  have  had  the 
chance  to  read  over  that  charter,  or 
to  see  what  we  do  here,  finally. 


March  I 


1193 


3907 


Reserving,  then,  the  right  to  pass  on 
it  when  it  comes  up  finally,  as  it  will 
come  before  the  legislature  and  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  people,  and  take  such 
position  on  it  then  as  it  may  then  war- 
rant, even  though  it  may  be  in  its  pres- 
ent or  altered,  and  only  for  the  pur- 
pose of  getting  before  the  legislature 
and  to  get  it  in  shape,  either  this  one 
or  one  that  is  better^-for  that  reason, 
and  sustaining  that  right,  I vote  aye. 

MR.  HILL : I think  I desire  to  be 

recorded  as  present  and  not  voting. 

Under  the  oath  wre  have  taken  as 
legislators,  there  may  be  some  points 
that  will  have  to  be  made  differently 
when  we  come  to  analyze  this  matter. 

While  f desire  to  support  this  mea- 
sure as  it  is  reached  here,  still  I do 
not  wish  to  be  criticised  on  any  such 
ground. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I desire  to  be 

passed,  for  the  reason  that  there  are 
many  things  in  the  charter  provisions, 
that  I cannot  consistently  vote  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentlemen 
will  be  passed. 

MR.  HUNTER : That  is  all  right. 

MR.  JONES:  I,  as  a member  of 

the  legislature,  wish  to  make  a state- 
ment : 

I am  willing  to  accept  this  charter 
as  the  average  judgment  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention,  and  of  the 
people  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  whom 
they  represent. 

Up  to  this  time  I have  occupied  the 
position  as  an  advocate,  and  have  par- 
ticipated in  the  votes  and  the  argu- 
ments. 

From  this  time  on,  as  the  charter 
comes  before  the  legislature,  I am  re- 
quired to  assume  a more  or  less  ju- 
dicial position,  in  which  I shall  have 
to  consider  what  will  be  the  best  aver- 
age judgment  of  the  state  at  large,  and 
not  the  City  of  Chicago  alone. 

For  that  reason  I do  not  wish  to  par- 


ticipate in  the  final  vote,  and  shall  ask 
to  be  excused. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chair- 

man, I feel  like  expressing  myself  sim- 
ilarly to  the  other  members  of  the 
legislature. 

Now,  there  is  nobody  so  anxious  to 
have  it  passed  as  I am,  and  there  are 
not  many  things — I do  not  know  that 
there  are  any  that  I would  not  vote 
for,  if  it  meant  the  passing  of  the  char- 
ter. 

But,  with  this  explanation,  I would 
like  to  be  passed  from  voting  on  it. 

MR.  M’GOORTY : Mr.  Chairman: 
I desire  to  be  in  accord  with  the  other 
gentlemen  of  the  legislature.  I should 
like,  however,  as  voting  for  the  charter, 
with  the  understanding  that,  as  a legis- 
lator, that  I be  free  to  exercise  my  in- 
dependent judgment. 

However,  under  the  circumstances,  I 
will  refrain  from  voting. 

MR.  MERRIAM : I did  not  come 
into  the  charter  convention  with  the 
understanding  or  idea  that  my  vote  for 
or  against  the  charter,  as  a whole,  would 
depend  on  whether  or  not  there  were 
things  in  here  that  I did  not  agree  with. 
If  I had,  I would  have  better  kept  out. 

Mr.  Cole  and  I,  I believe  the  day  be- 
fore the  convention,  agreed  to  pledge 
ourselves,  if  the  other  gentlemen  would 
do  likewise,  to  accept  this  charter  from 
this  convention.  I do  not  see  how  a 
man  can  act  on  principle  and  do  other- 
wise. 

The  people  of  the  City  of  Chicago  are 
desirous  of  home  rule,  and  if  they  are 
not  willing  to  abide  by  the  resolutions 
they  have  determined,  who  will? 

There  are  many  things  in  the  charter 
that  I have  objected  to  from  time  to 
tyne.  I think  the  roll  call  will  show 
I have  been  active. 

I have  tried  to  take  it  with  good  grace. 
I think  it  will  be  regarded  as  one  of 
the  best  charters  that  has  been  framed 
in  recent  years  in  this  country. 


March  1 


1194 


1907 


Therefore  I vote  aye. 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  Mr.  Chairman, 
with  the  exception  of  making  the  term 
of  aldermen  four  years,  and  at  the  same 
time  doubling  their  salary,  and  giving 
the  control  of  the  Board  of  Education 
into  the  hands  of  six  men — with  those 
exceptions  I am  in  favor  of  this  charter 
as  presented. 

I will  vote  aye  upon  this  charter,  re- 
serving the  right  as  a citizen  of  Chicago 
to  do  all  I can  to  defeat  both  those  sec- 
tions of  the  charter. 

I vote  aye. 

MR.  PENDARVIS  : In  voting  to  ap- 
prove the  charter  now  submitted,  I do 
not  consider  that  I bind  myself  to  cer- 
tain things  here  that  I regard  as  not  in 
accord  with  the  constitutional  amend- 
ment. For  the  most  part,  I am  satisfied 
with  the  work. 

As  a matter  of  practical  policy,  I 
agree  with  Brother  O’Donnell  on  the 
question  of  the  term  of  aldermen.  That 
is  merely  a question  of  policy. 

But,  we  have  put  into  this  charter  a 
question  regarding  the  powers  of  the 
council,  and  authorizing  the  council  to 
amend  this  charter,  which  I regard  as 
absolutely  inconsistent  with  and  antago- 
nistic to  the  powers  conferred  by  the 
constitutional  amendment,  and  I believe 
it  will  be  so  held  if  it  is  ever  subjected 
to  construction.  The  constitutional 
amendment  never  contemplated  that  the 
city  council  should  be  given  power  to 
amend  this  charter. 

With  that  statement,  Mr.  Chairman,  I 
vote  aye. 

MR.  POST : Mr.  Chairman  : 

Unlike  Mr.  Merriam,  I did  not  come 
into  this  convention  with  any  de- 
termination to  be  absolutely  governed 
by  its  decisions.  If  it  has  been  a repre- 
sentative convention,  elected  by  the  peo- 
ple— as  it  ought  to  have  been — and  I had 
been  selected  to  sit  in  it,  then  I should 
have  considered  that  whatever  conclu- 


sion that  convention  came  to,  I should 
fall  in  with  the  rest  of  the  members. 

I did  come,  however,  into  this  conven- 
tion with  the  full  determination  that  if 
the  members,  even  though  appointed 
instead  of  elected,  should  formulate  a 
home  rule  charter,  a fair  and  good 
charter,  that  even  if  I did  not  like  it  in 
many  respects,  I would  support  it. 

Now,  this  charter  is  full  of  things  that 
I do  not  like,  and  that  I may  have  to 
fight  again.  I do  not  know.  It  is  full 
of  such  things.  At  the  same  time,  as  I 
survey  the  situation,  I am  inclined  to 
think  that  if  the  final  draft  represents 
what  I now  understand  to  have  been  the 
conclusions  of  this  convention,  I shall 
support  the  charter ; but  we#  have  not 
got  that  draft  before  us.  I have  not 
been  able  to  read  even  the  draft  that  we 
have  hammered  over  today. 

I am  unwilling  to  commit  myself 
to  a charter  the  contents  of  which  I 
do  not  know,  and  all  the  more  so 
when  I find  that  the  legislative  repre- 
sentatives here  will  not  say  what  they 
could  or  would  do.  - They  are  all  of 
them,  or  nearly  all  of  them,  declining 
to  vote;  so  we  are  utterly  in  the  dark 
as  to  what  they  will  do  after  they  get 
the  charter. 

MR.  PRESIDENT:  In  general,  but 
specifically  on  the  ground  that  I do 
not  know  yet  what  the  draft  does  or 
will  contain,  and  cannot  say  whether 
I will  support  the  charter  or  not  until 
I find  out  what  is  in  the  draft  that 
we  are  now  adopting,  what  it  will  con- 
tain, I am  going  to  ask  to  be  allowed 
to  have  my  vote  passed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Proceed. 

MR.  ROSENTHAL : Mr.  Chairman  : 
I think  it  is  rather  unfortunate  that 
in  the  closing  hours  of  this  convention 
so  many  of  us  should  express  sentiments 
which  will  go  forth  to  the  people  and 
make  it  appear  that  the  work  of  this 
convention  was  entirely  without  value. 


March  1 


1195 


1907 


I think  in  the  case  of  every  one  of  us 
there  must  necessarily  be  provisions  in 
this  charter  which  do  not  meet  with  our 
personal  approval,  and  this  charter  nec- 
essarily expresses  the  composite  judg- 
ment and  the  compromise;  but,  as  it 
seems  to  me  to  be,  this  charter,  as  a 
whole,  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is 
drafted,  or  substantially  so,  our  work 
here  will  not  have  been  entirely  in  vain. 

Therefore  I vote  aye. 

MR.  SHANAHAN : I stated,  at  the 
beginning  of  this  convention,  that  I re- 
served my  right  to  vote  as  I saw  fit,  as 
a member  of  the  legislature. 

I have  attended  every  session  of  this 
convention  and  have  done  everything  in 
my  power  to  aid  and  to  try  and  secure 
as  good  a charter  for  Chicago  as  pos- 
sible. 

I am  very  frank  to  say,  that  with  the 
exception  of  three  sections  of  this  char- 
ter, I am  willing  to  go  into  the  legisla- 
ture Tuescday  morning  and  vote  for  the 
charter. 

I believe  the  record  will  show  that  I 
stated  that  in  the  legislature  I intended 
to  vote  there  as  I have  voted  here. 

I beg  now  to  be  excused  from  voting. 

MR.  VOPICKA : Mr.  Chairman: 

There  are  many  things  in  this  charter 
that  I do  not  approve  of,  but,  on  the 
whole,  it  is  a good  work,  a good  piece 
or  work,  and  it  is  a compromise  meas- 
ure for  which  I believe  I should  work, 
and  accept  the  provisions  of  this  charter 
as  voted  upon  by  this  convention. 

I vote  aye. 

MR.  HUNTER:  Record  me  as 

voting  aye. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Hunter 

changes  his  vote  from  no  to  aye. 

MR.  HUNTER:  I did  not. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  What? 

MR.  HUNTER:  I did  not  vote  at 

all. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Oh,  I beg 

your  pardon. 


MR.  BROWN:  I wish  to  be  re- 

corded as  being  present  but  not  vot- 
ing. 

MR.  BURKE:  Some  of  the  mem- 

bers of  this  convention,  and  the  mem- 
bers of  the  legislature,  are  a little 
careful  about  their  records,  and  I 
think  we  ought  to  have  a roll  call  on 
the  absentees  here,  so  that  all  the 
members  of  the  legislature  may  get 
under  cover  promptly. 

MR.  MacMILLAN:  I would  sug- 

gest, as  a way  of  getting  at  the  roll 
call,  that  the  secretary  call  the  roll  as 
he  has  it,  so  that  we  may  have  a veri- 
fied roll  call  publicly  made  now;  then 
the  men  will  know  where  they  stand, 
and  whether  they  are  properly  record- 
ed. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  secretary 
will  verify  the  roll. 

THE  SECRETARY:  Those  voting 

Yea  — Badenoch,  Beilfuss,  Bennett, 
Brosseau,  Burke,  Cole,  Dixon  (G.  W.), 
Eckhart  (J.  W.),  Eidmann,  Fisher, 
Greenacre,  Harrison,  Hunter,  La- 
throp,  Linehan,  MacMillan,  McCor- 
mick, Merriam,  Michaelis,  O’Donnell, 
Owens,  Pendarvis,  Raymer,  Robins, 
Rosenthal,  Snow,  Taylor,  Vopicka, 
Werno,  White,  Young,  Zimmer — 32. 

Those  voting 

Nay— None — 0. 

Those  present  but  not  voting — 

Foreman,  Chairman;  Brown,  Church, 
Hill,  Jones,  Kittleman,  McGoorty, 
Post,  Shanahan — 9. 

Those  absent — Baker,  Beebe,  Carey, 
Clettenberg,  Crilly,  Dever,  Dixon  (T. 
J.),  Eckhart  (B.  A.),  Erickson,  Gans- 
bergen,  Graham,  Guerin,  Haas, 
Hoyne,  Lundberg,  McKinley,  Oehne, 
Paullin,  Powers,  Rainey,  Revell,  Ri- 
naker,  Ritter,  Sethness,  Shedd,  Shep- 
ard, Smulski,  Sunny,  Swift,  Thomp- 
son, Walker,  Wilkins,  Wilson— 33. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  me  have  the 

roll  call,  please.  There  were  forty 
members  present;  32  members  voted 


March  1 


1196 


1907 


aye;  none  vote  no.  Eight  not  voting. 
Quorum  being  present  the  motion  is 
carried. 

MR.  SHANAHAN:  I offer  a resolu- 

tion, and  move  its  adoption  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  the  Chairman  is 
hereby  directed  to  deliver  the  charter 
adopted  by  this  Convention  to  the 
Chairman  of  the  respective  Charter 
Committees  of  the  Senate  and  House  of 
the  General  Assembly  for  introduction, 
and  be  it  further, 

Resolved,  That  he  be  authorized  to 
appoint  a Committee  of  which  he  shall 
be  Chairman  to  further  the  interests  of 
the  Charter  before  the  General  Assem- 
bly. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Are  you  ready 

for  the  question? 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I move 

the  adoption  of  my  resolution.  I think 
it  is  competent  now. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  in 

favor  of  Mr.  Shanahan’s  resolution  sig- 
nify  the  same  by  saying  ‘ 1 aye.  ’ ’ Op- 
posed, “No.”  Carried. 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish 

to  offer  the  following  resolution,  which 
I will  read,  if  you  please: 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  I think 

I know  what  resolution  Mr.  Cole  refers 
to;  and  I think  really  my  motion  comes 
first. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Let  Mr.  Post’s 
resolution  be  read. 

THE  SECRETARY:  By  Mr.  Post: 

Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention 
adjourns  after  action  upon  the  final 
draft  of  the  Charter,  now  under  consid- 
eration, it  adjourn  subject  to  the  call 
of  the  Chair. 

MR.  POST:  I move  its  adoption. 

THE  CHAIRMAN : All  those  in 

favor  of  the  resolution  say  “aye.”  Op- 
posed, “No.”  Carried.  Mr.  Cole. 

MR.  COLE:  I move  the  adoption  of 

the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  we  hereby  tender  to 
the  Honorable  Milton  J.  Foreman, 


Chairman  of  the  Chicago  Charter  Con- 
vention, our  sincere  thanks  for  his  uni- 
form courtesy  and  great  assistance  as 
the  presiding  officer  of  this  Convention. 
His  impartial  rulings  and  the  able  way 
in  which  he  has  given  every  member 
and  idea  a full  hearing  and  then  led 
out  deliberations  up  to  the  point  where 
an  intelligent  vote  could  be  taken  on  all 
subjects,  mark  him  as  an  ideal  presid- 
ing officer  for  a deliberative  body  of 
this  kind.  We  with  pleasure  accord  to 
him  that  full  meed  of  credit  to  which 
he  is  justly  entitled  for  the  success  of 
the  Chicago  Charter  Convention. 

MR.  COLE:  Now  is  there  any  sec- 

onder. You  can  all  have  the  floor. 

(Many  cries  of  “Second.”) 

MR.  POST:  Will  Mr.  Cole  allow  me 

to  say  a word? 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Post,  I will  leave 

it  to  you. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  say,  Mr. 

Chairman,  that  I have  never  seconded 
a resolution  with  more  pleasurable  feel- 
ings than  I do  this.  I have  always  un- 
derstood as  a member  of  a convention 
that  the  presiding  officer  has  to  see  to 
it  that  the  body  over  which  he  presides 
shall  truly  express  itself  as  it  wishes 
to  express  itself.  That  the  minority  at 
all  times  shall  have  its  due  and  fair 
rights  and  that  the  majority  shall  ex- 
press itself  as  it  desires.  In  other 
words,  that  the  Convention  shall  decide 
exactly  as  it  desires.  I do  not  say  it 
in  any  perfunctory  way;  I would  not 
speak  to  a motion  in  any  perfunctory 
way,  and  I do  not  say  one  word  per- 
functorily in  any  way;  but  I want  to 
say  in  all  sincerity  that  while  I have 
sat  in  many  bodies  I have  never  sat  in 
any  body  in  which  I found  that  the 
chairman  was  so  absolutely  fair,  and  so 
thoroughly  determined  upon  giving  full, 
complete,  and  truthful  expression  to  the 
sentiments  of  the  body  over  which  he 
presided.  (Applause.) 


March  1 


1197 


1907 


I most  gratefully  second  that  resolu- 
tion. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman— 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER:  I want  to  add  just 

one  word  to  what  Mr.  Post  has  said.  I 
want  to  pay  tribute  to  the  ability  of 
our  Chairman  to  expedite  business,  and 
get  things  done.  (Applause.) 

MR.  O’DONNELL:  I want  to  say 

that  I have  had  a little  experience,  too, 
in  deliberative  assemblies.  1 was  a 
member  of  the  Hlinois  Legislature  for 
four  successive  terms,  and  I have  had 
quite  a little  experience  in  meetings 
here  in  our  great  City  of  Chicago,  and 
I am  quite  sure  that  I have  never  seen 
a fairer,  more  impartial  presiding  officer 
than  Mr.  Foreman  has  been  over  this 
Convention. 

I want  to  thank  you  personally  for 
the  kindness  and  courtesy  to  myself  and 
to  all  the  members  of  the  Convention. 
I assure  you  that  I am  delighted  to 
know  that  there  is  a man  in  the  City 
of  Chicago  so  fair  and  so  impartial  as 
to  govern  a body  of  this  character  so 
fairly  and  impartially  as  Mr.  Foreman 
has  done.  (Applause.) 

MR.  GREENACRE:  I am  one  of 

the  tail  enders.  There  are  three  or  four 
of  us,  I believe,  but  I don’t  know  how 
many.  When  I came  here  I fully  ex- 
pected that  all  the  work  was  done. 
As  I understand  it  was  passed  upon  in 
principle.  I did  not  suppose  there  was 
much  left  for  us  to  Ho,  and  what  there 
was  was  of  a perfunctory  nature.  Had 
I not  known  the  Chairman,  I would 
have  expected  that  we  would  be  sat 
upon  regularly  and  often,  as  perhaps  we 
deserved,  and  where  the  position  might 
have  warranted  it. 

But  I want  to  say  that  the  treatment 
we  have  received  at  the  hands  of  the 
Chairman,  and  the  other  members,  is 
something  that  we  shall  remember 
pleasurably,  and  I am  pleased  to  have 
come  in  late,  and  to  add  my 


testimony  for  myself  and  for 
the  other  tailsmen  with  me.  I think 
we  all  join  in  the  expressions  of  the 
body,  and  I know  we  all  are  sincerely 
thankful  for  the  way  in  which  the  Chair- 
man has  carried  out  his  duties,  and 
handled  his  position,  here  in  the  con- 
vention, and  expedited  the  business. 
(Applause.) 

MR.  COLE:  All  those  in  favor  of 

the  pending  resolution  stand  up. 

(All  the  members  of  the  convention 
stood,  and  the  resolution  was  adopted 
by  acclamation.) 

MR.  COLE:  Mr.  Chairman,  there 

are  no  contraries. 

MR.  McGOORTY:  Mr.  Chairman— 

MR.  G.  W.  DIXON:  I have  a reso- 

lution to  be  introduced  and  because  of 
its  nature  I would  like  to  read  the 
same. 

Resolved,  That  we  hereby  tender  to 
the  Honorable  M.  L.  McKinley,  Secre- 
tary of  the  Chicago  Charter  Convention, 
and  to  the  Honorable  Henry  Barrett 
Chamberlain,  Assistant  Secretary  there- 
of, our  thanks  and  appreciation  for 
their  most  efficient  service  to  this  Con- 
vention and  their  uniform  courtesy  to 
its  members. 

MR.  DIXON : I ask  that  that  be 

adopted  by  a rising  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  gentlemen 

have  heard  the  motion.  All  those  in 
favor  please  rise. 

(The  members  of  the  convention 
stood,  and  the  resolution  was  adopted.) 

MR,  COLE:  We  are  indebted,  Mr. 

Chairman,  especially  to  the  secretary — 

MR,  POST:  I do  not  wish  to  deal 

out  compliments,  except  where  we  so 
desire,  but  I think  we  should  deal  out 
one  more.  I have  had  occasion  to  go  to 
the  headquarters  of  this  convention  fre- 
quently, and  I have  found  not  only  Mr. 
McKinley  and  Mr.  Chamberlain,  but  all 
those  assisting  them,  have  been  courte- 
ous and  of  great  assistance.  I have 
also  had  great  assistance  from  Mr. 


March  1 


1198 


1907 


Chamberlain’s  assistant,  whose  name  I 
don’t  know,  but  I would  like  to  have 
it  aded  to  this  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  AH  those  in 

favor  of  that  proposition  signify  the 
same  by  saying  aye;  opposed  no.  Car- 
ried. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  That,  so  far, 

completes  our  work. 

MR.  FISHER:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  say  a word. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Mr.  Fisher. 

MR.  FISHER:  I would  not  crowd 

resolutions,  but  there  is  a gentleman, 
who  has  done  a lot  of  work  in  connec- 
tion with  this  convention,  who  ought 
not  to  have  been  forgotten — 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  was 

about  to  refer  to  him. 

MR.  FISHER:  It  seems  to  me  that 

a resolution  is  due  from  the  members 
of  this  Convention  for  the  most  efficient 
service  that  has  been  rendered  to  it, 
and  that  by  a gentleman  who  is  not  a 
member  of  this  Convention.  We  are 
under  obligation  for  the  services  that 
have  been  rendered  from  a disinterested 
and  public-spirited  point  of  view,  by 
Professor  Freund,  the  draftsman  of  this 
charter.  (Applause.)  I move  the 
adoption  of  a vote  of  thanks  by  this 
Convention,  by  a rising  vote. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  of  that,  will  please  rise. 

(The  members  of  the  Convention 
stood,  and  adopted  the  motion  with 
enthusiasm.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Carried.  Now, 

gentlemen,  if  I may  have  the  floor — 
Mr.  Church,  do  you  desire  to  be  heard? 

MR.  CHURCH:  Mr.  Chairman, 

there  seems  to  have  been  an  expression 
of  feeling  in  regard  to  a few  of  the 
members,  as  to  a vote  taken,  and  the 
fact  that  the  members  of  the  General 
Assembly  who  are  present  and  partici- 
pated in  the  deliberation  this  afternoon, 
may  possibly  be  hostile  to  this  Charter; 
or,  at  least,  did  not  appreciate  the  work 


that  is  represented  in  this  Charter, 
which  is  now  before  us,  and  has  been 
adopted.  I have  no  authority  to  speak 
for  my  colleagues,  but  I believe  I voice 
their  sentiment  when  I say  they  appre- 
ciate thoroughly  the  work  which  has 
been  done  on  this  Charter.  I think  the 
Charter,  as  a whole  is  a magnificent 
piece  of  work,  and  something  which  the 
City  of  Chicago  can  well  be  proud  of. 
I believe  that  in  taking  the  position  we 
have  assumed  here,  that  we  have  done 
it  honestly  and  conscientiously,  with 
the  idea  of  finding  that  later  on  we 
will  be  called  upon  to  meet  this  ques- 
tion. In  view  of  all  the  circumstances 
that  this  will  be  sent  down  to  pass  the 
General  Assembly,  it  was  thought  that 
might  affect  us  in  the  position  we  took 
on  this  question.  I assure  you  we  ap- 
preciate thoroughly  the  work  that  has 
been  done  on  this  Charter,  and  everyone 
of  us  will  do  all  we  can  to  see  that  it 
will  substantially  pass  through. 

MR.  LINEHAN:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

would  like  to  say,  that  as  far  as  this 
goes,  it  has  been  quite  an  experience  to 
me,  and  before  I retire  here,  let  me 
suggest  that  the  best  I can  offer  is  this; 
that  if  the  members  of  the  Convention 
will  organize,  I will  take  pleasure  in 
proposing  them  as  delegates  to  the  Fed- 
eration of  Labor.  (Laughter.) 


MR.  HILL:  Mr.  Chairman,  I wish  to 

endorse  what  has  been  said  by  Mr. 
Church.  I thought  there  were  remarks 
made  by  one  or  two  members  as  to  the 
members  of  the  Legislature,  which 
might  be  misunderstood.  I am  sure  we 
all  fully  appreciate  the  efforts  that 
have  been  made  here.  But  we  also 
realize  that  this  is  to  be  taken  up  again 
before  us,  section  by  section,  for  closer 
analysis;  more  close  analysis,  possibly, 
than  .has  been  granted  here  by  some 
parties;  and  that  we  stand,  I think,  in 
the  same  relation  to  this  body,  as  the 
other  gentlemen. 


If  you  are  to  have  this  brought  be- 


March  1 


1199 


1907 


fore  you  again  for  any  other  analysis, 
and  for  consideration,  we  do  not  wish 
to  be  put  in  the  position  that  we  do 
not  wish  to  criticise  anything  that  we 
might  feel  calls  upon  and  forced  to  do 
for  its  benefit.  I have  not  been  able 
to  attend  the  meetings  very  much,  but 
I have  attended  them  as  far  as  it  has 
been  in  my  power,  and  I do  appreciate 
the  work  that  has  been  accomplished, 
and  I hope  we  shall  be  able  to  bring 
back  a bill  or  a Charter  substantially 
the  same.  I hope  so,  and  I earnestly 
pledge  myself  that  I shall  work  to  that 
end. 

ME.  TAYLOR:  Mr.  Chairman,  fully 

appreciating  the  services  of  our  Chair- 
man, and  being  in  full  accord,  I doubt 
not  with  his  own  sentiments,  and  with 
every  member  of  this  Convention,  I 
move  that  we  recognize  by  a rising  vote 
our  appreciation  of  the  initiative  given 
to  this  convention  through  the  able  and 
personal  services  put  into  that  initia- 
tive by  Judge  Orrin  N.  Carter,  who  was 
our  first  chairman. 

I move  that  a rising  vote  of  thanks 
be  extended  to  Judge  Carter. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  All  those  in 

favor  of  that,  please  rise. 

(The  members  of  the  convention 
stood  and  adopted  the  motion.) 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Carried. 

MR.  KITTLEMAN:  Mr.  Chairman, 

now  I hope  the  reporter  has  got  my  lan- 
guage as  I stated  it,  because  I consid- 
ered it  quite  carefully. 

You  will  note  that  I said  if  it  came 
to  a show  down  I probably  would  vote 
for  everything  in  this  Charter.  I only 
reserved  the  right  down  there  to  change 
some  things  that  I think  might  be 
changed  to  good  advantage,  but  other- 
wise I am  with  this  Charter,  and  if  I 
have  to  be  for  it  as  it  is,  I am  for  it. 

MR.  JONES:  Mr.  Chairman,  I regret 

exceedingly  that  in  the  pleasant  clos- 
ing hours  of  this  convention  some  of  the 


members  have  questioned  the  motives  of 
the  members  of  the  Legislature  who  are 
also  members  of  this  Convention. 

I had  hoped  that  before  this  roll  call 
was  taken  a resolution  would  have  been 
presented,  suggesting  that  the  members 
of  the  Legislature,  in  view  of  their  dual 
capacity,  be  excused  from  voting.  I 
was  indeed  surprised,  after  we  got  up 
one  after  another  and  requested  that 
this  Convention  excuse  us  from  voting, 
that  there  were  innuendoes  passed  upon 
the  floor  of  this  convention  questioning 
the  motives  of  men  who  have  sat  in  this 
Convention  and  who  have  deliberated, 
and  who  are  now  called  to  pass  in  judg- 
ment upon  this  Charter  that  is  advo- 
cated by  the  people  of  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

Now,  I,  for  one,  agree  willingly,  as  I 
said  before,  to  go  down  to  Springfield, 
and  to  fight,  and  to  fight  earnestly  and 
lustily  in  favor  of  this  Charter;  but  I 
wish  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact 
that  the  other  members  of  the  Legisla- 
ture have  extended  to  us  the  courtesy 
of  having  placed  us  on  Charter  com- 
mittees, who  are  a majority  of  Chicago 
men,  and  I submit  it  would  be  very 
unwise  in  this  Convention  to  send 
down  to  Springfield  men  who  have  sat 
on  this  Convention,  and  whose  minds 
have  closed — at  least,  men  who  have 
been  voting  as  advocates  of  this  Char- 
ter, and  unwilling  to  concede  changes 
in  the  Charter. 

Now,  I regret  it  exceedingly,  too, 
that  in  talking  with  certain  men,  and 
certain  eminent  men  in  the  City  of 
Chicago,  I have  been  taken  to  task,  be- 
cause I have  said,  that  if  the  country 
members  of  the  Legislature  were  able 
to  prevail  upon  my  judgment,  that  some 
of  the  provisions  of  the  Charter  as 
adopted  by  this  Convention,  were  erro- 
neous, founded  upon  wrong  principles, 
that  I would  vote  in  favor  of  a change 
in  this  Charter.  I was  told  I would  be 
lax  in  my  duties,  I would  be  disloyal  to 


March  1 


1200 


1907 


my  city  to  accept  such  a proposition 
from  a country  member. 

Now,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  there 
are  many  broad  gauge  and  broad- 
minded men  in  this  Convention  who 
have  told  me  just  the  opposite  thing, 
that  they  expect  me  to  go  down  there 
and  use  my  judgment,  and  my  best 
judgment  in  my  capacity  as  a legisla- 
tor, I thought  it  would  be  proper  that 
this  Convention  should  suggest  to  us 
that  we  do  not  vote;  and  when  they  did 
not,  it  seemed  to  me  perfectly  proper, 
in  order  to  preserve  a proper  attitude 
as  members  of  the  Legislature,  that 
we  should  request  that  we  be  excused. 

I trust,  therefore,  that  it  will  be  made 
plain,  not  only  to  the  members  of  the 
Convention,  but  to  the  City  of  Chicago, 
and  to  the  members,  the  country  mem- 
bers of  the  Legislature,  that  this  Con- 
vention concurs  entirely  in  the  request 
of  the  members  of  the  Legislature,  who 
are  also  members  of  this  Convention,  to 
be  excused  from  voting  upon  this  final 
vote  with  respect  to  the  adoption  of  the 
Charter  as  a whole. 

ME.  YOPICKA:  Mr.  Chairman,  I 

move  that  every  member  of  the  Con- 
vention be  furnished  with  a corrected 
copy  of  the  proceedings  of  this  Con- 
vention. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  The  Chair  will 

state  that  an  opportunity  will  be  given 
each  member  to  correct  the  minutes  as 
far  as  they  relate  to  him,  and  that  when 
all  the  corrections  are  made,  they  will 
be  published  in  book  form,  and  each 
member  of  the  Convention  will  get  a 
copy. 

MR.  POST:  Mr.  Chairman,  in  refer- 

ence to  what  Senator  Jones  has  said,  I 
would  like  to  make  one  remark.  He 
did  not  mention  anybody,  but  I as- 
sumed that  the  Senator  in  what  he  said, 
referred  to  me. 

MR.  JONES:  I did  not. 

MR.  POST:  I wish  to  assure  him, 

and  all  the  other  members  of  the  Con- 


vention, I had  no  intention  whatever  in 
my  mind,  to  impute  motives  at  all  to 
the  members  of  the  Legislature.  That 
was  not  in  my  mind.  The  point  I 
wished  to  make,  and  probably  failed  to 
make,  was  this:  That  the  members  of 

the  Legislature  sitting  in  this  Conven- 
tion, are  not  members  of  both  bodies  by 
any  accident.  They  are  in  this  body  as 
representatives  of  the  Legislature,  and 
they  were  appointed  here  by  the  Legis- 
lature, and  it  strikes  me  that  they  ought 
to  give  some  expression  here  to  the 
Legislative  purpose  as  representatives 
of  the  Legislature.  But  in  no  sense  did 
I intend  to  reflect  whatever  to  any  ex- 
tent on  the  motives  of  those  members. 

THE  CHAIRMAN:  Is  there  any- 

one else  that  wants  the  floor?  If  not, 
the  chair  would  like  to  say  a few 
words.  (Applause.) 

You  all  know  the  necessities  that  re-  * 
quired  the  convening  of  this  Conven- 
tion. The  constitutional  amendment 
was  adopted  upon  a plea  of  the  City  of 
Chicago,  that  under  it  a charter  could 
be  drawn  that  would  be  adequate  for  its 
needs,  and  that  the  city  would  not  any 
longer  worry  the  Legislature  with  its 
continual  demands.  When  such  Con- 
vention was  constituted  by  law,  it  was 
deemed  wise  to  have  one  in  the  form 
that  this  has  taken.  I doubt  whether 
in  the  United  States  a more  representa- 
tive— in  the  broadest  sense  of  the 
word — set  of  men  or  a more  patriotic 
body  of  men  ever  met. 

This  Convention  assembled  over  a 
year  ago,  and  an  inspection  of  the  roll 
calls  will  disclose  that  rarely,  until  the 
last  week  or  two,  were  we  without  from 
45  to  55  members  present.  When  you 
deduct  from  the  aggregate  number  of 
74  delegates  the  number  who  are  out  of 
the  city  and  sick,  or  unavoidably  de- 
tained, you  have  a much  larger  propor- 
tion than  you  have  in  any  general  leg- 
islative or  deliberative  assembly  that 
meets  in  the  day  time. 


March  1 


1201 


1907 


An  inspection  of  the  membership  will 
disclose  the  fact  that  they  represent 
every  walk  and  condition  and  poll  of 
thought  in  life.  The  record  will  also 
show  that  in  all  the  discussions  and 
deliberations,  but  one  time,  and  that  for 
only  a moment,  was  any  temper  or  any 
anger  shown.  It  will  be  seen — the  rec- 
ord will  show,  that  men  whose  occupa- 
tion demanded  their  personal  attention, 
gave  their  time  and  attention  to  this 
Convention  at  personal  loss,  in  money 
and  in  business  and  in  work. 

I am  of  the  opinion  that  the  City  of 
Chicago  has  very  much  to  be  proud  of 
in  the  character  and  work  of  this  Char- 
ter Convention.  I,  for  one,  came  into 
this  work  without  any  idea  that  it 
would  meet  all  my  views  or  that  I 
could  get  all  my  views  in.  I think  it 
is  humanly  impossible  to  meet  every- 
body’s ideas,  and,  as  Mr.  Cole  has  fitly 
stated  on  this  floor,  the  constitution  of 
the  Charter  is  composite,  and  fitted  to 
meet  the  needs  of  everybody,  of  every- 
body living  in  the  community.  That  I 
believe  this  Charter  does.  I am  thor- 
oughly appreciative  of  the  courtesy  of 
the  members  of  the  Convention  to  me; 
I am  thoroughly  appreciative  of  the 
sacrifice  it  brought.  It  is  much  easier 
to  be  chairman  and  be  in  constant  at- 
tendance than  it  is  to  be  in  the  ranks 
and  be  in  constant  attendance. 

I recognize  and  appreciate  your  self- 
sacrificing  work,  and  I believe  the  peo- 
ple of  the  City  of  Chicago  will;  I be- 
lieve the  members  of  the  General  As- 
sembly will;  and  I believe  that  when 
the  Charter  comes  back  from  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  wisely,  and  I hope  ten- 
derly handled,  it  will  be  submitted  to 


the  people  of  this  city  have  in  its  bor- 
ders men  who  can  construct  and  frame  a 
Charter  not  for  their  own  purposes,  not 
for  their  own  use,  not  for  their  own 
benefit,  but  for  the  benefit  of  all  the 
people  of  all  the  city  for  all  the  time. 
I thank  you  very  much,  gentlemen. 
(Applause.) 

I desire  to  say  in  passing  that  I want 
to  testify  my  appreciation  and  give 
voice  to  my  thanks  for  the  work  of 
Professor  Freund,  who  is  the  most  un- 
usual patriot  I ever  met,  who  has  never 
been  moved  to  anger  except  when  I 
suggested  that  he  ought  to  be  recom- 
pensed for  his  labors.  To  Major 
Edgar  Brown  Tolman,  the  Convention 
is  indebted  for  advice  and  counsel.  I 
want  to  commend  the  attention  given 
by  Mr.  Chamberlain  and  Mr.  McKinley, 
and  also  Mr.  Prystalski.  Mr.  Cham- 
berlain and  Mr.  Prystalski  have  not 
only  worked  days  but  they  have  worked 
nights.  When  you  picked  up  your  rec- 
ords every  morning  or  every  afternoon 
from  your  desk,  it  represented  the  mid- 
night work  of  these  two  men,  who  have 
corrected  the  proofs,  who  have  watched 
the  printing  press,  and  who  have  sup- 
plied the  brain  work  and  the  leg  work, 
and  done  everything  required  with  the 
utmost  perseverance  and  patience.  (Ap- 
plause.) 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  there  is  no  fur- 
ther business,  the  Convention  stands 
adjourned  subject  to  the  call  of  the 
Chairman. 

And  the  Convention  stood  adjourned 
subject  to  the  call  of  the  Chairman, 
the  people  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  and 
they  will  turn  to  this  Convention  and 
say  that  it  has  been  demonstrated  that 


March  1 


1202 


1907 


RESOLUTION  WITH  RESPECT  TO  AMENDMENT 
OF  STATE  CONSTITUTION 


Resolved  by  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  State  of  Illinois,  the  Senate 
concurring  there: in  That  there  shall  be  submitted  to  the  electors  of  this  State 
for  adoption  or  rejection  at  the  next  election  of  members  of  the  General  Assem- 
bly, a proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  this  State  as  follows: 

Resolved,  That  Article  IV  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State  be  amended 
by  ading  thereto  a section  to  be  numbered  and  known  as  Section  34,  and  reading 
as  follows,  to-wit: 

Section  34.  The  General  Assembly  shall  have  power,  subject  to  the  condi- 
tions and  limitations  hereinafter  contained  to  pass  any  law  (local,  special  or 
general)  providing  a scheme  or  charter  of  local  municipal  government  for  thei 
territory  now  or  hereafter  embraced  within  the  limits  of  the  City  of  Chicago. 
The  law  or  laws  so  passed  may  provide  for  consolidating  (in  whole  or  in  part) 
in  the  municipal  government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  the  powers  now  vested 
in  the  city,  board  of  education,  township,  park  and  other  local  governments 
and  authorities  having  jurisdiction  confined  to  or  within  said  territory,  or  any 
part  thereof,  and  for  the  assumption  by  the  City  of  Chicago  of  the  debts  and 
liabilities  (in  whole  or  in  part)  of  the  governments  or  corporate  authorities  whose 
functions  within  its  territory  shall  be  vested  in  said  City  of  Chicago  and  may| 
authorize  said  city  in  the  event  of  its  becoming  liable  for  the  indebtedness  of  two 
or  more  of  the  existing  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  said  City  of 
Chicago,  to  become  indebted  to  an  amount  (including  its  existing  indebtedness 
and  the  indebtedness  of  all  municipal  corporations  lying  wholly  within  the  limits 
of  said  city,  and  said  city’s  proportionate  share  of  the  indebtedness  of  said  county 
and  sanitary  district  which  share  shall  be  determined  in  such  manner  as  the 
General  Assembly  shall  prescribe)  in  its  aggregate  not  exceeding  five  per  centum 
of  the  full  value  of  the  taxable  property  within  its  limits  as  ascertained  by  the 
last  assessment  either  for  State  or  municipal  purposes  previous  to  the  incurring 
of  such  indebtedness  (but  no  new  bonded  indebtedness,  other  than  for  refunding 
purposes,  shall  be  incurred  until  the  proposition  therefor  shall  be  consented  to 
by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at  any 
election,  general,  municipal  or  special);  and  may  provide  for  the  assessment  of 
property  and  the  levy  and  collection  of  taxes  within  said  city  for  corporate 
purposes  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  equality  and  uniformity  prescribed 
by  this  Constitution;  and  may  abolish  all  offices,  the  functions  of  which  shall 
be  otherwise  provided  for;  and  may  provide  for  the  annexation  of  territory  to 
or  disconnection  of  territory  from  said  City  of  Chicago  by  the  consent  of  a 
majority  of  the  legal  voters  (voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general, 
municipal  or  special)  of  the  said  city  and  of  a majority  of  the  voters  of  such 
territory,  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special, 
and  in  case  the  General  Assembly  shall  create  municipal  courts  in  the  City  of 
Chicago  it  may  abolish  the  offices  of  Justices  of  the  Peace,  Police  Magistrates  and 
Constables  in  and  for  the  territory  within  said  city  and  may  limit  the  jursidiction 
of  Justices  of  the  Peace  in  the  territory  of  said  County  of  Cook  outside  of  said 
city  to  that  territory,  and  in  such  case  the  jurisdiction  and  practice  of  said 
municipal  courts  shall  be  such  as  the  General  Assembly  shall  prescribe;  and  the 


March  1 


1203 


1907 


General  Assembly  may  pass  all  laws  which  it  may  deem  requisite  to  effectually 
provide  a complete  system  of  local  municipal  government  in  and  for  the  City  of 
Chicago. 

No  law  based  upon  this  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  affecting  the  municipal 
government  of  the  City  of  Chicago,  shall  take  effect  until  such  law  shall  be  con- 
sented to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  said  city  voting  on  the  question  at 
any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special;  and  no  local  or  special  law  based  upon 
this  amendment  affecting  specially  any  part  of  the  City  of  Chicago  shall  take 
effect  until  consented  to  by  a majority  of  the  legal  voters  of  such  part  of  said 
city  voting  on  the  question  at  any  election,  general,  municipal  or  special.  Nothing 
in  this  section  contained  shall  be  construed  to  repeal,  amend  or  affect  Section 
Four  (4)  of  Article  XI  of  the  Constitution  of  this  State. 

Adopted  by  the  House,  April  22,  1903. 

Concurred  in  by  the  Senate,  April  22,  1903. 


